mikebse2a3

Yes the placebo effect “can” play a part in a comparison and should always be taken into consideration… so do you always blindfold yourself when you make your comparisons…? 🙂 Like you said Roy has the knowledge, equipment and ability to verify his advancements in designs and I’m sure he is well aware of the dangers of the placebo effect. miketn

Its not a volume issue with loud music playback levels but a case of certain recordings that have the required frequency/energy in that part of the spectrum to excite the acoustical cabinet resonance. This is similar to how room modes can be excited by some recordings and not by others due to the frequency/energy spectrum of the recordings. miketn

Not to my ears at least under well controlled conditions as you describe with the exception of being in the blind there were obvious differences which I have no doubt I would be able to perceive in the blind as you say. 🙂 miketn

I would strongly encourage you to treat each speaker independently and not assume that the best position for the CW3 and CW4 would be the same. In my experience the CW3 “which is a very good loudspeaker” but it does have some box related acoustical resonance “not to be confused with panel resonance” that the CW4 design has clearly improved upon. I experience this acoustical box resonance as a coloration and lack of clarity/masking effect on some recordings that excite this region. In my experience this “type of coloration” can be experienced as “good or bad” depending on recordings and also depending on the loudspeakers positioning relative to room modes. One important test (among many) I like to use when setting up/evaluating loudspeakers and optimizing there location relative to the room modes is Pink Noise. If a person educates themselves to how Pink Noise should be experienced as smooth and uncolored when reproduced (Reproducing Pink Noise over good quality headphones is one good method to educate the ear to properly reproduced Pink Noise) then you have a good tool to evaluate the loudspeaker as well as its positioning in the room relative to the room modes for the best positioning and also helps in locating the best listener position as well. I suggest listening to Pink Noise from each loudspeaker in mono first while adjusting loudspeaker/listener locations until the smoothest and least colored reproduction is experienced and then in stereo to test for best spacing between loudspeakers for good center imaging with again the smoothest reproduction of the Pink Noise. miketn

These aren’t oil finished veneers. They have a lacquer finish and should not have any oil finishes applied. Follow the cleaning instructions that come with the current Heritage Line which is usually just dust or a very lightly damped cloth. miketn

I would love to be there listening through the Heritage Jubilee they are my new reference in music reproduction. 👏🙂

I’ll take these if still available …. sending a pm

This is a note I made of variable multiplication factors I used (I developed these through trial and error) that allowed me to calculate the new Xilica Lo-Shelf Frequency Set Point based on Amplitude Set Point of the filter that gave me results very close to the EV Units Lo-Shelf performance. Note: I found the Xilica Lo-Shelf 1.80 Oct(Q=0.751) set-point best to equal the EV 12db Slope set-point and then adjust Frequency Set-point based on Amplitude Set-point and my multiplication factors listed below. For example: EV-DC One. Xilica XD4080 Lo-Shelf Lo-Shelf -10db -10db 5400Hz. 4200Hz (5400Hz x .7775 = 4198.5Hz) 12db Slope. 1.80 (Oct) / Q= 0.751) EV-DC One Xilica XD4080 Lo-Shelf Lo-Shelf -1db -1db 2500Hz 2500Hz (2500HZ X 1.0 = 2500Hz) 12db Slope 1.80 (Oct) / Q= 0.751) Again what I basically found was at -1db Amplitude of the Xilica Set-point no Frequency Change was needed but as the Xilica Lo-Shelf Filter Amplitude Set-point was increased the Frequency Set-point needed to be adjusted lower to match the EV Lo-Shelf Filter. miketn

Let me see if I can find my notes from about 2 1/2 years ago when I was researching it. I remember when using the Xilica I selected the Octave/Q set point and then having to Change the Frequency set point depending on the Amplitude set point to achieve the matching simulated output with the Xilica that matched the EV Shelf filter settings simulated output response. If any one wants to play with this just download the editor/simulation programs for the EV DX38 and EV DC-One and program them using Roy’s Settings and this becomes your reference output curves. Then do the same in the Xilica editor/simulation compare them with the Xilica results and then start tweaking the Shelf Filter’s parameters in the Xilica until the output curve results match the EV reference curves. miketn

It’s been awhile since I used the EV DX38 and EV DC-One versus the Xilica XD4080 program simulators but I definitely had to change some of the shelf filter’s parameters in the Xilica to achieve identical projected output responses from the Xilica when compared with the EV DX38 or EV DC-One. Note: Both EV units behave identical with the same parameters settings which I simulated and verified with output measurements several years ago. miketn🙂

