KT88

16 Ohms is Z, I just measured the unconnected KV55A with new but original diaphragms at 10,3 Ohms DC to give you a ballpark.

I'm sorry, but I see a lot of your posts @Stephen Buckas confusing stuff. In some places what you say is debatable (in my view), but in other places you contradict yourself. I'll make a bet that anyone who posts so much in such a short space of time, even without waiting for replies, is usually out again faster than you might think. Not that others do this, you do it by yourself. I appreciate your posts but I have the impression that you post so much that it's impossible to reply because five new posts are being fired off by you in the meantime. This leads me to my real question: .... Do you want to be part of this community or do you want to burn off a quick firework and then do the same thing somewhere else...without developing your skills? If you are not able to wait for a discussion/reaction to your posts but keep on firing with more and more posts, then I have to assume that you don't really care about the answers of the members of this forum. The point is that a forum like this is due to its (thank God) openness about exchange, sharing experiences and communication, but at the same time it is always a platform for self-promoters for a short time due to their very short half-life. Perhaps you would like to think about this? I am always open to surprises and new impressions. It would be super cool if you only had one start issue. Why? Because a good part of your posts are very relevant and interesting in my view.

Stephen, I honestly have the impression that your statements are somewhat confused. Sonicaps don't sound quieter than original Klipsch caps. They even sound louder, but negatively louder, sharper, more metallic and edgier. They have a Q that is absolutely not compatible with Klipsch midrange horns. I don't share your idea that Klipsch should make the Xover a showpiece. It should remain inconspicuous, it is only a means to an end.

I can confirm it. As far as I can tell, my old LaScala is one of the speakers I know that takes the most getting used to. It's a psycho-acoustic wonder. My speakers are well-rehearsed, nothing changes anymore. But when I put them away for two months to listen to my BBC speakers, for example, the first day back with the LaScala took some getting used to, to put it mildly, harsh, metallic violins, thin bass colored treble etc etc. The second day they sounded completely normal and from the third day on the sun rises and never sets again. I'm not saying that the topic starter has not legitimate reasons to check everything technically. BTW @GravityBored if you look, I have made threads on the capacitors and the autoformer of the AA Xover. You are brand new to the forum, so you may not know. But the original Klipsch capacitors, which are now available from JEM (see above in the technical section) will make your LaScala sound completely original again. You can also buy the original Autoformer again. The one in your third party crossover has different values and makes the midrange horn sound unnatural. Don't ask me why I know all this. BTW @OO1 had posted somewhere the real good diaphragms, because there are a lot of cheap bad copies around..

Somehow I've lost the plot in this thread. But no offence, I don't want to bother anyone.

@mikebse2a3, thanks for the review from a real user. I only found Amir's review and he was somewhat critical, at least of his measurements. At the end of the day, the decisive factor is whether such a device helps the user in his environment, and that is very credibly the case with you.

I suspect that you @Flevoman want to explore the fundamental difference that this DSPeaker device makes regarding the modes and the 150 Hz peak. I'm always curious what a device should NOT add, and I found it at Amir...even if it's a predecessor of your new device, the DSPeaker doesn't seem to be on par with my 16 year old Yamaha SP2060 (which I use for my UJ) when it comes to ADC and DAC quality only. Your question to Shakeydeal could therefore be legitimate. Here is what Amir from ASR measured regarding the converter qualities (of the predecessor model of the DSPeaker). https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dspeaker-anti-mode-2-0-dual-core-room-eq-review.15624/

@Von Hoellert If I were looking for a Cornwall, I wouldn't waste a second and would buy this Cornwall 1 immediately....directly to the Netherlands.... 2 to 3 hours drive from Cologne and catch this CW1 @Flevoman linked. It has often been said here that the CW1 sounds better than the CW3, but I would leave that to those who have already experienced it. If money is a factor, then the CW1 for €1,150 is three times the better buy than the CW3 for €2,500. You might have to replace the capacitors, but that's about it. The photos look like they inspire confidence, it's not for nothing that the seller has a Mcintosh amp from the same period as the CW1. I have already posted it elsewhere in the forum. I use hifishark.com, a hifi metasearch engine that collects updated adverts from everywhere on the planet. You can register for free and get an email every day with new entries. Martplaats from the Netherlands is also scanned, as well as Audiomarkt, Ebay, Kleinanzeigen etc. from Germany. You have to scroll down a bit to skip all the US offers. Here is an example link, you could also search more selective for e.g. Cornwall 3. https://www.hifishark.com/search?q=Klipsch+Cornwall

If you are looking for an older variant, then I would definitely not rule out the CW1. I don't know the Cornwall family personally, I've had a 1977 LaScala for 25 years. Its midrange and treble drivers are identical to the CW1. I am very satisfied with the sound. You have to do something yourself here and there. I have often read here that people are very happy with the CW1. Whether people like a CW1 better than the CW3, let others who have experienced it tell you. Here is the thread of someone who has just restored his CW1 very nicely at the end, technically and optically.

