Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/07/22 in all areas

  1. Thanks to 'Dirtmudd', I am spinning up, WAY UP on the UTurn 'Orbit Custom' TT. And what it looks like here in Longfellow Music Hall.......NEW speaker setting. Martin Logan's are now at 14' center to center apart, the new Forte' 4's just to the inside, 30" from the front wall makes the most low end response in the listening space. I will return Saturday 15th, and will be happy to spin more vinyl with you all. I WILL have my laptop in the hotel room, so I can at least stop by and give some likes 🍷
    5 points
  2. Good evening my friends. Getting a last minute spin before heading off to a convention in Philly. This was a very special gift that appeared at my door step TODAY! Enjoying this right now as I type. Rear photo from inside the Albert Hall...
    5 points
  3. Get Better Dave and Micro- Happy Halloween to All
    4 points
  4. ^^another DEluxe Edition for sure!
    4 points
  5. Here we have the interior of the gatefold. Here we have 3 heavy weight, high quality LP discs and an additional 2 CD's for those that want to listen in digital mode.
    4 points
  6. I can't tell if I posted in this thread, or not. It's grown too long. I was both surprised and disappointed at the lean/bright sound of my new H IVs when I got them. Not at all what I remembered from hearing them in Hope. So I set about "exercising" the woofers with Dub-step while the Loudness was on and the bass at max for this old receiver. That way I could pump the woofers and not be annoyed with the door shut. At 48 hours, there was a marked difference (more bass,more natural sound). After 4 days, they didn't seem to change much. Now I don't use a subwoofer with them at all. Just looked. It's unplugged. I must admit to their break-in and with chagrin that I have stated many times break-in was a myth. I don't remember my old Marantz and Boston A150 speakers changing that way. That was so long ago, maybe they were floor demos.
    4 points
  7. 4 points
  8. SILLY, from the former east of Berlin:
    3 points
  9. Most of us here will ONLY use Heritage speakers as L/R for AV. Some tonal differences between the RF7 and Chorus II, but either will be GREAT As @billybob stated, other (future?) speakers will determine best selection.
    3 points
  10. would not play in the link from above, memories!
    3 points
  11. Birth, School, Work, Death
    3 points
  12. Two weeks ago, I bought a sec.hand KG 3.5 here in Germany I link this thread from General Klipsch Info into the new one , because here you can read how the story starts
    2 points
  13. Includes xilica crossover. All components work perfectly. Last price drop before the bay.
    2 points
  14. Very nice! I had a set I used as surround speakers for a long time.
    2 points
  15. Two weeks later I made a lot of progress on this project . These´re the restauration work done till today The previous owner had put the KG 3.5 probably with the base plate directly on his living room floor, so the corners from the veneer were affected and quite frayed, at least on the sides and the backfront veeneer. This could not remain so of course. So I treated these edges first with 240-, then with 400- and finally with 600- sandpaper. Subsequently brushed with black wood varnish. The repainted veneer edges are dry, there is no longer any sign of the frayed veneer, the edges are smooth as an eel
    2 points
  16. Vultures around here ran him off shame since he seemed like an alright guy and avid Klipsch fan par for the course I suppose these days. I spend a lot less time here myself since the Belle mod thread was deleted, not a very good way to treat someone who just threw down $40k and waited over a year for a pair of the flagship speakers IMO.
    2 points
  17. 2 points
  18. We’ve just got to save the Internet, without it ,how on earth would we be able to communicate our fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories ?🤓
    2 points
  19. I'm not really sure, I'm really new to good sounding audio. I posted my tale in the 2 channel section but long story short I stumbled into some used khorns and I'm hooked on great sound now. The movie room doesn't have the corners for them so they are staying in the living room I currently have a probably 10 year old Yamaha rx-v375 receiver, a entry level Polk package 5.1 setup and a 70 inch QLED Samsung that we stream to using a Chromecast. My plans were to probably stick with 5.1 for the time being and start to pick away at the components individually. I'd like to go for broke (broke in my case being under $2000) center channel speaker because I'm tired of voices getting lost in the mix. Then find some nice floor standing front channels, then get a much nicer receiver. It just so happens that a set of chorus's and RF7s have come up on marketplace near me this week for less than I see either for on eBay and much much less than new. The sub goes woof and the rear channels don't seem to contribute a lot so they are of lesser importance to me right now. Edit: for clarity
    2 points
  20. One of the best Rod Stewart LP's:
    2 points
  21. I preferred the original RF7s for HT. It just has a punchier more "modern" sound to me, so much that I got rid of (3) LS across the front, cornwall sides and Heresy rears in favor of RF/RC 7 front, RF7 sides and RC or RS 7 rears (change those up occasionally). Heritage all day for 2 channel though.
