I think we need a reality check on how much grain the HD800 really is adding. I keep mentioning that even if the HD800 is adding grain, it's ever so slight. Play a pristine, uncolored track (maybe some of those "cheating" Gain AD masters) through the HD800 and it's not going to sound like a $50 Sennheiser obviously... Problem is we can only use relative comparisons when attempting to evaluate. How much grain is actually on the recording, how much is being rendered, and is the amount rendered more or less than what's on the recording. Who knows. All we can say is that you can put an HD800 and an SR009 next to each other and the HD800 will consistently render more grain (added by Senn or subtracted by Stax) than the SR009 and vice versa. Or at least I would assume so going off memory; I've never had a chance to do a direct AB between those two.

• STAX 007 + 009 impart a smoothed-over high-plastic-like sheen over stuff. This is obvious coming from transducers which are more resolving of low level information. 007 and 009 remove grain. STAX tend to be more at fault with this aspect than other stats.
• 009 gives illusion of plankton, but this is mainly the result of super articulation. I would say moderate-low level detail is presented in a much more clear, taut, articulate, separated manner; however 009 seems to drop low to lowest level information.
• HD800 digs deeper, is able to reproduce low level information; however it's method of doing so is less articulate. it's more unfocused, more grey, but still digs deeper. Highly resolving delta-sigma DACs or stacked PCM63 recommended. PCM1704/1702, Metrum, TDA DACs, mid-fi sigma-delta DACs need not apply. Not even the stacked Ultra Analog DACs are good enough.
• High tension of stat diaphragms tend to fight against or absorb lower level signals. This is compounded by relative larger surface area which results is less excursion. Low level signal and small excursion and high tension = dropped low level signal. Same principle applies to dynamic drivers. This is heavy rubber surrounds or inflexible spiders on cone drivers, I do not like.
• Rough FR results in grain like effect. Both HD800 and 007/009 have smooth FRs.
• Hot top end of HD800 may accentuate existing grain.
• A good TT setup is awesome with HD800. No grain, unless its noise grain on recording.
• The reduction or glossing over of grain to such small or non-existent quantities on 007/009, I find troubling.
• YMMV, FWIW, IMHO, etc.

I don't entirely agree w/r/t stats. There's no stored energy to soak up the detail, certainly not anything on the level of a dynamic. I can see how the stats' dynamics might be flattened or microdynamic ratio might be off, but the information still there. In my experience stats don't have the sort of harsh resolution limit of dynamics - it's more like an accelerated roll-off, which might be the sort of smoothed-over nature people talk about. There's the difference in decay characteristics, but I've only usually heard detrimental effects in orthos or dynamics, where notes linger or there's an overall cupped cavity type sound. Maybe the whole lossy analogy comes from the sharper/drier slope of the stats' impulse response. Some cues might require less drastic transitions to mimic real environments, kind of like dynamics occasionally get that soft yet natural characteristic.Note that older stats, or generally stats with thicker diaphragms tend to sound closer to orthos and dynamics. So maybe there's an element of that sin of omission, but it manifests differently.

At some point a functional MRI study might be of use.

The ones I've seen show some very interesting feedback characteristics, there are also definite (if minute) differences in neuroanatomy. For instance there are correlations between pitch discrimination ability and fiber count and volume in certain regions. Obviously musical training and experience also play a role in how these regions develop, activate alongside memories and even their ability to 'sync' up with (& then predict) auditory stimuli. We definitely need more discussion of biology to balance out the overwhelming engineerin g nerdery

I don't entirely agree w/r/t stats. There's no stored energy to soak up the detail, certainly not anything on the level of a dynamic.

Come to think of it, I'm not so sure. The inefficiency of stats means that power gets dumped at least somewhere along the line. Also the stat will be limited by the amp's slew-rate, so there's potential for a loss of detail there. I guess the limitations aren't so much in the physical losses by the diaphragm coupling, provided that it's meticulously tensioned and massaged by master staxmen until it's assured not to stretch in a non-linear manner and retains negligible stress, but maybe in the whole system as a circuit. That said, resolution certainly doesn't appear to be limited by frequency response, decay characteristics and HD/IMD, as evidenced by all the measurements.

The Yggy with some select tracks makes plankton retrieval testing easy. I always thought all the plankton talk was bolshevik until I lived with this thing and heard ridiculous little details that have never surfaced before. The exactness and accuracy of the thing is ridiculous.


It would be great to put the best setups against each other on the thing.