sunnysal

tubes aglowing! let us know how it sounds. regards, T

why not stay with an all carver system, you must like his look and sound so I would think it pays to stay with a pre from carver as well. if you start opening up to other brands for preamp you should probably consider other brands of amp as well. regards, T

buy it! these are very nice units. I have esotec units (an SM6 and SC6) and they are truely representatives of the top of the marantz line at the time, which was near the very end of the golden age of marantz. tony btw this, quoted from classic-audio.com, a good site for info about marantz (and pretty much any other golden age audio brand): "The "inheritors of the crown" Around the time of transition to ownership by Philips of the Netherlands, Marantz produced the Esotec series. This series was, for the most part, a cosmetic rebuild of the high-end products in the 1977 through 1980 product lines, with the notable exception of a brand new turntable design, the TT1000, and the SD7 tape deck. These units were the beginning of a very high end series - there are other Esotec units that appeared in the years immediately following the introduction of the ones I'll introduce you to on this page. These components were very good candidates for a differentiated high-end line; they offered the highest fidelity of any set of components Marantz had ever produced, and in addition, outperformed virtually anything else on the market at that time, various audiophile myths and competitor's claims notwithstanding. "Specsmanship", the supposed art of twisting specifications around to make your product look better, was not something Marantz had to participate in; using the most conservative measurement techniques, allowing for considerable headroom, and on top of all this, specifying for the minimum performance of production-line units meant that the Esotec models (and the original models which are electronically identical as noted below) were so good that they literally had no peer as a consumer product line." http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html and has a little about esotec http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/esotec.html

Edwin, gratz on your new acquisition. I have found that klipsch owners often have an affinity for panel speakers, they share a lot of family value in the sound department. I myself had maggies and certainly would consider buying top of the line maggies to compete with the Klipschorns. however, I am so happy with the sound of music through my current system that a magnepan purchase would only follow a lottery win. warm regards, Tony

I am using them while on business trips and am quite happy with them so far. I mist admit that I have changed the klipsch silicone plugs for a set of Sony replacment plugs and they are much more comfortable for me now, the treble still tends to sound "hazy" (lacking air and detail) versus my reference phones (grado and senn) BUT I can live with them as my travel phones. the sound is full and rich and just fine while sitting on planes, taxis, lounges, etc. warm regards, tony

well....no chance to get them back...the only aprils fools joke is...my brother! at least I still have the k-horns! p.s. I wont even bore you with how he "lost" my mint condition 1967 mustang back when I left for college!

good god! rigma this is amazing, do please take some time to post some listening impressions...warm regards, Tony

you are correct sir, heresey IIs they were... I dont even remember exactly the story and cannot find a copy anywhere... T

A few years back Klipsch held a story telling contest that was to involve and combine a real life story with a Klipsch product. I wrote a story about how my Klipschorns survived a 8.1 earthquake while playing an AC/DC tune and was one of the winners. The prize was a pair of brand spanking new Heresy. As many of you know I currently live and work in Central America, the Klipsch pseakers were left for safe keeping the care of my younger brother. Today I get an email..."oh by the way, I traded your speakers for a wah-wah pedal" for those of you who don't play electric guitar a wah-wah pedal is an effect box you plug between your guitar and amp to make funky sounds...the one he got...used...is worth perhaps $100....I was beside myself after recieving this news and had to share it with my forum pals. Good thing it is a 5 hour flight to New York or I would strangle him right now. Oh well, Tom Brennan always said the top end of the Heresey sounded like a dentists drill so I guess I shouldn't be so sad...LOL. What a bone head my brother is...warm regards, Tony

My vote goes to refreshing caps and coils, leave the diode in, it protects the tweeter and IMHO does not affect the sound a whit. regards, Tony p.s. great post dennis! could you send that pic to me via email?

we need our own forum section I think.....where profanity and unfriendlyness is not frowned upon....how about the "profanityforum"? warm regards from sunny el salvador, Tony (been here a little bit longer than 10 years)

gratz! *rasies glass* and here's to ten years more! Tony

great! Mine have been operating for about 4 years and I am quite satisfied. best of luck, tony

I love the idea and think that the theory is tough to argue with (whether there will be an audible improvment is another thing). I wish I could participate but since I live in Central America I am afraid I will have to watch from the side-lines. I do hope that all participants post complete reports of thier experiences when testing so we can all benefit. Best of luck! Tony

I used these GEC U52 (5U4G) tubes in my 2A3 PP amp for a while finally parked them and I am using a pair of GZ37 Mullards... these are the mullards: I am not going to say one sounded better than the other, but I stayed with the mullard. Warm regards, Tony

