Def Leper

That's like dressing up a pig in lace panties and supermodel lingerie. It will still be a pig. You can slap a Klipsch logo on your chain saw too, but I don't think it will help. Why not just buy some used Klipsch speakers to replace them?

From a web site on bird "records" (biggest, fastest, etc.) A Ruppell’s vulture (gyps rueppellii) collided with a commercial aircraft over Abidjan, Ivory Coast, at an altitude of 37,000 feet in November 1973. The impact damaged one of the aircraft’s engines, but the plane landed safely. The species is rarely seen above 20,000 feet. In 1967, about 30 whooper swans (Cygnus were spotted at an altitude of just over 27,000 feet by an airline pilot over the Western Isles, UK. They were flying from Iceland to Loch Foyle on the Northern Ireland/republic Ireland border. Their altitude was confirmed by air traffic control. When I was in the USAF I was a flightline avionics technician for F-111 and F15 aircraft, and have seen many different types of damage caused in flight. This was certainly one of the most serious, although the worst I saw was a windscreen bird impact that killed the pilot, but the WSO was able to regain control and bring the aircraft back. The biggest danger in this incident was losing parts of the radome or attack radar and causing a flame out in the other engine. (The bird went into one engine and cause a flame out.) The F111 has large, effective stabilators (the horizontal tail surfaces) and a very good flight damper system that likely was most responsible for maintaining aircraft control. Despite some negative early publicity, the F-111 was the most versatile weapon in the USAF inventory. It was very maneuverable at low speeds, could carry large loads (including nukes), had a very effective attack radar system and terrain-following radar system allowing the aircraft to fly at very low altitudes in darkness or weather, and the swing-wings allowed efficient supersonic flight. The North Vietnamese called it "whispering death" because the fan jets were relatively quiet and the TFR allowed the aircraft to fly valleys in the dark to allow precision bombing of NVA targets. Many other countries later also found out the hard way about the F-111's ability to fly long distances and deliver smart weapons precisely on target. I didn't realize that the Aussies were still flying them. Good on ya, mates!

When I purchased my well-used Cornwalls, the first thing I did is pull off the back and check all the driver mounting screws, which were actually on the loose side on the woofers. (other drivers were not too loose but still had some snug space.) That will have some effect on the gasket seals to the cabinet. I also added a thin weatherstrip to the cabinet back to help seal any air leaks the cabinet back. I also had Bob C. rebuild the 20 year old crossovers, which affected the upper midrange and highs more than anything else. Oh, I also rotated the woofers by 180 degrees to help equalize any cone sag and voice coil misalignment due to sitting and gravity, and then rotate them by 90 degrees every year. (I mark the rotation direction on the inside of the cabinet so I keep going the same direction.) Of course, I also check all the wiring and connections inside the cabinet to make sure I was gettting the best contact. Those are some of the internal things you can check and maintain, along with the suggestions on external items like your amplifier. I do notice that the bass response not as tight with my tube amp compared to my solid-state amp, especially at higher volumes, so evaluating your amp is certainly a good suggestion.

Thank you, I will find out about this. It's fascinating to me that a Klipsch official doesn't know this ebay retailer. I understand that Klipsch has gone after many ebay sellers for copyright and trademark infringement (showing a picture on an auction with the Klipsch logo visible) and Klipsch corporate maintains their own ebay store. In other words, Klipsch officials are actively monitoring ebay Klipsch sales. Anyone who looks at Klipsch products on ebay is very familar with the large number of AVB auctions over the past several years, so I can only conclude that Klipsch knows who this dealer is and happily sells to them.

Yes, I do think most Klipsch products are overpriced, and I also think some of the other products you mention are overpriced too. When I purchased my 35-series speakers for my home theater, I shopped carefully and paid less than half the going retail price for these items. At that price, I felt they were a good value. Klipsch is trying to play all of the market segments, rigidly control their trademarks and copyrights, tightly control dealer practices, sell through mass-market big box stores, and even retail directly to consumers, and all the time trying to cultivate the Klipsch name as some kind of transcendental audio bullet. In other words, they are trying to be everything to everyone. When I purchased a 35-series system for my home theater, I looked at and auditioned the components first, then carefully and patiently shopped and was able to buy the equipment for a little less than half the regular price. At that price, I felt I got a very good value. Given the construction of the equipment and the many other products on the market with similar sound quality and lower prices, I would not have bought KIipsch at the inflated retail price. Klipsch itself has become an internet dealer, selling Heritage products directly to consumers and bypassing their retailers as well as selling on ebay. Given that, I'm not sure what basis Klipsch has for trying to regulate internet sales other than to control competition and keep prices artificially high.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so many people who want to overpay for something. In general I think Klipsch products are substantially overpriced, and any avenue to get a more reasonable price on these plastic and particle board boxes is good.