    2 points
  22. The Mavericks Band are great I have a lot of their music. I saw them at Stubs in Austin TX.
    2 points
  23. Nice sound to it Paul... How these kids come up with the videos I'll never know. lol They always seem to work though.
    2 points
  24. Great new addition to the collection a double album Artist - The Black Angels Title - Wilderness of Mirrors Album ID https://www.discogs.com/release/24582176-The-Black-Angels-Wilderness-Of-Mirrors
    2 points
  25. 2 points
  26. Hello everyone. There have been a few comparisons between different Klipsch speakers on here... the last one that I read was the Cornwall Vs. Chorus II. It was very interesting and I liked it, especially as reviews of Klipsch Heritage speakers are hard to come by on the Web. Some mentioned that they would like to see a Forte II Vs. Chorus II shoot out. Well I decided to buy a pair of Forte IIs recently for another system, and so now I have the opportunity to tell you my impressions compared to my Chorus IIs that I bought 10 years ago. First the size. From the dimensions listed for both speakers they sound pretty close. The Forte II is just a few inches smaller in every dimension. But when I unpacked them there is definitely a difference. The Chorus IIs look huge next to the Forte IIs. The Forte IIs would be a bit more wife friendly I think. Also if you move a lot, the Chorus IIs are much harder to move around. The sound. I hooked up the Forte IIs and set the output level to a specific value of 101db at my listenting position with a SPL meter using test tones and immediately started listening. (I had not listened to my Chorus IIs for a few days). Initially I thought they sounded remarkably like the Chorus IIs. Good highs and midrange, nice bass. Overall I was very impressed. These it turned out were my first impressions, and they changed when I started switching between the two speakers. I then switched to the Chorus IIs, set 101db at my listenting position and started listening to the same songs. Well I had been wrong about the Fortes They did NOT sound like the Choruses. The Choruses had a much bigger sound. more bass, and deeper, more punch, and in general just a richer sound. The Fortes sounded a little watered down in comparison. This is very interesting to me as the specs list the Fortes as having a deeper bass extension. 39hz for the Choruses vs. 32Hz for the Fortes. I tried changing the position in the corners of the Fortes, tried different angles, tried lots of things, but no matter what I did I could not get the Fortes to have more or deeper bass than the Choruses. I then tried test tones and found the Chorus IIs to extend much farther down than the rated 39hz. I started at 100hz at 101 Db (the whole house vibrates at that level on a pure test tone) It did drop to 98 at 32 hz and dropped quickly past that. But it is very usable down to 32hz and a bit below, and at 39Hz it was still at 100db.. only 1db down from 101db at 100Hz! The Forte on the other hand was down to 98db at 45hz (from 101db at 100hz) and just got worse from there. It was at 92db at 32Hz. This is not anywhere near the 32 to 20000 +-3db it is supposed to have (you would think)! Well actually maybe it IS... if there was a +3db peak around 100hz (where I started measuring) then -6db from that would be just about 92db at 32Hz. Almost within the +- rating as long as nothing has a higher peak in the rest of the range. Conversely I think the Chorus II are not peaking where I started my test at 100hz. I think they might have a high (+3db) peak in the midrange instead (it definitely has more punch and clarity in this area) and so the 6db drop from that peak might happen at 39Hz but stay pretty flat from there down to 30Hz. So since I started from 100Hz where the choruses are not peaking but instead might be at 0 or even a bit negative there, the -6db drop from there doesnt happen until lower than 30Hz (maybe around 27 or 28hz! At 25Hz there is pretty much nothing from the Chorus IIs so the drop off is FAST past 30. But it is also non existent for the fortes at 25 HZ and much less at 30 than the Choruses as well. My test tones do not get that close together so I don't know exactly where the huge dropoff begins. Just goes to show, where the peaks are can really change how the standard +-3db measurements look. The Fortes could be +-3db 32-20000Hz but still have less bass and less deep bass than a speaker rated +-3db 39-20000. It all depends on the WHOLE curve. Or