KT88

Very interesting tool, this "Puffin". It is also worth its own thread. Just very briefly in advance about the Puffin. A great idea, incredibly versatil, looks very nice, „musical“ like a guitar distortion pedal. I used to have the tilt function on a Quad 34 preamp and it was one of the best tone controls...as subtle as it was effective. Only...I am old school and look forward to vinyl sound that keeps analog. May be, Puffin is really good for some recordings and I must not use it for all recordings but can bypass it, then it makes also a lot of sense for me, not to adapt the cartridge but some of the records only.

This is an interesting topic turn that is also relevant in my view. While I mostly listen to jazz and classical, the Stones remain part of my test recordings to see if I find a system good enough. I become very skeptical when a system with Oskar Peterson "Nicght Train" or similar is presented, be it a show or private. This is a kind of music that sounds good on any system. But woe is me when it rocks and rolls and clangs and clangs. Then a system has to prove that it is really good. If you have an expensive high end and your favorite rock band only sounds good on the BBQ sound cube, you have done something wrong on your journey to the high end heaven of "total system satisfaction"…in my view. For me, of all the rock, rock jazz and blues bands, it's always the original mixes (that's another worthwhile topic - the remixes, which in my view are often mighty messed up, they very often steal the soul and organic balance from the music as it was intended. E.g. a Steely Dan remix album. Horrible, antiseptic and almost dead.. ). If you like it as a in my view good example of sound...I recently found the Tidal MQA version of the original mix of Little Feat's "Time loves a hero" album. "Red Streamliner" is my favorite song. The recording is just as old as my Lascalas.

Oh...it has become longer than I thought, but maybe one or the other reads it...even without fee for reading:) Perhaps the reason is because the OP brings an almost philosophical theme, and also a psychological one. I would like to contribute with my post from my point of view, even if the approach is somewhat circuitous. For many years I have not thought about the sense of increasing the performance of a single "ideal" system. In my experience, there is no goal of a single "best" system. This applies above all to the principle of the transducers. Sources and amplifiers can make a difference, but I think it is more valuable to have found such equipment that suits me personally than to have it be the next new amp because everyone is praising it in the reviews. With transducers it's comparable in the sense that I don't need to replace a conventional speaker with a similar one, because that would be a short-term false satisfaction. But sometimes a change of principle is an interesting journey of discovery. My changes of speakers are rather long-term over several years. From 2008 to 2018, the Pro Jubilees with K402/TAD/Yamaha SP2060 were my constant speakers. They are not sold but stored and when I change again, then back to these. Why did I want to change after 10 years? Well, I can share all the good and impressions that are known about the Jubs. But my room is 5.3 m x 6 m. Even if it is known that the Jubs work very well in such small spaces, it is rather the imposing impression of large very good headphones. In other words, the sound is outstanding but it doesn't blend with the room so good in first place if you know what I mean. I had forgotten that for a long period of time because the Jubs are so good. From 2018 until just a year ago I had BBC LS3/6. Here I had rediscovered the inclusion of the room. I was very taken by the richness of color and beautiful tonality of this LS3/6. Only...these criteria are not everything I expect from a speaker. After 2.5 years, other important criteria began to lack more and more. Especially the liveliness, the lifelike dynamics, the beautiful impulses. So I exchanged the LS3/6 for my Tannoy Canterbury, which I have also owned for 21 years. Here I must say that I was somewhat disappointed. All the merits of the Tannoys are there, especially this authority of the real thing, a vibraphone sound as if from a single mold. But, they can't map a stage, everything is next to each other on a two-dimensional string without depth effect. They will leave my collection and will be sold. Perhaps even for them my room is too small. It was better 20 y ago in a longer but narrower room. Well...since four months my old LaScala from 1977 are playing again. Next to the Jubs (but they would need rather the size of a classroom for the same effect of engaging and including the room) and next to my small LS3/5a (not to be confused with above mentioned LS3/6) they will continue to be my long term speakers. Of course, Lascalas don't have the room-filling fantastic quality of the K402, they don't reach as deep as the Jub Bass but they are reminiscent of the Jubs in their way of being a full horn. However, because the LaScala are smaller and the K400/K77 don't radiate as much room filling wide as the Jubs I have more of an impression in the sweetspot that my room is more included. At least that's how it sounds to me. One sentence on what the difference is for me. "Room filling" means that the speaker irradiates the whole room, but it focuses on the recording and the information it contains. "Room enclosing" should mean that the speaker is the source of the music, which then interacts with the room, its reverb, its reflections. Those are two very different things in my perception. In other words, the Jubs perform in my medium-sized room, subjectively comparable to a nearfield monitor at one meter distance…with all pros and cons. And unlike the large Tannoy, the LaScala simulate the impression of a stage. Who wants to hear how the sound engineer should buy studio monitors. Those who want the music to flow into their room might be much happier with Klipsch Heritage Speakers. I would also like to say that I appreciate LaScala even more for its features than I did 20 years ago. I have matured. I forgive the LaScala its weaknesses and I am even more enthusiastic about its ability to transform music into listening space. As a result, how the music "illuminates" means a lot to me. And that's where a change can make sense. Back to the initial topic. It doesn't make much sense for me to invest in a supposedly much better and more expensive LaScala, Jubilee or BBC box each. Of course I like to optimize and fine tune as part of the hobby but not under the compulsion of the supposed increase.