I simply haven't been able to find a set that are close enough to home to pick up and at a reasonable price. That will change with patience.

I have an Adcom system running with my Cornwall I's--- GFA 5500 amp (200w/ch), GTP 450 preamp/tuner, and GCD 600 CD Player. I also have a Scott tube integrated amp that was purchased from a forum member, which was rebuilt and then retuned again later by Craig of NOSvalves. The Adcom amp is a thumper (turn on/off transients) so I have an Adcom 3-speaker selector switch in the system that allows me to disconnect the speakers from the system when turning it on of off. Cheap and very easy to use. I have no issue other than the transients with the Adcom system. The amp has more than enough power to overdrive the Cornwalls and has a very clean sound. Frankly, I found the Scott tube amp to be underwhelming. While it sounds good at lower volume levels, I found it running out of steam at moderate to high levels and then the bass would become muddy. It also produces hiss as you'd expect with older analog equipment. Not a bad amp, but my total cost was a little over $500 and can't beat or even match my $100 garage sale Adcom power amp and preamp.

Huh? You've got different Cornwalls or Heresy's than I have. The tweeters might be the same but the midrange horn is certainly different, as is the crossover, LF driver and cabinet, of course. They may use the same midrange driver (I'm not going to open them up to look) but you're not going to get the same sound with different horns. Somebody mentioned a tube amp. I do have a Scott integrated amp that Craig rebuilt and has also retuned, and I hear no real differences with the Heresy other than the normal coloration that you get with a tubes. Don't get me wrong, as speakers go, Heresy's are good speakers and a great value-- after all, aren't they by far the biggest sellers of all the Heritage line? They just don't wow me like the rest of the heritage line. (Except the Belle's-- I admit I've never heard a set play.)

I've always considered the Heresy to be the least capable of all Klipsch heritage speakers, and the least "Klipsch" sounding. They can't hold a candle to my Cornwalls in any way, and my Heresy's are relegated to main speakers in my Klipsch RS-series home theater system. They will be replaced with custom "sideways" Cornwalls as soon as I can find the rest of the parts I need. In my fairly long lifetime, I've never heard a loudspeaker that can come close to reproducing the sound of a live musical performance, except when the entire performance is routed through sound reinforcement equipment. In that case, you're not hearing the live performance anyway, you're hearing an amplified facsimile. An acoustical performance is a different story though, and I've never heard any speaker that comes even close. Some are good, some are great, some are fantastic, but none equal the real experience.

If you had to refoam the drivers, they aren't Series II drivers. The Series I and Series II drivers have cloth surrounds and I've never seen the surrounds deteriorate unless they were simply blown up or poked. The walnut trim kit was an optional accessory for the earlier 901's and attached with double-sticky foam tape. The tape can tend to deteriorate so I replaced mine with Velcro. Screwing them down is a definite faux pas and I'd knock $100 off the value of the speakers for that alone. They are also set up in a way that will destroy the what limited sound reproduction quality they possessed in the first place. My set of 901 II's are original, have perfect wood veneer without screws, walnut trim kit and grill cloths, and the original pedestal stands, do I'd have to say they are better looking than yours. Your speaker wires are run more neatly, though. []

Even a row of violinists playing the same notes never really reproduce an identical acoustical signal, we can still tell that more than one violist is playing and if we are close enough, should be able to hear them individual. What I'm talking about is nine drivers all radiating the same signal, and this signal is interacting inside the box as well as interacting outside the box with both direct acoustical waves and those radiated back with a short time delay from the reflecting surface.

