visualguy

I was one of them. My LCD-3 sounded pretty bad. My LCD-2r2 were quite good.

Less than $1M in liabilities... Their annual income was not far from $3M, and they are profitable. A $1.5M sale price is certainly low based on the numbers in that table - they sold for not much more than assets minus liabilities plus one year's profit. Again, weird that they took this deal... It basically values their intellectual property and brand value at zero, and has the implicit assumption that their business was going to tank soon.

It is strange - Stax's situation must have been much worse than most of us imagined... They must have been desperate if they indeed took a deal like this.

I spent a few hours listening to them using my GS-X amp. Very impressive detail resolution. Treble is prominent, but not very fatguiing. Bass is good; not particularly impactful, but good-enough. Vocals sound appealing, but not quite right in my opinion. The timbre is too high, a little thin (lacking body), and somewhat unnatural. Noticeably different from my references (SR-009/KGSS, Focal studio monitors) which have more convincing vocals. The W3000 have a tendency to make adult vocals sound like teenage vocals... Also, significantly more sibilance on the W3000. The W3000 are indeed quite a bit better than the W5000 - less thin sounding, better bass. Still, orchestral music lacks some body. Soundstage is quite limited. They fit my head fine, and look very nice.

That's a good thing, but can you elaborate on how the W3000ANV sound different than the W5000? Does the sound have more body (the W5000 sound very thin), is the bass better, etc.?

Interesting. My LCD-2 rev. 2 FR graph is similar to this one. However, my LCD-3 FR graph is somewhat different. It drops by an additional 2dB between 1KHz and 2KHz, and it has a valley rather than a peak at the high treble region. They indeed sound somewhat darker than my LCD-2 rev. 2. There seems to be quite a bit of variation betweem units.

Live would indeed be a good reference, but... One problem is that aural memory is seriously bad. Another problem is that the acoustics where you sit in the auditorium are different from what is captured by the recording microphones at their locations.

Care to elaborate? The frequency response is pretty similar in the bass between the two - only a 1-2dB difference. I don't know how to translate the square wave response into anything meaningful about how the bass sounds. Also, what conclusion do you draw from these measurements? Which headphones sound closer to what's on the recording in the bass?

Ok, so what's your reference? The measurements that I know of unfortunately aren't enough. For example, they don't seem to explain the significant difference in the sound of the bass between the LCD-2 and the SR-009.

My point is that you need a reference to determine what's "on the recording". I use full-range speakers. I was wondering what Clarkmc2 uses as a reference when he determines that people are usually looking for more bass than what is on the recording when they prefer a pair of dynamic headphones to the Stax flagship.

How do you determine how the bass that you hear on the headphones compares to what is on the recording? I use my speakers setups as a reference. In terms of bass, the LCD-2 headphones give me something closer to what I get from the speakers when compared to Stax headphones. However, some other aspects of the LCD-2 sound (even rev. 2) are definitely inferior. Don't know yet about the LCD-3, but it would be quite a leap from the LCD-2 for it to match what the SR-009 can do in treble, detail, soundstage, etc.

So, what sound deficiency did this weakness cause, and how did fixing it by adding a CCS improve the sound of headphones connected to the amp? Would you be able to tell the difference in a blind test? Just curious...

Like I said before, the bass produced by my LCD-2r2 on symphonies is more similar to the bass produced by my full-range Dali speakers and even my Focal studio monitors. It seems to me that it's the SR-009 which aren't conveying the bass all that well, not the LCD-2, Dalis, and Focals. The bass is still pretty good on the SR-009, just not as good. Beyond that, there's something about the tonality of the SR-009 that sounds wrong to me when I listen to certain music like the Mahler symphony I mentioned before. It's not really bad - just a little strange and not what I hear on my speakers and the LCD-2. By the way, I'm using a KGSS with the SR-009.

The rev. 1 are pretty horrible for classical and acoustic music in general because the rev. 1 gloss over some of the fine detail of the sound of acoustic instruments. The rev. 2 fix this.

I didn't like the rev. 1 either - fine detail was indeed lacking. The rev. 2 are much better in that area. Soundstage and imaging still aren't great, but the tonality and detail are quite good. I like the SR-009 when coupled with the right equipment, but on some music (like the Mahler piece I mentioned), the LCD-2 sound better in my opinion.