Dave, I think the AK-3 from klipsch sounds pretty darn good on k-horns and would owrk well on your 1970's version. I am happy with my early ALK x-overs but, as you stated, klipsch didnt do a very bad job with its own crossovers. Warm regards, Tony

I added remote volume control to my vintage system by using a Creek OBH-22 volume control between my preamp and amp. another alterniatve is a nice integrated amp with remote (I had in my main system for a few years a McIntosh MA6400 intergated amp and it sounded great! it now resides in my bedroom system). Good sounding, new intergated amps with remote are available from Rotel, Creek, wow with tubes and SS really too many to list. T

for stock k-horns and crossovers I would say 8 ohm taps. I have tried different taps pon amps with my k-horns and 8 ohms always seemed to work best for me. IIRC the stock corssovers were designed for 8 ohms, of this I am pretty sure. I am also sure someone will chime in very soon with a definitive answer. tony

David forget about using two amps, use the stereo mode on the single amp. I had some of those HK components from the late 70's, they might generate hiss through the k-horns, let us know. regards, Tony

I love my 2A3 PP amps for my k-horns. I would say any of the PP EL84 amps (like the dynaco st-35 for example), classic or modern would be a great match. the EL34 based amps are a great match as well like the dynaco st-70 the marantz 8b (my fave!) and many modern versions/interpretations. I found the 2A3 and 300b SETs didnt have enough umph for my taste but others are happy with those solutions (and even 45 based SETs!). k-horns love tubes and dont need a lot of juice so any very quiet (the k-horn will pick up any hum or hiss) tube amp from 10-50 watts should float your boat. IMHO the most important thing is to try to audition in your system an amp before buying. what we recommend may not work well in your house, with your music and with your specific system. warm regards, Tony

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - Elvis Costello

Mark, well said and I agree fully. I just want to reiterate that IMHO the measurements and standards used now to judge the accuracy of a speaker do not necessarily assure the most accurate reproduction of a given piece of music. I hold the belief that we have yet to refine current measurement methiods to assure said accurate reproduction. meanwhile I reserve the right to make subjective comparisons which, IMHO sometimes outperform what technical measurements can achieve for my end purpose. Warm regards, tony

what was the phrase (loosely) ? "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" Hard to get common ground established

I have heard that ST120's are hard on rectifiers and I fully back the advice on getting an uprated rectifier would be a good idea. I have had bad luck running my tube amps on votage regulators and UPS's, all my failures have occured when connnected to those, I cannot be sure they were to blame but since I have disconnected my tube amps form those I have not had a single failure. T

Perhaps you guys aren't really comparing the same things and perhaps the words aren't conveying what you want to say. The underlying issue that may be at fault is that many people do not believe that the current list of measurements used to confirm "scientifically" if a speaker is indeed accurate completely reflects the accurate reproduction of music, that those measurement fall short of guaranteeing sonic nirvana. That measuring the flatness of frequency response, polar charting, impulse response, etc. does not give the whole picture and that while all measurements can be indicating accurate reproduction is being achieved can lead to a musical sound that deviates substantially from the standard (what was recorded). That is not to say that errors detected do not lead to audible deviations but perhaps the simple satisfaction of a limited set of measurable criteria do not guarantee perfect reproduction, there may be more out there to measure... It is only natural that people tend rely on their ears as an instrument to measure and while quantifiable data cannot be easily derived from this (other than DBT testing, etc. subjective data) I think there is no doubt that our ear/brain is an amazing test instrument capable of detecting things that even high quality equipment sometimes cannot. Ears, I do believe, can be used for "quality control" for example where they are only required to detect a difference not quantify it. I also believe that ear/brain can sometimes handle and process complex, multivariable data better than equipment can, most measurement by equipment is limited to one issue at a time, limiting its relevance in complex environments. Eye/brain and ear/brain input, processing and analysis accomplishes some things that mechanical and electronic equipment cannot. Anyway, while I always review specifications when trying to understand what a speaker can do and does, I am not sure it paints the complete sonic picture and I am not sure that measurements will ever paint the complete sonic picture, thus I rely on my ears to make final decisions. In the end what pleases me is what I want, my goal is to please myself musically I am not ashamed of that. YMMV, IMHO, etc. I would never claim that someone is wrong for pursuing measured perfection in thier components but since I think there is still space for improvement of the scientific approach I also don’t criticize people who let their ears decide what sounds musical to them. Warm regards, Tony