You always have a compromise. If you make the cabinet walls thicker or use a lot of braces, the time in which sound is stored could increase. This can manifest itself as time-smear and unmusical coloration. In the pdf link is an article from the year 1977 of the BBC research department. In figure 13 and 14 you can see that e.g. the double wall thickness sounds worse. http://www.diy-audio.narod.ru/litr/1977-03.pdf

Maybe my contribution does not help so much. But let's assume that your CW4 have no errors...Here was a long thread about the topic of whether running in is relevant or not. I am one of those who think it is relevant. Your CW4s are just unpacked. I think 200 hours of running in does not have to be to be able to basically judge a speaker. But I would look at what happens within four days when relatively loud music is played in the meantime. It's not just the woofer and its cone surround. It is also the capacitors of the midrange and tweeter that allow more bass when they are played in. There was already a thread here where someone on a remote island had the feeling that his new CW4 had no bass. Later it was quite satisfactory. Wait perhaps three or four days before you make a final judgement.

This is not meant to sound heretical. If the second system is to require less large investment for an amplifier, then perhaps I would consider a completely different approach. I have had a bluesound node 2i as a digital source for two years and have been very happy with it. Friends have the powernode 2i and are also very impressed. Now there is the new powernode (without additional letters) with 80 watts per channel. it should sound according to first reviews very excellent and it has a new digital generation of converter chips without becoming more expensive. If this combination router, converter, amplifier meets the need, I think it is worth a try. One can of course feed a turntable as well into the input. On the one hand we are talking about several 1000 dollars for tube amps. But on the other hand, this new generation of class D amplifiers is now quite mature and technically it has some similarities with SET amps. Personally, I will try this alternative next time I need it out of curiosity, even more as Heritage Klipsch speakers did not need so much power at all and the powernode seems to play quite well at low volumes also after what I have read. https://theaudiophileman.com/powernode-the-next-generation-news-bluesound/

The Leben amps (German for „Life“) looks immensely special and super elegant. I know the smaller Leben amps which I think are very good and which also have a wonderful sound. Of course we are in a different price range than an old Quad II. But the Leben is a gem. I like the Japanese manufacturing work of these small companies. The owner and designer was formerly with Luxman and is very highly regarded.

I also have an MC275 MkIV (along with C22CE) for 18 years as my main amp driving all sorts of speakers well, since a few months ago I rediscovered my old 1977 LaScala. The sound is just musical and fatigue free with this combination. It is so that the subject of amplifiers is closed for me. If an amp achieves this goal, it is a good situation. I have had mixed results with very weak amps. While they are very spacious and colorful, they are also fatiguing to me after a while. It's all subjective but I prefer a good current delivery capability to the holographic signature of a SET if there are tradeoffs associated with it on the other side. But to each his own. There is one amplifier I can highly recommend besides Mcintosh tubes. It is the old original Quad II monoblocks. Only 15 watts, but this is quite sufficient for LaScala or KH because this kind of moderate power is linked to a sensational current delivery capability with the Quad II. Quite a partnership with the Heritage series. They were originally designed to drive QUAD ESL 57, an electrostatic panel with a very treacherous impedance curve. That's why the Quad II can drive almost anything. They are a bit like imagining a V8 with a very modest horsepower rating but plenty of torque. Of course, I don't know if these amps are offered as often on your side of the pond as they are here.

I accept the free choice that everyone has. I find it interesting and invigorating for our audio hobby, what there are for manifold attempts and solutions and no one should be denied something. I don't want to make a crusade. But...$600 for a few drops of a magic water is, in my understanding, more likely to seduce mentally weak people. With all the freedom of experimentation, there is, on the other hand, common sense and proportionality. At least in the way that everyone individually considers right.

