jdm56

You may well be nuts, but not because you want to put huge speakers in a very small room. I tried that once myself about 30 years ago, with ESS speakers (Heil air motion transformer / 12" woofer & passive radiator). Not recommended! (The small room / big speaker thing, not the ESS speakers) I tried to do a stereo set-up in a 9X11 spare bedroom. I had it in there about a week and then it was back to the family room. The sound was closed in and airless (of course). The big klipsch speakers would be an even worse fit. I find you have to sit further away from horns than from conventional speakers for the drivers to blend --to not "hear" the tweeter, squawker and woofer as separate sound sources. The Heresy would be the only Heritage speaker I would try in that size space. A two-way Reference Series speaker may be a better choice even. RF-62's perhaps? Or better yet, RB-61's or 81's with the possibility of adding a small sub if needed. Any of these options will give you big dynamics, but nothing is gonna give you a big soundstage, save maybe a small pair of Mirage omnis.

Most people who should know seem to recommend placement in the front of the room, but in my HT room, the only good place for subs, performance-wise, is in the rear corners. The only concession, for me, has been the necessity to keep the crossover at or below 80 Hz to avoid any bass localization issues. Otherwise, I've had no problems with having the subs back there. So no, I wouldn't say rear placement is a bad thing at all. Whatever works!

A few years ago I could barely hear 12500Hz. I probably couldn't hear even that high now. But you know what? Thankfully, I enjoy music as much or more now as I ever did before. I had too much exposure to loud farm noise (tractors, combines, hammermills, chain saws, etc.) before I learned to wear protection. And once your hearing is gone, it's gone for good.

I'm a huge Elvis Costello fan. I don't get Sundance channel, but I'll be watching for the programs wherever I can find them. Thanks for the heads-up!

Check'em out now! New look on the website; Almost all new product lineup; Products actually appear to be available for sale! On the downside, prices have gone up and the models I looked at had amps that do not have speaker-level inputs and outputs.[]

Hard to compare the two. Cornwall III's list for $1750/each; La Scala II's for $3000. That's a pretty big difference in my world. Whether or not the LS2's are worth it to you is a Q only you can answer. The La Scalas will also require subs for HT use, where the CW2's won't. But, if you have heard the LS2/Klipschorn midrange, and love it, only the LS2 or Klipschorn will satisfy you. If not, or you're looking for max value, the Cornwalls are hard to beat.

Hey, simple is good! I'd just be looking to add either a CD player and/or a network music player (Squeezebox!!). High sensitivity returns low distortion and outstanding dynamics! Otherwise known as klipschsound.[]Your room looks like the kind of room in which your significant other may limit your freedom to experiment with speaker placement. But, perchance the good lady of the house allows, getting the speakers a bit further apart may improve the sound.

Beee-ute-eee-full Belles! My vote for most beautiful klipsch heritage of all may just go the the belle. Plus, I'm a sucker for the oak w/ black grilles. And while we're bragging about our he-manly heritage heave-ho's, I myself have moved a pair of klipschorns all by my lonesome! Tremble in fear, mortals!

I've heard very good sound from Maggies and Martin-Logans, but to me there was always a deal breaker. And that was the way the dynamics flattened out when the volume hit a certain level. True, below that threshold they can be magic, but they just don't float my boat, especially for zee rawk und roll. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Different kinds of music come through better with particular types of speakers. So if you listen to only rock at life-like levels, you're apt to prefer a different design than the dude (or dudette) who only listens to chamber music at background levels. My problem is I like too many different kinds of music too much to want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all, baby! Fortunately, my LS2's (with subs) come pretty darned close to giving it to me!!

AV output on 8mm camcorder to front panel AV input of DVD recorder! Piece of cake, as they say. But it is pretty slow because you can only dub in real time. On the plus side, I get to stroll down memory lane for two hours per tape.