Germany has many large cities in close succession. Why don't you go to a dealer and listen to the CW4? It may not be the sound in your home, but many other interested parties don't have the luxury of hearing a Klipsch speaker within a two-hour drive. Of course, you can't compare it directly with the CW3. But as Flevoman says, there are always good offers if you are patient. If you like the CW4 and you've bought it for a good price, you're unlikely to lose any money if you sell it again.

Have you heard other speakers you know on the same chain? Your complaint sounds a bit strange. There are people who want a bit more bass, e.g. if the room is too big for the Heresy, but this is the first time I've heard that it doesn't have enough clear treble. Are the bridges between the bass and high freq. inputs in proper contact? Of course, your profession means that I absolutely believe what you hear. If you have a transistor amp (don't do this test with a tube amp) remove the contact bridges between low and high freq. and make contact only to the highs and check close to the speaker if both horns, mid and high, are working.

Interesting what guitar guys talk about those tubes. Just the conversation I find interesting, not that there is final advise. https://www.18watt.com/viewtopic.php?t=4291

Thanks for your insightful post, Bananas and Blow. I first stumbled over your designation "RFT Siemens" for your NOS EL34. But you are absolutely right. When Telefunken, Siemens and other companies in West Germany stopped making tubes, they were supplied by the communist DDR (GDR in English for "German Democratic Republic") by RFT which means "Radio Funk Technik" ("Radio Wireless Technology"). Foreign, even US tubes were also labelled and came from RFT in East Germany. Here is a small article about the RFT EL 34 in German with pictures, which you can easily read in English with the google translator. https://www.jogis-roehrenbude.de/EL34-Story/EL34-Story-Seite4.htm

I've had an MC275 MK4 for 20 years, the last MC275 with the cable lugs and better output transformers than its predecessor, the MC275 CE. And on the other hand, it doesn't have those ugly speaker terminals like the Mk5 and fortunately not that fairground lighting like the Mk6 under the preamp tubes. You can also adjust the volume of the RCA inputs. If you want absolutely high sound resolution, you will choose the XLR inputs anyway. Ron C, a Mcintosh employee explained in another forum that the Mk6 only has its feedback loop at the output of the transformers so that the damping factor would be better. Well, it is no longer the original sound and it could explain these impressions that it sounds more analytical, but not necessarily more musical.

I know some tube amps, Leak, Quad II, Mc275 Mk4, Audion Silvernight 300 B, MC2102 belong to my collection next to the matching pre amps. I also know the EL34 quite well from my guitar amps. But I don't know the Prima Luna amps personally. Due to your enquiry I have now read a few reviews out of my own interest. What follows is my own personal conclusion. Everyone else can draw their own conclusions. In principle I think that an Evo 200 or 300 is a good amp that combines very smart vintage qualities like point to point soldering with modern features. Would I spend the extra money for the Evo 300? I think I can say very confidently...no. The versatility of the Evo 300 is praised in the various tests, also in German magazines. But in the end, all the testers ended up with the Ultralinear circuit and it was "nice" to hear the triode circuit from time to time. A little more softness but less stage and less timing and punch. There is a second option: you can swap the power tubes, but this is also possible with the Evo 200. Only...the plate voltage is fixed in all Evos, so the power remains the same, no matter which tube...and the EL34 has a damn good sound, it was good enough for the Radford STA25, one of the best tube amps ever. I wouldn't change the EL34, it has a nice sound. By the way, as a pentode it was never really intended for a triode circuit when it was built because it was too modern for that when it was developed. So, personally, I don't need the triode circuit or the exchange for a KT88 or any other power tube if I would buy an Evo. If you enjoy sound tuning...replacing the small 2 gain tubes at the input has a drastically greater effect on the sound than replacing any power tubes. Ok, the EVO 300 supposedly has slightly larger transformers, it has cables made of "Swiss copper" and it has a "high-quality looking" remote control. Sorry, that's marketing blah blah. PL has hit the nail on the head with the Evo200. And then they thought about how they could justify the Evo 300, hence the triode switching and the copper from Switzerland. Chocolate would be better. But, that's just me, others may think the triode switching is more important to them. And, ok, on a Lascala it might make more sense as an option than on any normal radiator speaker. I also have an old vinatage LaScala next to my Underground Jubilee. My LaScala prefers to play in ultralinear mode. I would perhaps take the option of the triode circuit at 20% extra cost, but definitely not at 60% extra cost. I would rather spend this extra money on records. Here are a few reviews. David Price is a very credible guy I know from youtube videos. May be you know all this reviews. https://www.stereonet.com/au/reviews/primaluna-evo-200-integrated-amplifier-review https://www.hifinews.com/content/primaluna-evo-300-integrated-amplifier https://www.avforums.com/reviews/primaluna-evo-300-integrated-valve-amplifier-review.18785/ Strangely enough, I have not found a single review where the other Evo was used for comparison. So in tests of the Evo200, nowhere was the Evo300 mentioned and vice versa. This leads me to suspect that Primal Luna expressly did not want this comparison, or that the testers were helpless to describe significant differences in sound, despite the Swiss chocolate. I have only found one test where the Evo 200 pre and power were tested as separate boxes, where they were tentatively compared with the Evo300 pre and power, without the result being that it absolutely had to be the 300. https://www.stereonet.com/uk/reviews/primaluna-evo-200-pre-power-amplifier-review

