Deang

I'm pretty sure your significant other would notice Scalas sitting on top of the Klipschorns. I don't think you want do that anyway, I'm not sure you wouldn't compromise the structure of K-horns by loading 125lbs on them. My idea of buying Cornwalls went over better than I expected, but then -- she really likes the sound of the Heresies.

If I remember from earlier threads regarding this subject -- I believe the 6550's will offer more bottom end slam, but will be lacking in the warmth department. If it's any consolation -- I don't think Kelly cares for 6550 all that much. I believe he would say, "The 6550 offerings do not deliver a classical tube sound. While they do put foward in the area of dynamics, I find them unable to deliver much bloom, or contribute much to midrange liquidity, which I find essential in experiencing the next level of engagement with the music. As a matter of fact, they might sound much like Dean's Apollos -- stay away"

The 'A' version is the one with two parts or something like that right? So, you find that simpler is better? Interesting. I've never seen a schematic for the Laurels, so I don't know how they are laid out. So, two stages, two sets of coupling caps in each amp -- is that how that works?

Me wants the bigger lenses I gotta get away from this system -- the one upstairs is starting to gather dust. Of course, the upside is that this will really extend tube life on the Apollos. Them KRs aint cheap. I think part of it is simply because the basement is where the computer and my workroom are , and well -- now I can do three things at the same time. Last night I listened to the Beatles all night, cruised the Forum and did email, finished 4 of the 5 drivers on the DQ's, and finished the light sanding work on the bass bin. Ready to paint and prime. Looking forward to the instructions for the stands Andy. Just what I need: another project! DQ-10's, Hesesy x-overs, Cornwall x-overs when they show up, and now stands to boot. Manual, I've posted some general comments regarding the two in comparison. The Heresies are on the 'budget' system in the basement. Scott 299a & Marantz DV7010. The Marantz is really a pretty good deck, not on the same level as the 9000es -- but it did retail for $899 two years ago. Here are some of my more recent comments: "For now, I'll only say they sound very good, but will also say that many of you are unduly harsh regarding the Reference lineup. I really don't see the signatures between Heritage and Reference being all that substantially different. It's almost like the bumps and dips in the frequency response are just in different places, but other than that -- the Heresies and RF-7's have the same snappy midrange, and crisp, smooth highs. The RF-7's have it all over the little Heresies in dynamics -- but those Heresies really boogie." "The RF-7's and Heresies have almost as much in common, as they don't have in common. I do think the RF-7's need to be placed off to the side when discussing comparisons between Reference and Heritage. I mean, the driver/horn in the 7 is very different from the one used in the RB-5, RF-3, or RF-5. Kelly recently compared his Cornwalls to the RF-5, and really preferred the Cornwalls -- but the RF-5 is not the RF-7. Besides leo and myself, I don't think anyone here has driven the RF-7's with push-pull and/or SET. Leo's getting ready to build his Moondogs, and his future report will be very interesting indeed. At any rate, I think it much fairer to compare the Heresy to the RB-5, RF-3, or RF-5, as this is where it really falls. Leo's (Leok) earlier posts comparing his Fortes to his RF-7's always left me feeling a bit confused. He claimed the Fortes were smoother on top, and the RF-7's were somewhat hotter, making them sound more 'live'. I always thought the complete opposite would be true. This comes from my general experience with three-ways compared to two-ways, along with my exposure to LaScalas and K-horns in the past. What I found is that Leo is right. The RF-7's ARE hotter than the Heresies. I'm sure this has mostly to do with the titanium driver in the RF-7. The RF-7's project a sense of immediacy, and though they may not have the hair trigger dynamics of the LaScala -- they do very well in their own right." Observation by Audioreality that I thought was pretty good. "Hello all, Glad to hear it Dean. isn't it nice when you discover something you really like. I did an extensive a/b last night with my Jolida 202. I switched back and forth betwen my RF7s and my Fortes. Quite an experience. Both sets completely opened up for me. Smooth, liquidy top ends and deep, punchy bass. I personally like the depth of the Fortes midrange, but the RF7 has it beat in dynamics. Hands down. The Forte was much more involving. Like a 5th row speaker. The RF7 was portraying a sound reminisent of large concert stacks, yet wasn't fatiguing to listen to. Definately more a front row speaker."

Pretty dramatic shift in the signature. They really did sound good on the floor, but now -- the cymbals sound like I have a drum kit sitting in front of me. The Scott really complements these little boxes.

Craig, while you are out at Ned's site, pick up a quad of the Svetlana KT-88's. I ran these in both of my AE-25's, and they sound dynamite.