I hope I'm in the right place in this forum section if it's also about a scurrility. I just received this wonderful advertisement via email from an Audiogon link. https://www.highfidelitycables.com/Nanoparticle/NPS1260.php?utm_campaign=draudio_20210604&utm_content=draudio_20210604_message_a&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zaius&zm64_id=cmVoYmVpbi5oZWluekBuZXRjb2xvZ25lLmRl This is the revolution in our world of sound that many have been waiting for since decades. Until now I thought Audiogon was a reputable source. I am less interested in the result and effect that this miracle product promises. Rather, I wonder who is buying it, if any. Below after the text you can see the price. $599 for 3ml. In the pdf that you can click on, there is unfortunately nothing about the function of the miracle drug, but a lot of pages about the possibilities of getting very sick from it. Seriously, such miracle cures have a long tradition. There are also magnetic coils for cars that halve fuel consumption, or magic stones that prevents us from sick. What I want to say is that there is no stopping this kind of scam. Is it a funny part of our civilization? How desperate must someone be, mentally ill, ignorant, dissatisfied with their hifi system, or otherwise in a disposition to want to be seduced and deceived. I know, maybe it is superfluous to post about such a thing here in the forum, but just the fact that such an offer exists amazed me. Is it insolence, unscrupulousness, contempt, or what is it to put such an offer into the world? After all, it is phenomenon to try it as a seller. I am inspired also to try to write such a stupid text. Because writing the text is the only energy invested in this product.

Well, the baffle looks fragile, but I have the impression that it is reinforced and stabilized by the drivers themselves when installed, or am I wrong…perhaps similar to the parts of a chassis in racing cars, which only gain stability as a whole when they are mounted on the engine block and at the same time the position of the engine is strengthened. I think that the strength of the chassis is distributed over the entire surface around, and so the delicate parts of the baffle gain significantly more stability. To stay in your imagination of psychic indications, I prefer the neurosis of a thin baffle to the paranoia of countless bracings.

Or I should better say whether this method of remagnetization works. Because according to the provider, it is quite uncomplicated and rich in results.. So I.have found a reputable company that remagnetizes Alnico drivers among all other speaker restore measures. I have read a lot about complications e.g. that you have to disassemble the parts of the magnet and other stories e.g. that the drivers are shot across the room. I talked to the owner of this company on the phone. He says that it is not witchcraft. These photos below are from a documentary that was broadcast on German TV about his work restoring old speakers. I bought K77M yesterday through ebay. They will be delivered in about two weeks. It's just plan B in case the alnicos don't improve. But I will have my 1977 K77 alnico remagnetized at this store. I also ordered diaphragms from Michael Crites for my K55V. I will have these drivers remagentized as well. Measuring the magnet strength in the air gap is quite expensive as you would have to take everything apart, the voice coil has to be removed. But the company makes an input measurement of the frequency response and after remagnetization an output measurement. I will report back to you. I do this out of interest and curiosity. Although I get K77M delivered but I like the K77 alnico very much. They are just a bit too dull. Maybe they will radiate higher frequencies again. Costs are 25€ per driver which sounds reasonable.

Just as a good sub can make the mids sound even more colorful, so it is to some extent with supertweeters. Even if I can't hear 14000 Hz as a sine wave at my age, I can hear a more defined bass when I run a super tweeter, even if the digital program ends at 20K Hz. It probably has to do with the fact, as I once read, that phase drift with greater bandwidth only sets in at higher frequency and the mids and basses are less negatively affected. Here is the whitepaper on Tannoy Supertweeters as an example and the reason why regarding the effect. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/22286929/tannoy-supertweeter-paper-in-pdf-format

I want to apologize, I lost track myself yesterday sometime in the evening and accidentally posted in both threads. There was also a bottle of wine on the table....

If I am correctly informed there were the membranes with beryllium leads sometime in between? So I do not have these in the 1977 original equipment and I do not get them today? Are these membranes of today without beryllium leads at least as good as those of 1977?