Personally, I take a technical approach to choosing an amp before I listen to its sound. By that I mean whether everything fits together really well electrically. I don't know the devices you describe from my own experience. But I briefly googled your Line Magnetic 33, and the output impedance of 10K ohms limits the number of usable amps somewhat. Another point, I have absolutely no idea to what extent these 300B amps really have a pre amp, as was the case with your Prima Luna, it had a real pre amp section. I don't want to talk these mentioned 300B amps down, I even do not know the circuits but you should be vigilant. There are plenty of tube amps with a volume pot and a selector switch that don't actually have a pre amp but only control the gain at the power amp input. I can only speak for myself personally. I am absolutely delighted with the reviews I have read about the Luxmann 550 AXII. The advantage is that it is a really well thought-out and sophisticated device that includes a real preamp. In the tests of the Line Magnetic 33 I read that it cannot drive a power amplifier directly to highest satisfaction. It needs a preamp or a real integrated amp to unfold its sonic splendour. And what would particularly appeal to me is that the Luxmann itself has a highly praised MC and MM phono input. I wouldn't shy away from comparing the two, Luxmann vs. Line Magnetic as you get the MC input „for free“. I'm perhaps a little biased because after 30 years with tubes, which I really enjoyed, I've now rediscovered SS. I had vintage Leak Stereo 20, Quad II, Audion 300B Silvernight power amps with EAR 864, and the last 23 years Mcintosh C22 CE with MC275 and MC2102. Now I have restored old vintage Quad 606 myself together with a Quad 34 Pre amp and EAR MC4 SUT. Don't laugh, the Quad gear is great, both with my vintage LaScala and my underground Jubilees. A bit like class A feeling due to the current dumping circuit. I love to enjoy my music without tube wear and tear and without tube rolling. If I were you, I would choose the Luxmann...also because then you don't have to experience any surprises with incorrect impedances, plus your CW4s may have high sensitivity, but they certainly appreciate the better control that the Luxmann offers.

I think this is a great story. You're looking for someone who "deserves" this Heresys, not someone who just can afford it. Very cool and entertaining too. I can't wait to see who the lucky one will be.

Merry Christmas to you all. Enjoy the wonderful time with your families and with us Klipsch family.

Merry Christmas to all and best wishes for your plans and endeavours in the New Year 2024 in good health.

Put simply, the damping factor is a measure of the control an amp has over the speaker. The damping factor is another way of reading the output impedance of a power amplifier. But even a very high damping factor is not ideal. Then speakers can sound cold and unmusical. On the other hand, these exotic super-low-wattage amps often have a damping factor that is far too low, which means that the frequency response is no longer linear, but a mirror image of the frequency-dependent input impedance of the speaker, with lots of bends and irregularities. Even the fact that a horn speaker could in principle cope quite well with an amp with too low a damping factor is torpedoed by the fact that the xover is not at all as simple as the horn itself. In principle, the use of weak SET amps is always a game of roulette and requires a lot of try and error. Amps with a poor damping factor work best with broadband drivers without xover, such as Lowther in a horn. Even if it's just my guess, too low a damping factor can cause such an amp to begin to resonate partially, causing unpleasant resonances like those in Chris Isaak's voice. It's all a question of priorities. Personally, I have found that SETs sound like paradise at the beginning and that after a while my impression is that they colour everything euphemistically, which I mean negatively.

Are you sure? Two different speakers as a „wall of sound“ in one line? No cancelations, no different points of sound origin?

Take Little Wolf‘s room size into account and his positive experience with his room filling CW3.

You can try Qobuz at least in my country for 4 weeks for free. I am very happy with Qobuz after five years with Tidal.

Given the size of your room, I wouldn't choose the smaller Heresy. If you know the CW3 well then it's no risk at all to choose the CW4 because you won't get any nasty surprises. I mean the bass performance...no problems if you don't have any now. The gain would simply be better midrange and treble response...and probably better bass too. It's always very difficult to recommend a speaker if I know it well but if I don't know the room of the questioner. But you can only improve with the CW4.

I hear this resonance equally loud on both speakers. As nickyboy also says, it is inherent in the recording, perhaps a microphone resonance or whatever. It sounds just as negative with the SB as it does with the UGJ. In this freq. range both speakers normally don't make resonances that would come from themselves. Your LaScala is simply honest.