maybe the Fortes just do not get along with my room? I made charts showing what I think is happening, if anyone wants to see them e-mail me at sean.keegan@verizon.net. It is much easier to explain using a graph. Any way I try to understand it, the Chorus IIs definitely have deeper usable bass than the Forte IIs. This is indesputable in my listening room. Overall I was very surprised by these results and I guess it just shows that the 6db spread in a +- standard measurement can be misleading over actual speaker performance. As for the upper ranges...The Chorus has more presence, and in general just sounded more effortless at the high listening volume of 101db. They both sounded clear and crisp, very very good soundstage, true Heritage Klipsch sound. They both sound great. Which brings me to my final thoughts... overall the Chorus II was the clear winner to me, no doubts at all for both myself and my wife. BUT this is not to say the Forte II is not an incredible speaker. It stunned me in how good it sounds. Do not read this and think the Fortes have no bass, or bad bass... this is not true, it was shaking the house with bass... it just does not have as much or as deep as the Choruses. Its just that the Chorus II takes what is so excellent in the Forte and builds on it, and takes it to the next level. The biggest difference was in the bass, while there were significant differences in the upper ranges, they really were pretty similar overall. I am very very happy with the Forte IIs and they will perform perfectly for what I bought them for... the upstairs system. Hope this was fun to read. It was fun to compare. Not scientific, of course, in any way. But it was fun. Again e-mail me if you want to see my charts of what I think is going on frequency wise... they explain what I was trying to say with words so much better. Regards, Sean
    1 point
  27. Antone Posted yesterday at 01:07 AM 🙂 1/3 octave RTA of pink noise: Measured at ear level at listening position approximately 9 ft from motor board: Dayton UMM6 Calibrated measurement mic with REW software: Followingthis schematic: 3” by 3” reflex port
    1 point
  28. The input wires from the X-Over which will be connected to the new binding posts The X-Over with all the internal wiring is ready now These are the new connectors for the tweeter and the midrange/ woofer driver That´s it up to now , during the next week I will work on the inside insulation from the cabinet , therefore I use Damping 10 , these are recycled wool firbe mats
    1 point
  29. Yesterday I dissembled the KG 3.5 The driver´s are in good condition, I measured the coils and they´re in their specifications, the cabinets are extremely solid and heavy MDF
    1 point
  30. Well then, congrats on the Khorns. If were me, and planning on an HT, 5.1 or 3.1, looking like a different AVR in your future. If you get either pair, would listen first with the Yamaha AVR first..as the Klipsch may revive the sound. And, since your leaning heavily into HT, would likely go with the 7s as at least 2 or 3 Klipsch centers come to mind as matching closely in the Reference line for clarity and timbre. If doing 2 channel stereo at times, the Yamaha stereo mode should sound decent with either model. Only problem with the Chorus and a matching center is, maybe a KV-4 or a C-7, as some not liking the Klipsch Academy as much. Would be abit of a difficult choice for me, but, either would work well enough for me as a center match not as important to me. Do not let either pass you by if a decent deal for you. Others here will have more and different... @nick89rs
    1 point
  31. I doubt we have control of whether the net stays or not, eventually. For my part, I can go back to 1975,even 85 protocol and be Super Duper HAPPY ! Nothing modern would be an easy trade off considering the damage done by constant interaction of insanity promoted......But..not happening so eventually adults and people with functioning brains will retake the environment. That may be a while, and I always feel like (just thinking) this has all happened before at some long past era.....We went nuts, stopped it and it all started over, then takes a long time to re ruin everything again....
    1 point
  32. The RF-7s primarily HT speakers, yet can be used for 2 channel stereo. The Chorus 2 made primarily for 2 channel, yet can be used for HT. What center speaker and surrounds and surrounds are you going to be using, plays into your choice somewhat @nick89rs .