Good you hear a sound improvement, Randy which underlines my way to go for new diaphragms. So far I do not listen to different colours:)

Dean, your description regarding the K55V diaphragms is very believable and so is the reason for your attempt (the guys of the Lansing forum). The result also seems very comprehensible. I would describe it like this in my words: The old diaphragm of the K55V does not get so bad over all the decades that a change seems urgent (unlike it becomes urgent after a while to change amplifier tubes or to clean the window). But when you hear new diaphragm in comparison it is still a significant difference.I will definitely give it a try after your explanation. BTW I‘m wondering if a brand new Atlas driver PD5-VH would perhaps even add magnetic strength (or not) and therefore high freq. sound or if it is comparably good just to change the diaphragm of a 45 year old K55V. I am wondering because the difference of costs is not so very big for what I could get. On the other side the new PD5-VH measures not higher than 4500 Hz in their own sheet. But that is measured without a K400 horn. BTW I have AA type xover and therefore the higher the mids go the better.

Thanks for your reply, Dean. Concerning the tweeters. As I want to stay with my original K77 (principally) and because I basically like alnico magnets I am wondering if new diaphragms for the K77 alnico would also make a difference. I like the sound like it is now but they could be a tad brighter. So would new diaphragms (no titanium in my case but good old phenolic ones) of the K77 make a difference? (Wishful thinking). Or not, a) because it is the magnets which are becoming weaker over the decades or b) because the current offerings of K77 diaphragms do not share the high quality of the old ones (when they were new) I would like it to hear that re the K77 the diaphragms would also make a positive difference. Or should I go for K77M to achieve the goal? My concern would be that the K77M is brighter and louder and good for rock music but would loose perhaps this special subtile performance the alnicos offer when a sound like strings starts out of silence?

Ok, this is not a big financial investment. Thanks for sharing your experience, Dean. Then I will try it out as well. What is the difference? More clarity, less distortion, louder or (also) more higher frequencies? I mean another set of phenolic diaphragms, no different materials regarding the midrange.

Regarding midrange membranes. I have K55V from 1977, they work excellently even today. If you have not yet received the shipment from Crites, please ask him to send new rubber gaskets for the midrange driver. They make a big difference after 40 years because the old rubber seals have most likely dried out or crumbled. This was the case with my 1977 Lascala. These gaskets are easily placed between the K55V driver and the horn after you remove the old gaskets. Then screw the driver back on bravely hand tight. The gaskets will make a difference to get the horn system airtight again and allow the full sound pressure concerning the whole freq. range of the driver. The original diaphragms could be good for another 40 years. Here you can see a pic of the gaskets. The crumbled gaskets do not allow to tighten the drivers smoothly they just stopp turning when screwed on. With the new gaskets you can dose the force how tight you go. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/200733-81-heresy-restoration-recommendations-please/&do=findComment&comment=2634406

I imagine what you say re the new horns Dean but will the Magnet of the driver, if it is a DE120, fit into the housing of the Lascala? Yes, the K77 works fine since 75 years the way it is mounted in Klipsch speakers but regardless of that it was designed to be used in a vertical mounting configuration ideally. It does not mean it is not ok or „wrong“ to use it horizontally mounted. That is what they say themselves also. https://mypicsonline.net/archive/archives.telex.com/archives/EV/Horns/EDS/T35A EDS.pdf

Unfortunately, I have not experienced this alternative yet, but it looks like it's optimized for horizontal orientation. Very interesting in any case. Question, will it fit from behind mounted on the baffle with the DE120 driver in the housing of the Lascala without that one has to grind mill and saw?

I can't give an answer that relates to the mechanics of the installation. But I would like to ask a basic question. Let's start from the original. The T35 /K77 horn was mounted from behind the baffle. Many years later it was mounted on the baffle from the front. Now there are alternatives like the CT125 and more recently the CT120. What were the considerations to design the horn of the CT125? I have Ct125, the horn is much longer than the K77. The phase plug is different. I don't know why...whether it was optimized for mounting from the rear, or sounds better mounted from the front? According to the design, the CT125 is also intended to be mounted on the baffle from the rear. I don't know the intention of the CT120, but isn't it that it is the same horn with a different driver...even if the connection between driver and horn is designed differently? Now back to the original horn. Just two days ago I wrote in another thread that the T35/K77 horn was designed as a diffraction horn. That means it should be mounted from behind the baffle and the travel way through the baffle has an intended function of the horn. But it should be vertically aligned according to the manufacturer EV. Only then it has a wider dispersion angle in the horizontal. I don't know if the same effect is true for the CT125/CT120. Regardless, many people here on the forum have spoken positively about the CT120, I haven't heard it yet, but like to believe it. Whether it sounds better when mounted from the front (horizontally) than when mounted from the rear is something you have to try. Something else. I think that the new K771 is a completely new approach. This horn has been designed from the ground up for horizontal installation. And it is designed to bridge the gap between old and new in such a way that it harmonizes perfectly with the K401.