I was dubbing some old home movies from 8mm onto DVD-R the other night and came across some footage from 1990-92. And there, reappearing right before my eyes due to the magic of magnetic tape, was my old '85 Cornwalls, radiant in all their oak oil / cane grilled glory. I sold'em way to cheap and I do miss them. Of course, I've got my LS2s' and no place for another pair of big speakers...unless the Mrs. would let me put them in the front room. With the economy the way it is right now, there's no way she'd go for that, though.[] Oh well, I'll wait and maybe when things perk up she'll come around (the corns were her favorite) and I can find a nice pair somewhere... ...Dreaming is good! So, what speakers do you miss the most?

I really like Springsteens kinder, gentler music anyway. The "Nebraska" and "The Ghost Of Tom Joad" stuff. I never was so much into the anthems. "Born To Run" is great, though.

OK. I was missing that they were 3-ways. I didn't remember that from what I had read about them. I did think 10k was a bit on the high side for an 8" woofer![] --Like, about two or three octaves.[^o)][] I'd love to hear some!

...yeah, I thought The Big Man on cowbell was kind of surreal...or sad; take your pick. Overall, I thought the performance was entertaining. Bruce had lots of energy, but he seemed so out of breath from all the running around that he couldn't sing worth a hoot. His voice sounded OK, but no breath. Plus, he more talked through the songs than sang. I worked Sunday, so I only got to see the halftime show and the second half of the game. I watched on a 32" tube with a little Klipsch GMX 2.1 set-up, so sound quality was plenty good enough for that.

"Made in the USA." That has a nice ring of it!

I've read a bit about those speakers. They are a very interesting design. I am surprised the x/o between the ribbons and the 8" cones is so high, though. I would guess the designer was trying to match the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers through the crossover range. That big 8" driver is going to beam over the top of it's passband (not necessarily a bad thing, imo). Of course, the proof of the design is in the listening, and I've read lots of good things about them. You obviously like them!

Cardinals 27 Steelers 24

Hey Phredd, what sounds best; the klf30's or the rf83's? Inquiring minds need to know.

[:$]

Did you get a pair of LS2's from Vann's? If so, congratulations! I agree that horns do tend to sound bigger. But I've put small a/d/s/ speakers in room corners and they sound huge. Of course, the imaging goes to pot, but they do sound big. It's a nice set-up if you really only listen as background music. Plus it keeps the speakers out of the way for a high WAF.[] But, I digress... Your ET's...do they use an 8" woofer and a dipole ribbon tweeter? If so, they are rather directional, I would think. But I'm sure the rear radiation from the tweeter adds a lot of air. Still, I would call those a controlled radiation design, due to the fact they aspire to relatively narrow dispersion in the front. Maybe nobody else would call them that, but I would![] I'm sure they sound much different than the klipsch, though.

Party On!

I am Ken, You are Ken, We are Ken! Long Live Ken!

Probably. Let's say you wanted to simulate being at the Spanish Steps in Rome. One guy hands you a super high resolution 4 x 5 color photo taken with a normal lens, another guy hands you a giant wall poster, but it's very bitty looking, like a newpaper photo, another guy gives you a 35mm slide to project, another guy gives you an 8mm movie, and yet some other guy gives you an oil painting he made when he visited. Everyone thinks they've done their job perfectly. Whichever gives you the best feeling of Rome wins. I doubt any will fool you into thinking you ARE in Rome. Maybe it comes down to the question of accuracy or faithfulness to what. Accuracy to the recorded information (controlled directivity), or accuracy to the perceived intent of the artist and/or recordist (pretty much everything else); or "subjective accuracy" if you will.[*-)]

I don't quite buy the car analogy. I can see it to a point, but the main difference is that speakers are attempting to recreate a prior acoustic event. I don't see the driving experience as a re-creation of anything.

Reproducing the electrical signal, that's what I mean by accuracy, too. Reproducing it without adding or taking away anything. That is the only kind of true accuracy a loudspeaker designer can aspire to. But that still leaves the question about the limitations of that two-channel signal. I think many designers recognize those limitations and attempt to correct for it with the speakers; by bouncing sound around the room in such a way as to more closely approach the original, live acoustic event. Isn't that the essence of what Amar Bose had in mind?[:S]