PrestonTom

Jeff, You ask interesting questions. I do work in auditory science & have read some about PWK, although I never had the opportunity to meet him. He lived during a very exciting time in audio. Just look at all the breakthroughs and changes that occurred in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Truly remarkable times! PWK wrote articles in scholarly journals (e.g. Audio Engineering Society - of which he was elected a Fellow - not a trivial honor), he held patents, and he started and ran a successful business. Not bad accomplishments. He is certainly considered & respected as a member of a small, elite group. Yes, he had the credentials, accomplishments and was well-respected. One thing that I always find intriguing is how the hobby (for lack of a better word) has changed. Much like Father-Son projects that involved fixing/modifying cars (or ham radio), so was audio. There was a popular movement to build amplifiers & electronics (Eico, Dynaco, Heathkit and even Hafler had kits you could build). You learned quite a bit in the process also. Similar things happened with speaker building projects. Although I was only a lad back in the 60s & 70s (when this DIY aspect was starting to fade), I remember the conversation was at somewhat more sophisticated level (given the current technology). Folks understood the difference between wiring a capacitor or inductor in series or in parallel in order to produce a filter. I hate to say it but I sometimes wonder if this basic knowledge is currently understood by those who are adamant about what "flavor" the cap is constructed from etc. I do not remember that kind of silliness back then. But I probably have a selective memory also. You have got me reminiscing now.... Good Luck, -Tom

ScooterDog, Take full credit, ....it was by "design". Be proud! Serendipity can be your trusted friend. Good Luck, -Tom

Pete, Please clue me in. I have a touch of upgraditis and was thinking about a new amp. I have looked at the specs of some available (slightly used) Rotel amps (and I am relying on my memory of how Iiked some similar models of Rotel when I heard them). What did you not like about them? Good Luck, -Tom

It all looks fantastic! Let me complement you on what might be a small point. The lights on the side that you have incorporated into the columns: that is a very nice design element. It looks fantastic. Good Luck, -Tom

Consider yourself lucky.... it could have been worse. I agree that your speakers are probably fine. Let me mention two things however. First, the issue of clipping means that the waveform is "squared off at the top". This can mean that DC current is being sent to the driver. That is bad & and it can damage the driver (specifically the voice coil). Diaphragms can also be damaged if they over driven. Second, there is no reason ( & I do not want to hear about some audio voodoo) not to incorporate fuses into you speaker connections. Go to Radio Shack and get their 20 mm in-line fuse holders and attach these to the + side of the speaker wires to each cabinet. This is good insurance (and it does NOT degrade the signal quality). Good Luck, -Tom

Whtboy, I am a bit confused about your goal here. The Adcom amp is a pretty good amp (plenty of headroom, capable of providing current for difficult loads, fairly clean sound, etc). The Klipsch speakers are not a difficult load (efficient, impedance does not drop to a very low level). What sort of improvements are you looking to find. I am afraid that you are going to be adding some distortion to your system, as DJK as also suggested. Good Luck, -Tom

Mike, Please be careful!. With all due respect (and I may be misjudging), if you indicated that you were uncertain about distinguishing between resistors from caps. This may not be an appropiate DIY job for you. Capacitors on a power supply can hold a very large charge for a very long time. If you are uncertain about what you are doing, you can get a very large jolt (even if the unit is unplugged, or has been unplugged for a long time). This is no joke. Good luck, -Tom

Jeff, You have probably noticed the confusion in the replies. What is being asked is about the cabinet style. On the back, the model number will indicate this. It will start with something like "KCBR" which translates to Klipschorn, C style, Birch, Raw. The issue is the "style". If it is "C" then there is single, horizontal piece of wood between the top and bass bins. It is actually the bottom of the top bin (this is the homeplate). If it is the "B" style then there is trio of horizontal pieces. One is the top of the bass bin, the second, recessed piece is the "throat" or collar, and the third is the bottom of the top bin. There will also be a toe kick at the very bottom. As far as the "D" style ("decorators") - I don't know their configuration. Hopefully this will help sort out why folks are making different suggestions. Incidentally, if you have the "C" cabinets, they can be "converted" to the "B" style with a modest/moderate amount of effort. Some prefer the look of the B cabinets Good Luck, -Tom

Gee ... Many years ago when I had a Dual TT, I remember that these Shure cartridges were a superb value (quality per dollar). However, at these prices it makes me wonder..... -Tom