Max, why can't we get reviewers like you writing for these audio magazines instead of the relentless stream of techno-babble and fantasy we usually get? Of course, you went to a lot of trouble to simply confirm what I've already said, although I certainly think the way you said it was a lot more fun to read. Your experience with the later model 901's is that same as mine with the earlier model. Why are the 901's the longest-lived loudspeaker line next to Klipsch Heritage? I own Klipsch Heritage, yet bought a pair or 901's and spent twice as much as my venerable Cornwalls cost after their rebuild? I've already said it-- like Klipsch, they are icons of mid-20th Century loudspeaker design. In other words, I bought the appearance, not the performance. My Cornwalls are just the opposite-- They are Stonehenge. Big, hulking ugly boxes that are exceeded in their ugliness only by rear-projection TV sets. The 901's great downfall is that they are harmonic nightmares-- The multiple small speakers in a small box, heavy electronic equalization, and the direct-reflected sound path produces massive amounts of harmonic distortion and spectral reinforcement/cancellation that results in the schizophrenic sound reproduction you mention. 901's as primary speakers tell you all you want to know about the owners-- That they have absolutely no ability to listen critically to their collection of Perry Como and Ink Spots LP's. 901's are simply the upscale replacement for that cheesy RCA console stereo with the red velvet grill cloth and molded plastic colonial trim. That said, will I get rid of my 901's out of a sense of the simple shame of putting them next to a pair of Cornwalls? Not until I go blind and can't see them anymore. By the way, my monolithic Cornwalls have a Philco Predicta TV on one of them and an Edison Home cylinder phonograph on the other one, a couple more icons of design from earlier generations.

So in a few years, all of us bald guys can spend a few thousand dollars and look like Leslie Nielson?

Lord, I can't believe this thread is still going. Folks, the easiest and greatest single improvement you can make in your life is to pull the antenna/cable wire and turn off the TV. I stopped watching commercial TV about fifteen years ago and discovered that not only did I not miss it, I had many, many more hours every week to engage in truly useful activities. The only downside has been that I sound like a mindless programmed zombie as my coworkers do when they discuss these "killing time while waiting for death" entertainments. Yes, there is life after TV, and it is good.

You need to watch C-Span for a few days. After that, everything looks intelligent, lively and sophisticated, even road kill.

As I mentioned to Maxg, I'm indeed using the crossover and it has been rebuilt with new components. I can compare it with my other, unrebuilt crossover to confirm that the rebuild was effective. When the crossover is cut out, it's easy to hear why the 901's are not audiophile speakers in any sense of the word-- Any loudspeaker that needs that much active equalization to have acceptable sound is not based on sound engineering. The comparison is striking, and yes, the Cornwalls can be completely merciless with respect to poor program material, but that's not a shortcoming, it's a blessing. Bose went to the foam surrounds and porting with the Series III speakers. I specifically selected the Series II speakers just for that reason-- They are considered by Bose collectors to be the most representative of the 901 sound that Dr. Bose intended, with some cosmetic, mechanical and electronic improvements over the Series I system but with much tighter and disciplined bass than the ported designs. (and foam surrounds that self-destruct.) As a music and antique phonograph collector, I wanted to add a set of these speakers because I consider them one of the iconic speaker designs of the 1960's and early '70's.

Hi Maxg, Yes, I actually have two of correct factory equalizers, and the one I use has been rebuilt, and definitely sounds better than the unrebuilt one. I can switch in either of two amps, both of which I also run with my Cornwalls-- either the Adcom GFA-5500 or the Scott tube amp that was rebuilt by Craig. The Scott doesn't really have the power to drive the 901's for anything but easy listening as primary speakers, but it works well when I'm using them in ambient mode. The Cornwalls sound great with either amp.

I have a set of mint series II's (with the Walnut filler panels) that I use for ambient fill in the back of the room with my Cornwall-I's in the front. I have, on a number of occasions, moved them to the front next to the Cornwalls to be able to compare them A-B. Absolutely no contest folks. The Series II's are lifeless and dull next to the Cornwalls and can't compete with them in any way-- dynamic punch, detail in any part of the bandwidth, or the bandwidth itself. My good spouse was having trouble understanding what I meant by being able to hear "micro detail" in music reproduced by the Cornwalls, but could clearly hear instruments and dynamics with the Cornwalls that were buried with the Bose speakers. That notwithstanding, I do sometimes enjoy listening to the Bose as primary speakers, but only for relatively simple music and at lower volumes. If I only had room for two speakers though, the Bose would depart without hesitation on my part. I suspect that the original poster would not be as impressed with the 901's if they were fairly compared to his Klipshorns in his own listening room using the same music. I've visited Bose factory stores (we have two Bose outlets nearby) and I didn't hear anything in the store that I considered to be worth even a fraction of the price they were asking. If anything, Bose seems to prey on ignorant consumers that don't have the technical knowledge to understand why so many of the company's advertising claims are ludicrous.