Are we like a family? I don't know. Think about what you were feeling while reading one of HornEd's recent posts about his failing health, or Chris Robinson revealing the problem with tbabbs ears, or the stuff Jim Cornell went through sometime back. How about PWK passing on? I never even met the gentlman, and I felt like I lost my grandpa. I actually get a little physically ill to my stomach when I hear about these things. The funny thing about it is -- I don't really freaking know any of you! I certainly think this forum is unique. I sure can't imagine any kind of a group hug experience over at the Asylum, Homethearterforum, or soundandvision's joke of a site. I will say that the guys over at the Polk Forum are pretty tight, and in many ways, are a lot like us -- in love with a brand that for whatever reason, isn't taken very seriously by most audiophiles -- but they will all most certainly die 'Polkheads'.

Andy, Any chance of getting a digital picture of those stands. Most stands available on the market don't have a large enough plate to accomodate the wide base of the Heresies with any stability. I did find a set that would work, but they cost close to $300. Needless to say, any extra money goes to Jeff for his Cornwalls -- so I need to be imaginative.

Are you attempting to remedy something, or just experimenting? What are the values of the Laurel's coupling caps? I'm certainly interested in what you find when you pull the PIO's. I've actually been thinking about trying the PIO's -- just to see what they do. I do feel however, that the Hovlands in the Apollos do quite well with RF-7's -- but it would be nice to do a comparison. What I would really like to do is experiment with the caps in my crossover, but I'm so in love with how the 7's sound as is -- I don't what there is to "fix". Have you done anything to your K-horns, or are the stock?

Like most speakers, the Heresies respond very well to fiddling. I've always heard that Heritage for the most part doesn't image all that well. While I was over at the Polk Forum some time back, the comments were basically, "Yeah, great speakers if you like "Left and Right". I have no idea where this stuff comes from. I've had the Heresies on the floor, with the risers -- to get some reinforcement for the bass. I've been trying not to use the sub, as I've always had some trouble getting the signature of the sub to integrate with the bass exhibited by tubes. Last night I brought them up about 2 feet. The Heresies are no longer for sale.

That's what I did, I sure as hell ain't giving them my credit card number.

That's right, they're beamy as hell -- so make sure you point those sweet horns right at your head Actually, this 'beamy' thing is nonsense. The horns provide a degree of controlled directivity, which allows you to focus the sound into the listening area. Direct radiators (almost an oxymoron), are much more sensitive to placement, especially as it relates to the side walls -- which are a source of reflections that destroy the timing cues.

You won't get the full benefit of the VTL signature with the Sony solid state preamp -- it will probably lack a little warmth. However, I'm rather fond of the ES stuff, and I think you will find the combo rather musical none the less. You should probably start saving for a tubed preamp to get the full benefit of what the VTL has to offer. At any rate, the RF3's should crank out some pretty serious sound.

Hey Randy, since you got Hovlands laying around, and thinking about throwing some Jupiters in -- I can only guess this means you have the Jensens in there right now, it that true? Kelly, been wanting to try the Risch design for some time. Maybe it's time for me to yank those Monsters. As far as speaker cables go -- The MIT's seemed to do well on the Superamp, but your description of how they sound on SET is dead on.

You don't need a turntable. I just used the Jedi Mind Trick. Did it work?

I guess there are absolutes. It's certainly true about the transformers and steel rectification. I have hum, and I sure wouldn't describe the midrange as "liquid". The hum reduced with the new tubes. I was surprised by this, but it's still there. It's just something I have to put up with, using the Apollos on a more sensitive speaker than they were designed to run with. I'll take the hum however, and the power that goes along with it. Randy, I do believe cables make a difference. I just don't believe the differences are anything like some people make them out to be.

Keep the Sony. Hell, I didn't even know Sanyo made audio equipment. RP-5's are powered, so -- it's not like the Sony is under that much of a strain. Next thing you buy, if you stay with solid state receivers, make sure it's discrete. You're looking at Sony ES, or Onkyo. It helps if you tell us more about what you like to listen to, how loud, how big your room is, what other equipment you have, what your goals are, etc... Andy, I like solid state. I like my Aragon. I like Onkyo. I like power:)

Kelly -- see, you do it too I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement regarding high current SET. Have you heard the Apollos? Have you heard Apollos with the new KR300BXLS' utilizing the new filiment? Have you ever heard the KR300BXLS? Or is your assessment of this tube based on your experience with the KR2a3? Have you heard the Apollos on the RF-7's? Have you heard RF-7's? Have you heard a Sony 9000es? Is it possible, that in a certain system, you might find high current SET very involving? Do you really believe that 3.5 watts of 2a3 on RF7's will bring me closer to experiencing a live event, 'live' in the sense of what kind of music I enjoy, and how I like to enjoy it? Is it possible for a pair of Apollos and RF-7's to deliver as musical satisfying experience as K-horns and WL monoblocks? Are there really any absolutes? The gun thing was awful. Not my finest hour.