Very well put! I also feel sorry for the little guy. We are in an age where even the "average Joe" can have a decent stereo system for not all that much money. In some cases, such a system uses ideas/technolgy from half a century ago (my K-Horns come to mind....). But look what happens, the snake oil salesmen come in and muddy the waters. Good Luck, -Tom

If keeping them "original" is a goal, then I would go ahead and get actual grill cloth. Hardhead is correct that grill cloth is not simply fabric. There have been threads in the past about suggested vendors selling the real thing. The wood frame for the side grills would not be difficult to construct. If that is not your thing, they occasionally come up for sale on e-Bay etc. Good luck, -Tom

I always find it interesting that many folks entirely ignore some simple issues of physics when they talk about "fixing" problems in bass response. Unless an amp is mediocre, underpowered or lacking in current capability, it is probably not the problem. Klipsch speakers are not low impedance and they have plenty of sensitivity. This is not a terrible load on a decent amp of sufficient power. Let's consider the physics. It is fairly simple. At a 100 Hz the wavelength is 10ft at & 50 Hz it is 20 ft. compare this to the size of your room. This presents some difficulties since there are standing waves (room modes) that will greatly exaggerate (or minimize) the bass response. The are also a number of large reflecting surfaces, this will provide an excessive reverberation time at the low frequencies. Now, why is it difficult to imagine that some will hear the same speaker in different environment and have a very different opinion about its fidelity? It really isn't surprising since simply moving the speaker around in the same room can have substantial effects. Notice this is a very simple (possible) explanation. It does not require any voodoo about rebuilding amps. It does not require any argument about whether the wattage is coming from tubes vs SS. It does, however, point to a very different direction on how to effectively solve the problem. Good Luck, -Tom

No, What do they do? Are you concerned about the use of negative feedback? Is the spec based on running the amp at a very high level? -Tom

Homemade: you make an excellent point. Would it need to be cyrogenically treated also? Good Luck, -Tom

Certainly there is a very real difference in cost the user ends up paying. In terms of sound quality: None! There are so many other tweaks that a user can perform that will have real consequeces (e.g., careful speaker placement, moderate or more extensive room treatment, getting better recorded music, etc). Good Luck, -Tom

This is a surprising statement. In general, and there are exceptions, some of the best Jazz performances and sonic quality come from the Blue Note recordings (esp circa late 50s early 60s). Gee, I hope these have not been trashed during the re-mastering. Good Luck, -Tom

Duke (and Dr Bill please forgive me for speaking for you), I don't think that it is so much the dissension that turns off many of us. Rather, it is the tone. If we were sitting down having a cup of coffee and talking about something that we both enjoyed, would we insult one another and use a contemptuous tone? There is a commonality between all of us. Why force a separation with ill-chosen words? Good Luck, -Tom

Weiming, Congratulations on the Cornwalls. I am sorry that you had some problems with the shipping, but it sounds like you are back on track. Yes, they are a bit bigger once you get them inside your room. However, I would encourage you to experiment a bit with the speaker placement. Sometimes, even moving them only several inches relative to various walls can positively impact the sound. Good Luck, -Tom

Gee, I can't believe the things I am reading. 1. You don't really believe that you are going to "effectively" get a 45kHz bandwidth from vinyl do you? 2. The spatial information is not "up above 15 kHz" . It is across the entire bandwidth. For localization in the horizontal plane the low frequencies are especially important. For vertical plane localization, then higher frequency content is important, but it is not all up at 15 kHz. Doesn't matter since most of the vertical dimension is lost in stereophonic recording. Besides most males in an industrialized society suffer some (or much) high frequency loss. 3. The ambiance (difficult to define specifically), if it is in the original recording, then it does not require inter channel phase shifts. There are however some illusory effects if phase is played with. In my mind, the ambiance is in the recirding and due to the venue. This will be reproduced, unless the engineer has messed things up. 4. With true stereophony, where 2 mics are used to encode (unfortunately, this is not typically done in studio recordings) and two speakers to reproduce, the resulting waveform at the ears (in your living room) is remarkably close to what would be found with actual sources (instruments) playing at those same locations in your living room. No "phase incoherence" is required (incidentally some of you are using this term incorrectly, so I got confused at first). This effect was termed "stereophony" by Ben Bauer back in the late 50s. There was (and continues to be) a good quantitative analysis of this. It really is simple physics and does not require exotic explanations. Good Luck, -Tom