    1 point
  33. Finished The Jungle the other day. I am glad that I didn't known about Upton's grind and what the book was really about. I was totally disappointed.
    1 point
  34. Thanks for the vibes Chuck. Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.
    1 point
  35. I have mostly always had / have leather furniture Currently have a leather 4 seater in the listening room - and a 6 seater with 3 power recliners - but it can fit 8 people in the family room
    1 point
  36. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a41409421/us-intelligence-agency-ufo-logo/
    1 point
  37. I doubt that you'll bring back the metal can caps that were in my beater La Scalas. However, they really didn't sound bad at all, because my cap kit from JEM was pretty much a lateral move sonically. Of course, I'm a rebel, because I ultimately installed the Volti VTK400 crossovers. Now that I have dialed them in, they actually sound like 'younger and stronger' AA crossovers.
    1 point
  38. Certainly, if you have the compute horsepower in your DSP crossover or dedicated PC, FIR filtering will be able to pull the phase/SPL back to zero/flat SPL on axis with steeper slopes, but currently I've achieved 12-24 dB octave effective slopes at the crossover interference bands, but without phase penalty in the crossovers. I generally have viewed FIR filtering as something that you can use but if you can bring the SPL and phase back to minimum phase (i.e., no excess phase), I doubt that more correction will be audible. I've tried to set my threshold of phase audibility to within 90 degrees of zero, and anything beyond that as probably not worth my time--but I could be wrong. When I acquire a dedicated PC with associated 5.1 correction capability (probably JRiver on a higher horsepower PC running with a multichannel AES card), I'll let you know if that last few degrees of phase and 0.5--1 dB of on-axis SPL correction is audible, and whether or not effective phase correction below 100-200 Hz is achievable and audible. Chris
    1 point
  39. Only the first two measurements, after which I turned off FDW within REW. The REW default value for those first two measurements (only). FDW was inadvertently on due to a re-install of REW last fall after having to use a much earlier version of REW to open a measurement sent to me from another user not using the latest version of REW. All FDW does is smooth the raw measurements to ~1/48th octave. I didn't need FDW to be on, so I turned it off (there is a really interesting discussion in the Home Theater Shack forum between Bob Katz--the noted mastering engineer who requested the capability so REW could mimic Acourate...and John Mulcahy on why FDW was implemented within REW. It's a good discussion that I recommend highly. The much more interesting measurements however are found on page 3 of this thread. Those measurements didn't have FDW turned on. Pretty much like the smoothed measurements. I'm not sure why you're worried about smoothing. If it were me, I think that I'd be asking questions about where the microphone was (1 m in front of the loudspeaker) and how much absorption was used to capture such good phase information in-room (several inches thickness of fuzzy blankets and comforters the long axis is the width from side-to-side, and 1 m depth to the loudspeaker), not really the smoothing used on the data after acquisition. My listening room photo and reverberation time plots can be found in my profile under the "About Me" tab. Chris
    1 point
  40. Hi...and welcome to the forum. My observations come from IIR filtering using HF channel delay to reduce overall phase growth a little vs. first order...not FIR filtering. In A-B testing that I did recently, I could hear more harshness/hardness of sound of a "squashed" step response third-order Bessel vs. a conventionally set up first order that minimizes pre-rise (but lengthens phase growth a bit). Some of this subjective difference could be from confounded sources, and I can't really help you with the sound of FIR filtering, per se, but I can help a bit with the implication that ~1 ms step response pre-rise is probably audible. Chris
    1 point
  41. Unless you're talking about using a DSP crossover to correct the time/phase alignment issue of the Dean--this loudspeaker configuration has considerable issues in that regard using a passive crossover and leaving the HF horn in the bass bin mouth as it was designed. You will have other issues besides just adding delay to the HF channel, it seems. I recommend opening up a thread on that subject (if you don't already have one). I've updated the settings of the K-402-MEH today to reflect the approach taken by the Danley SH-50, that is, not using a HF low pass filter in the BMS 4592ND to eliminate 90 degrees of phase lag centered at 6.2 kHz (I left the woofer channel LP filter in because I need the delay anyway). It took the better part of a day to get used to doing it that way using the Xilica. I'll update the K-402-MEH thread to reflect that process. I'm listening to those differences having three-across nearly minimum-phase. It sounds more "solid" than it did, for lack of a better term. I'd like to keep this thread centered on the subject of minimum phase or linear phase loudspeaker audibility, i.e., this isn't a design thread on something that doesn't have nearly minimum phase (or even linear phase using FIR filtering in a DSP crossover) across its entire pass band. TIA. Chris