@Chief bonehead for clarity are these the settings using the Xilica or EV DX38

In my experience recordings have been mastered and balanced to a given SPL which results in an optimum playback level. When a person plays the recording at less than optimum level then tonal balance shifts with a sense of less bass and soundstage shrinks. Ideally Variable Loudness Controls and Tone Controls can compensate to a limited degree but unfortunately systems with well designed controls like these are pretty scarce. miketn🙂

Just to eliminate the basics I suggest you verify the polarity of both loudspeakers to receiver has been maintained. One simple and quick way to do this is to take the speaker wires loose from the amplifier and touch them to a battery. The woofer cones should move outward when you touch the (+) battery terminal to the (+) side of your speaker wires. This will confirm the external speaker wiring and internal wiring of the loudspeakers are correct. A more complete/detailed description of your room/setup might help us understand your acoustical room situation. Pictures of the room/install would greatly assist us in offering help. If pictures aren’t possible then at least some basic drawings with details about the rooms doorway/openings and loudspeaker and listener locations and how acoustically live or dead is the room. miketn

@Islander This was a setup I had in my Garage for awhile with 904LF on their sides and was a project I had ideas to really pretty them up but headed in another direction before that happened but let me tell you they… Sounded Awesome and Vocals especiallywere excellently reproduced.!!! 🙂 miketn

Based on your descriptions I would suggest that you “trust your ears” and not make changes based on some preconceived ideas of how a room should be acoustically treated. The most valid and ultimate test of your system’s performance is the listening experience and it sounds like you have an excellent performing system/room. PWK noted loudspeakers having well designed controlled directivity have many advantages in reducing distortion for a given sound level along with advantages in direct versus reflective ratios as experienced at the listening position in typical home listening rooms and in your situation as described by your listening experience it sounds like the controlled directivity advantage means the use of typical absorption panels and their placement aren’t necessary in your room/setup and could actually head you in a wrong direction so proceed with caution would be my advice at this point. miketn

My experience as well Marvel miketn

I’ve edited your pictures in an attempt to help show the details of you systems setup.. It would be helpful if you describe what audible problems your looking to improve. How well does the 2 channel system image..? How well does the 2 channel system currently perform in clarity and tonal balance. miketn

My understanding based on a conversation with Jim Hunter in the late 80s when I had a noticeable resonance cabinet issue in one of my new then La Scala was that Klipsch was aware of the “potential” side panel resonance issue. The braces between the dog house and side panels would eliminate the “potential” resonance but due to the cosmetic changes they caused and the more labor intensive cost (because they would required custom fitting in each cabinet) along with the fact that evidently the majority of the La Scala users at that time simply didn’t notice or have an issue with the “potential” resonance issue of the side panels so basically it was believed best not to put the bracing into regular production. By the way Klipsch’s solution for me was an offer to give me a pair of new Belle Klipsch cabinets which do not have the potential side panel resonance issue due to its different cabinet design and materials. Of course I took them up on the offer… 😄 miketn

Absolutely agree… 🙂 Just make sure your using high quality transformers such as Jensen… miketn

If you download it plays…

Hey Dean that was a little while back… 😄. It was a Musical Fidelity CD/Pre 24/96 playing into an EV DX38 into AES SE 2A3 amplifier on K402/K69A HF and Cary CAD 2a3i push/pull on Jub LF… 🙂 miketn

The problem is that the typical standard type distortion you are referencing are made with waveforms that are basic and simple but in reality they don’t even begin to put the amplifier under the conditions that we are requiring it to perform with (ie: complex musical waveforms which are transient in nature as well and unlike your basic distortion test typically sited). Do you believe that a typical harmonic or intermodulation distortion test really represents a complex musical waveform which is really what an amplifier has to pass..? miketn

Could it be that the distortion isn’t what someone likes but the lack of some unmeasured distortion that the ear/brain perceives but not revealed by the test you chose to measure with…? miketn

Of course measurements have real value “when implemented and interpreted in the proper context and with their limitations recognized..!!!“ but ultimately we are designing not for a meter/test but for the human experience and the latter is the ultimate goal and the meters/tests are just tools that must be used wisely and within their limitations. Heyser who was a pioneer in measuring Audio, Acoustics and Sound Reproduction wisely warned the audio engineers of what was the intended results of their labor and the best engineers understand this fact I’m sure. By the same token the listening experience is also dependent in part by experience and training when it comes to making valid judgements when comparing sound reproduction from our Equipment/Room..!!! Einstein: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" Richard C. Heyser: “Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact.” miketn

I find the obsession some people have with “neat pleasing to the eye wiring style” to be misguided and often sacrificing the benefits of 3 dimensional wiring of good point to point designs that can look messy to an untrained eye. miketn