Kelly -- I didn't mean to come off like I was offended. I was actually agreeing with you. I was just pointing out that I'm not the only one who takes the 'narrow' approach, and it seems you agree with me here. It is somewhat 'small minded' not to consider more things than I do. I suppose if I write a review, I should write something beneficial to all. I thought it ironic that I do the very thing I accuse other reviewers of -- so... 'small minded'. I'm not the 'critical' listener I was 10 years ago. I just finally got around to figuring out what in a system I find important, and then built accordingly. I'm quite familiar with the sound of many instruments, and if something sounds 'off', I'm certainly going to mention it. I use music as therapy, and when I sit down to listen, I pretty much only care about one thing -- do the speakers disappear? When I do listen for the purpose of sending out an opinion, I like to keep descriptions as simple as possible. BTW, I never even knew what the hell 'space between instruments', and 'blackness of backround' was -- until you came to this forum. It wasn't until I bought the first AE-25 that I actually heard a bit of what you were talking about -- so, now I can listen for it, and render an opinion. There is probably much that you hear, that I don't even notice. I'm just zoning in on a handful of very specific things. I know that if these things sound 'right' -- the speaker, amp, CD player, whatever -- will do well across the board. At least, this has been my experience so far. I'm sure you would agree that it's very difficult to peg down the exact differences between two tube amps. Just think -- I've only owned 4. I've got a very basic understanding of the differences I've heard between these amps. As far as the Scott goes, all I know is that the Scott is as musically involving as the Superamp DJH, and makes my ears every bit as happy. Your points are well taken, I just don't know how I would go about describing equipment with music that I have no idea is supposed to sound.

Hmmm. I hadn't really considered this. What you say is true. My opinion only has meaning to someone with my musical taste and listening preferences. otoh, I'm not a professional reviewer, nor do I claim to be. My library is limited to what I like to hear, and just don't own any little girl with guitar music, jazz, or classical -- and even if I did, I wouldn't have a clue how to evaluate equipment with it. At any rate, even with my narrow, small minded range -- folks should be able to glean enough to get a general idea of what's going on. Besides, I don't ever recall Stereophile, TAS, or anyone else for that matter -- ever once using material that I'm familiar with, or listen too. As far as I concerned, their reviews are as useless to me, as mine are to you.

Danny, That's right, cables don't really make a difference. Usually nothing worth getting all excited about. However, with these SET amps, I've found that less is more.

Before you jump into Parasound, you might give serious consideration to some of the new Richard Marsh designs. http://www.marshsounddesign.com/

...and you call ME crazy? I think we're all missing a chromosome or two.

Randy -- drink more coffee! Simple, really. I wanted to use similiar cabling arrangements on both amps before I started comparing. When I single wired the Apollos, they sounded better. I ended playing with cables most of the night. I deduced that the Apollos, for some reason or another -- don't respond well to birwiring. Tom -- Old Journey only sounds psychodelic when you're on mushrooms.

LOL. Like I said. I know every note off those three CD's. When you can't do direct A/B comparisons -- you're fighting auditory memory. I've been listening to this stuff forever, I've heard it on dozens of different systems, heard it live, and used to sing and play some of it. I was big on Greg Rolle when he was with Santana. I was doing Journey when people didn't even who the hell they were. 'Look into the Future', and 'Next' are must owns. Infinity was a tremendous effort. The problem is, we have all heard the radio cuts off of this thing so much we are sick of it. However, if you sit and listen to the whole thing through -- you gain a real appreciation for the intensity and emotion in this recording. Rolle's moving air, and Perry's splitting it. Piano, Hammond B3, and Neal Schon going completely nuts. Harmonies by Perry that chase every note off of Schon's Les Paul. You going to CD Now to listen to clips of Judas Priest frightens me. 95% of their stuff was really bad, just plain awful. Only one recording is worth owning. 'Sad Wings of Destiny' has some mighty fine stuff on it. There is a cut in it with about 3 minutes of grand piano, and Halford actually trying to sing. Most of this recording is just riff alley, and there are some major transients on the drums and cymbal work. I've used 'Island of Domination' as a test song on every set of speakers I was even remotely considering. I listened to most of this CD on a set of Vandersteen's with a room full of people at Audio Etc. here in Dayton once. People were coming into the room with this confused, disoriented look. Maybe one of them was you? Funny thing however -- none of them would leave. After about 10 minutes, I've got 8 or 9 people standing behind me...listening. I dumped about a 100 watts of Jeff Rowland into the Vandersteens. I reduced those things to homogenized spagetti in seconds. After I turned it down, a guy remarked that he didn't understand why it sounded so different loud. I explained that the true test of a speaker -- is whether or not it maintains its signature when the music gets complex, or goes up in volume. I then threw this CD into a system with Magnepan 1.5QRs and an Adcom. I dumped the whole amp into those things before the CD was over. I wasn't the only person that walked out with set of Magnepans that day. I'm guessing I don't listen for the same things you do. When I'm done with all this business, I'm sending you some CD's. You may want to bolt your chair to the floor. The cabling thing is easy. The Apollos sounded better in a single wire configuration. Biwiring produced a softening of the transients.