I might be the only practicing pro photographer here, so my comments will be coming from that perspective. I sure get a kick out of reading these comments from audiophiles-- Just as entertaining as reading a discussion of audio by camera nuts!! I waited quite awhile before switching from film do digital, mainly because there were no digital SLR's on the market with the capability of matching the physical performance of my Nikon F5's while providing enough resolving power to replace 35mm film. When I did switch, it was a complete system switch to Canon Digital and their watershed product, the EOS 1D-Mk II. This was the camera that (virtually) the whole pro SLR industry changed to, especially PJ and sports photographers. The low noise 1.3 crop sensor and 8.2 MP, 8 frames per second throughput, not only did the Mark II easily replace the Nikon film camera, I found in actual practice that the camera produced better images than the film camera. Why? Although the digital images don't have the outright resolution of film, the lack of grain and the low noise of Canon's imaging chip gives a big practical advantage to digital images compared to scanned film images. In other words, an 8.2 MP image from the digital camera can be enlarged and sharpened much more than the scanned film image. In practice, my Mark II system captures images at ISO (speed) ratings two or three stops faster than film at equal grain/noise levels. That gives a very practical shooting advantage. For my clients, the digital system has improved my turnaround times substantially compared to film. For example, I can shoot a professional portrait session (50-100 portraits on location) and supply a finished proof disk (color corrected proofs) to the client before leaving for the day. After the client selects the desired images from the proof, I can then do the post production (cropping, vignetting) and send the images to the lab with a few hours work. My images have much more consistent color quality and uniformity than I could ever get with film, and for portraits, there is actually too much resolution. I never print in house except for special jobs, and my pro lab is just as happy (actually happier) working with digital sources than with film. For architectural and landscape photography, the story is a bit different. Many architectural clients don't need high resolution, and the DSLR with a tilt/shift lens works well. However, some jobs require more resolution and/or more extreme movements than the tilt/shift lens can provide, and then the 4X5 camera comes out. Landscape photography rarely needs much in the way of camera movements (other than to maximize depth of focus) but the larger film gives the ability to resolve much finer details and fine tonal graduations with a wider color gamut than I can get with the digital SLR. That doesn't mean that digital can't do this, it just means that I don't do enough of this kind of work to invest in a large or medium format digital back. On the other hand, with some subjects, I can use high dynamic range or tiling techniques with the digital SLR and do things that I couldn't even dream of doing with a large format or medium format camera, such as shooting and printing subjects with 11 or more stops of dynamic range or stitching panoramics with 80 or more gigabytes of information. For all practical purposes, the medium format backs with a good quality lens very easily replace medium format film systems and can approach 4X5 film quality, but I haven't seen anything yet that can capture the sheer mountain of information that a 5X7 or 8X10 film format can capture. On the other hand, these are not very practical solutions for most photographic situations compared to DSLR like the Canon EOS 1Ds-II or Hasselblad H2 with a medium format digital back. My bread and butter is tabletop product photography, and here's another area where digital has successfully replaced film. In fact, I have several clients who used to demand medium format transparencies, and they are not only happy with 8.2MB digital images, they like them better! This goes back to the lack of film grain, which for all practical purposes is a form of noise. The other big factor is the ability to deliver images that have far more consistent white balance and exposure over the course of the job than I could ever get with film. Even with constantly rising costs, I've been able to drop my per-image prices to the client by half (yes, that's HALF) of what I had to charge three years ago for film. Why? Because I can shoot a job in 1/3rd (or less) the time than before, and my costs have gone down substantially because of the time savings and not having to spend approximately $2 per shot for polaroids, film, processing or scanning. My final, finished costs per shot for a job for digital have dropped to about $2 per shot including setup, shooting, post-production, proofing and archiving, compared to about $15 per shot (several years ago) for medium format film. Why? Since almost all clients need output in digital format, I had all the same post-production steps for film as digital, plus the extra costs of film, processing and scanning. Most importantly, film required a lot of extra work and expense to set up the session and get the best exposure and lighting, while this is a simple, very controllable process with digital because of the ability to instantly review a test image and adjust lighting and exposure. Except for a few niche areas, film is as dead a product for the professional industry as it is for the amateur photographer. With the continuous improvement of digital imaging sensors, I see digital being able to replace film across the board in a few years, even in some areas where film currently reigns, such as high-resolution, high lattitude black and white photography. We are even nearing a threshold in cinematography, and I think you'll see cinema film cameras completely replaced by digital systems over the next ten years. You'll see digital cinema systems that can not only match the performance of film, they'll far exceed it with much better noise characteristics at high speed, and large sensors that can provide the shallow depth of focus that is important to the cinematographer, all in packages a fraction of the size of current camera systems. They will also provide instant review to help balance lighting and exposure. I haven't shot a piece of film in over a year now. There is simply no demand for it. I did get a kick out of the reactions to fast optics-- Amateur photographers are just as susceptible to how the stuff looks as audiphiles are to the styling of equipment, even when the performance is not there. Fast optics can never approach the performance of slower lenses, and a lens like the Nikon 50mm f1.4 AIS (or the newer AF-D) can't match the performance of a much cheaper optic like the 50mm f1.8. The only advantage is the ability to shoot under lighting conditions that are a half-stop darker, a poor tradeoff in my opinion. If anything, the main advantage of a fast lens is the brighter viewfinder image for composition and focusing.