    1 point
  42. For those of you reading this, the magic formula is that the lowest frequency of directivity is the mouth dimension (usually horizontal direction) that equals ~1/2 wavelength of sound. That's the point where you're going to lose directivity control in that direction. And the horizontal direction is the one that really determines sound quality in rooms. Vertical directivity loss is usually controllable using thick carpet and having high ceilings to control floor and ceiling bounce, but if the frequency of vertical directivity loss is a bit too high (like it is for the K-400 series midrange horns) then you've usually got issues with timbre shift and stridency of that excess acoustic energy bouncing off the ceiling and floor. The mouth dimension of horns is the controlling factor--not their throat dimensions, etc. There is a magic size of horn mouth that works well, and below those dimensions, you trade to heavy losses in terms of directivity loss. There are no "magic horn mouth-shrinkers" that can change that fact. But if you place the horns in a room corner, depending on the ability of the horn shape to take advantage of that boundary gain and directivity, you can mitigate some of these effects--but you still must place absorption down on the floor, have high ceilings (or have absorption/low frequency diffusion on the ceiling), and do something about the extreme nearfield reflections within a yard/metre of the horn's mouth if you want to experience the effects described in this thread, IME. Chris
    1 point
  43. You will lose directivity at 170-340 Hz, which is a bit too high to be called a "midbass horn" (in my experience), and start to lose directivity about an octave higher than that--depending on the mouth rollout geometry. In order to go down to 100 Hz, you will need to go up to ~34-41 inches mouth size in at least the horizontal dimension. However, if you have a separate bass horn that's good up to 200 Hz or so (like a La Scala, Belle, Khorn or Jubilee bass bin), then your 20" square mouth horn might provide you a way to get down to that frequency without horn bends. I find that getting directivity to below 100 Hz seems to be the more of the "magic" frequency of loss of directivity gain for the type of effect that I've been talking about here. YMMV. Chris
    1 point
  44. Klipsch was using first order filters in most of their loudspeakers until PWK took partial retirement in the 1980s. I believe this is a significant part of the "Klipsch sound" that has been talked about so much. When you look at the Danley SH-50 crossovers, you have no apparent 6 dB/octave high-pass slope on the midrange, and no apparent filters at all on the midrange low pass, plus there is attenuation. The woofer looks to have only notch filtering at ~160 Hz and a low pass of first order above 250 Hz. The tweeter has a really deep-and-wide notch filter centered at 2.68 kHz [EDIT: actually three big notch filters: one each at 1.4, 2.8 and 6.1 kHz with attenuating gains of -15.75 dB, -10.25 dB, and -8.25 dB, respectively...and bandwidths of about 0.5 octave] but no apparent high pass filter evident in the frequency response. All three channels have fusing on board their extensive crossover boards. The combined response of the three channels is basically "a work of art" (i.e., not a clean monotonically decreasing downward slope between driver channels). I'm not really sure why Danley did it that way--but I suspect that arrayability of loudspeakers played a disproportionate role, as well as a requirement for extremely flat phase response and super high SPL output capability. Those are not home hi-fi requirements-except for the phase flatness one...in retrospect. The SH-50 is clearly designed around a "phase link" concept, i.e., a "bridging midrange" between tweeter and woofer in order to linearize the resulting loudspeaker phase response. See the following link for a definition of "phase link" design (warning: there's some math here): http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2015/10/29/bo-tech-uni-phase-loudspeakers/ It's actually fairly shocking how little frequency response that the four midranges provide in the SH-50...about one octave only, and the resulting frequency response contribution of the midranges is decidedly not flat within that octave. Chris
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...