Jump to content

The Headcase Stax thread


thrice

Recommended Posts

I went down to Hifi lounge last year and listened to the stax sr 009,abyss,lcd 3 lcd x and to be honest the only one that blew me away was the lcd x,now maybe the Hugo weren't powerful enough to drive the lcd 3 and the stax srm 727 unmodified didn't do the sr 009 justice but it sounded flat boring and so lacking in bass compared to the lcd x.

 

You should try and get to hear the 009's with a BHSE, although not while using the stock mullard tubes, IMO.

 

Rob watts states that connecting the chord Hugo directly to an amp will give the best sound quality and he said the volume has no effect on sound quality so maybe the cheaper option on the blue Hawaii could be a viable option

 

When I first tried my sources ATT with my BHSE [ that BHSE having Alps RK50 ] I found the SQ to be more or less the same, but after seeing this post of yours I decided to try my sources ATT again and this time the RK50 sounded the better. 

I was only using my sources ATT for when I had the BHSE's volume knob out of arms reach, but because it now isn't, I no longer use that sources ATT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should try and get to hear the 009's with a BHSE, although not while using the stock mullard tubes, IMO.

 

 

When I first tried my sources ATT with my BHSE [ that BHSE having Alps RK50 ] I found the SQ to be more or less the same, but after seeing this post of yours I decided to try my sources ATT again and this time the RK50 sounded the better. 

I was only using my sources ATT for when I had the BHSE's volume knob out of arms reach, but because it now isn't, I no longer use that sources ATT.

very interesting thanks for sharing that Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When I first tried my sources ATT with my BHSE [ that BHSE having Alps RK50 ] I found the SQ to be more or less the same, but after seeing this post of yours I decided to try my sources ATT again and this time the RK50 sounded the better. 

I was only using my sources ATT for when I had the BHSE's volume knob out of arms reach, but because it now isn't, I no longer use that sources ATT.

 

So the K-01’s got a crap volume control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your thoughts on the sound quality side by side for comparison

 

I only heard the KGSSHV that one day which was sometime ago, but to what I recall the KGSSHV gave the 009's a stronger bass than the BHSE, whereas the BHSE gave the 009's a more open sound with the closest to lifelike I've heard from any headphone system.[ obviously the only ones I've heard ]  I've since made two tweaks to my BHSE, first is using Mullard xf4's which to my hearing have given the 009's an even more open sound, sort of cathedral, and the other tweak is using Herbie HAL-O III tube dampers which sound to have given more body to the 009's.

 

 

So the K-01’s got a crap volume control?

 

When I first tried the K-01's ATT with the BHSE, the difference was very close but I slightly favoured the K-01's ATT, but the recent time I tried them both the BHSE's RK50 sounded the better, but it wasn't by a huge amount. 

Whether my hearing has changed I don't know, but try auditioning the K-01 [ including it's ATT ] with your headphone gear, then post your thoughts.

Edited by Dave R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When I first tried the K-01's ATT with the BHSE, the difference was very close but I slightly favoured the K-01's ATT, but the recent time I tried them both the BHSE's RK50 sounded the better, but it wasn't by a huge amount. 

Whether my hearing has changed I don't know, but try auditioning the K-01 [ including it's ATT ] with your headphone gear, then post your thoughts.

 

...but the K-01’s got a 32 bit digital volume control, your ears though.

After hearing a few recent DACs with nicely implemented volume controls such as the NADM51 and BuffaloIIISE I’ve ditched the old analog pot.

 

Some reading;

http://www.esstech.com/pdf/digital-vs-analog-volume-control.pdf

http://resonessencelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/invicta_analog_vs_digital_volume.pdf

Edited by johnwmclean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but the K-01’s got a 32 bit digital volume control, your ears though.

After hearing a few recent DACs with nicely implemented volume controls such as the NADM51 and BuffaloIIISE I’ve ditched the old analog pot.hi,that's what I thought with the Hugo,as its in the digital domain like my wadia 861se I thought by passing an analogue volume control would of been the way to go

 

Some reading;

http://www.esstech.com/pdf/digital-vs-analog-volume-control.pdf

http://resonessencelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/invicta_analog_vs_digital_volume.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After hearing a few recent DACs with nicely implemented volume controls such as the NADM51 and BuffaloIIISE I’ve ditched the old analog pot.

 

 

Have you heard those DAC's with a BHSE, with RK50 pot ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you heard those DAC's with a BHSE, with RK50 pot ?

 

I have heard those DACs with my BHSE and DACT installed, and have demoed one of Justin’s units with an RK50 installed with my own NAD M51 and an Yggdrasil.

 

Most of my direct comparisons with volume control impressions have been with the DACT, it’s channel matching is within -/+ 0.05dB vs the RK50 -/+1dB -100dB to 0dB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.