Michael Nyman Gattaca Motion Picture Soundtrack Virgin Records A powerful, understated score for a brilliant motion picture about the triumph of human spirit over the promise (and curse) of genetic advantage.

Good grief, why would you ask strangers who are communicating with each other over a piece of wire if your speakers good or bad? If they sound good to you, THEY SOUND GOOD TO YOU. How much more can you ask? It's time to upgrade when they don't sound good to you.

It's probably part human nature and part ignorance. Face it, we all complain and whine at one time or another, and some people have fairly negative natures. I've known people that others tend to avoid because their conversations are centered around complaining about one thing or another. The ignorance part comes in because people don't seem to know how to solve problems, and I'm not talking about young people necessarily. I know plenty of mature folks who can't approach and solve the most basic problems, like how to deal with a defective product or poor service. And in the case of many, they have a strong desire to avoid any kind of conflict, and do not want to deal with the other party out of this fear. Hence, complaining on the internet is safe, non-confrontational, and must be satisfying to someone who feels ineffective and powerless. It's not a new phonomena at all-- pick up a paper and read the "Reader's Voice" or "Voice of the People" page. You'll find plenty of complaining by people who have made no attempt to contact the other party first.

This thread is a little old but here's a note on paypal: When you use your bank account as the money source, paypal cannot transfer money out of your account without specific authorization from you. If they do so anyway, contact your bank and inform them that the transaction is unauthorized and they will reverse it. Paypal will have to show that you explicitly authorized the transaction, and simply saying you authorized chargebacks through TOS will not fly with your bank. Chargebacks are not transactions intiated by you and there is no way they can show that you authorized a paypal-initiated chargeback, and it will not stand. Generally what they do in this case is go to your secondary source, which is usually a credit card. That won't do them any good either, because once again this is an unauthorized charge, and credit card companies won't allow paypal to use a credit card to chargeback for a transaction that didn't involve the card in the first place. Credit card companies also won't allow paypal chargebacks from credit card authorizations if the bank has removed the charge through their dispute process. Since paypal is acting as the agent for a third party, if you don't receive what you paid for and have the charge removed, there is nothing paypal can do about it other than to cancel your account. (Which is what they do.) Ever wonder why paypal tries so hard to get you to use their credit card? Now you know. I remain surprised that Paypal is still in business after all these years. They are essentially operating a bank but not complying with state and federal banking laws. If real banks operated like paypal, they would have been shut down and charged criminally years ago. I guess they are greasing all the politicians big time to stay in business.

I also have the VPI 16.5 and the Disc Doctor system and I'm very happy with it. I use it for 78's, 45's and LP's. I'm always remain surprised at how much crud it can remove from records and how much better they sound after cleaning.