Well, so far this discussion has confused a number of issues. Sampling rate (along with the reconstruction filter) will determine the bandwidth reproduced. This may in fact be wider than what was originally recorded, so the effective bandwidth reproduced could be smaller. No comparison: CDs have better bandwidth capability. Is this a factor for your enjoyment? Good question since there is relatively little energy in the music as you get to the higher frequencies. Even if there is energy, males living in an industrialized society probably have, or will, have less hearing sensitivity to these frequencies. Number of bits will determine one possible noise floor. This is defined as quantization noise and will be about 90 -100 dB down. This is the definition of resolution when you describe digital encoding/decoding and is proportional to 6dB per bit (more bits the better & historically referred to as "word length"). This is not much noise; however, it ends up not being the limiting noise. Noise in your listening room will raise this "floor" by 10s of dB. Even in a quiet room there will still be "noise" and distortion from the electronics and also produced by the mechanical transduction within the speaker. Back to the issue of vinyl vs digital (and ignoring what ever compression and levels the engineer may have dialed in - which could be significant): CDs again will measure better both for a lower noise floor and probably a greater dynamic range. Will you be able to always appreciate the benefit? Good question, depends on the recording, electronics and noise within your room. This caveat is not trivial. If it is not clear enough already, these are limiting cases. What ever the material was to begin with will determine whether a particular CD will sound "better" or worse than vinyl. This is very much a function of the recording engineer etc. Even if it is the "same" material (e.g. Miles Davis, Kind of Blue) they may have been re-mastered very differently when re-released. So it is difficult to compare. Beyond this recording issue comes the issue of reproduction. Various benefits of digital (or deficits of vinyl) can certainly be masked during the playback. Most of us have a surprisingly high "noise floor" in our living rooms and the softer passages (if recorded properly) will be obscured. Add to this the various forms of distortion that occur in the amp and speaker (which is the weak link - highest source of some kinds of distortion), then the dynamics & S/N ratio afforded by the CD will be lost. Incidentally, the comparably high levels of distortion during electrical to mechanical transduction (the speaker) is why I am so high on high-efficiency speakers. It is the one chance we have really clean up the signal. Good Luck, -Tom

Jeff, I understand your position, although I don't agree with it. I have gotten good deals on Klipsch speakers ($1k for K-Horns & $400 For Cornwalls). The difference is that I was patient and able to leverage the deal (i.e, provide transport, pay cash, alleviate some hassle for the seller). In both cases, the seller understood that I was getting a deal. There was no subterfuge. Your logic & approach has been a legal & economic argument. In that view, you are correct. No one was forced to sell at a discount, or someone else would have done it also, etc... The justifications & rationalizations can go on forever. However, there is another approach. That argument is based on the notion: was it the right thing to do?That is a tougher one to judge and everyone must decide it for themselves. My criteria (whether it is speakers or the corvette) is how would you feel if it was your grandmother or child being exploited by their own ignorance. I think that casts a different light on things. Good Luck, -Tom

I think you have answered your own question. The bass response on K-Horn is fantastic. IMHO adding a sub will only mess things up. If you are having problems with the bass reproduction from the K-Horn, then the most probable culprits (and solutions) involve speaker setup/location and room effects. Perhaps that should be your plan of attack. Good Luck, -Tom

It really is interesting how the "connect the dots" - view has become so embedded in the way that some conceive of digital waveforms. The idea of the final low-pass filter (reconstruction filter) is ignored. When you look at the digital waveform on an oscilloscope, you really can connect the dots. Add even the simplest of low-pass filters, then it looks entirely "analog". Hmmmmm, where did the dots go? Good Luck, -Tom

DM: The effect is quizzical, but lets look at a couple of things. First, there is only cancellation when you are at the midline. In other locations the waveforms may be adding or subtracting incompletely. Second, you will only get a real cancellation if the waveforms are in opposite phase AND the waveforms are at a comparable level. You may be getting some room modes that are differentially changing the effective level of the two waveforms. If so the they may be in opposite phase but not equal in level. This, of course, would also give an incomplete canceling. Actually you may be (in a sense) altering the location of the room modes also. To the degree that the crossover slopes are steep, one would think that there would be too little overlap to make this phenomenon very audible. I suspect it would not happen in a room that had a great deal of bass absorption. But that is just a guess. Good Luck, -Tom

Nix, you mentioned "....some distorted guitar tones sound overly nasal,harsh, and metallic..." As much as I enjoy Cornwalls, I have also found this to be the case. I think it is even more prominent with certain brass instruments. Although I find the Cornwall 2s to be less objectionable in this regard. The differences between Cornwalls and Cornwall 2s are tricky because there are a number of production changes within both series. Let me know if you are able to solve this problem. However, I am not optimistic regarding some of your proposed solutions. Good Luck, -Tom