ClaudeJ1
-
Posts
9646 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by ClaudeJ1
-
-
2 hours ago, Dave A said:
A question asked before by us lovers of Chorus over Cornwalls. I think the answer will be no. It would have to be priced just like the Cornwalls since I would expect them to sound even better based strictly on my perception of what I have heard from the two cabinet types. I like the Chorus shape and smaller footprint and audio quality over all the Cornwalls but the CW4. I wonder what Roy could do if he applied the same recipe to the Chorus though. So there is this traditional thing too which has big sway at Klipsch. The Cornwall goes way back and the Chorus was a short termed interloper. I see no way for a blessing for a Chorus when the CW4 is as good as it is now. Why make two speakers that would compete for the same basic market?
Good question. But you can stop wondering. I heard the unveiling of the Chorus I by Woody Jackson (my tour guide in 1985 in Hope) at my Klipsch dealer (1986?). I asked him it was a replacement for the Cornwall. His reply? "We will let the market decide."
Well, lo and behold, the Market DID decide, so they brought the Cornwall back and made obsolete the Chorus, even after the Chorus II was created (Roy likely did much of that work, especially on the mid horn). I owned all 3 of those and the Cornwall was the market winner. Maybe because it was a true PWK Legacy product, created by him in the late Fifties.
My conclusion by observation, though not definitive. I'm sure Roy can give you a better answer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, The Dude said:
They're a great band, so I don't see why he wouldn't be.
I can tell your with certainty, that he would have hated all of it because of the Distortion in the instruments.
PWK hated rock, pop, and found acoustic jazz tolerable. He only listened to his own recordings of Symphony Orchestras, calling commercial releases "dilute stereo." All his recordings were made with only 2 Omnidirectional Mikes. He played several for me at his home (1985) and sounded pretty darn great!
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, avguytx said:
Yep. That was 1989 when Fred Klipsch bought it and the Voxx thing came around in 2011.
22 years was a pretty good run for Fred and Judy. Heck, the company sales went from about 20 million to 170 million, when Klipsch became one of the biggest speaker makers in the world before Voxx.
-
2
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, gigantic said:
seller wants $100 and is including 3 speakers and a subwoofer of an unknown brand that I can't quite make out in the photos. I can afford spend an additional $35 on a remote if i have to. selling the speakers should cover it.
Your progressive and practical frugality is admirable! Bang for buck be a good theme song.
-
1
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, Curious_George said:
Sony's always sounded "thin" to me compared to an Onkyo, Pioneer, Denon, etc. but it is the best sounding Sony I have come across.
Never had Sony AVR, only Denon and mostly Onkyo. Kept moving up until I could afford Yamaha, stuff. Pre-Pro and Power Amps. Nothing bad to say about Yamaha anything, including Pianos, guitars, drums, and PA gear! So yes, they know music from inside out. Oh yeah, motocycles too, but don't have one.
-
10 hours ago, Islander said:
Claude, I’m glad you agree, but it appears that some parts I typed may have been ambiguous. When I typed “superior circuit design”, I didn’t just mean the layout of the wires, I meant all the bits that are part of the design, including the carefully selected better quality parts, the ICs and transistors among others.
No matter; it appears that we agree that modern amplifiers and some other components tend to outperform earlier versions of these units, as designers and engineers learn more and have access to better parts.
Indeed. Like the term "the Tide raises all Boats," audio technology advances just as fast as other tech does. We have come a long way from 741 op amps and 555 timer circuits. Yet, those are still available pretty cheap for non audio applications. Not all old stuff is rendered obsolete by newer stuff, but in Audio, it's very rare that we go backwards since we have had 100 years of accumulated improvements available today, much cheaper than before, as well as outrageously more expensive. I heard the $$250,000 Dan D'Agostino Relentless amps on a 1.35 million dollar system (Wilson XvX with Subs) and a $600,000 turntable as part of the system as an extreme example.
In the 80's I did circuit boards for a transconductance power amp that used MOSFET transistors. The chief engineer used an Integrated Circuit for the input. It was a really good amplifier that would compete today if the company was still in business. Because of Marketing pressure, he had to come out with a "discrete transistor version" that sold for 50% more. He said it was a very difficult challenge get that "golden ear" version of the amp to measure and sound as good as the IC version. He just shook his head and rolled his when asked about why the expensive version outsold the cheaper one when measurements and extensive listening revealed absolutely ZERO differences. Except, of course, a "feel good" thing from buyers who believed the Bullshit about discrete transistors being better than the IC's. It depends.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, gigantic said:
There is an NAD 1600/2600 combo available in my neighborhood at a reasonable price, however in reviewing the back panel of my AVR, I've realized that I'll need to upgrade that first, to a model with pre outs so I don't have to futz with two set of controls every time I want to change the volume. So, first things first...
Pre outs were a prerequisite for my AVR's because I was bi amping and could not afford a Pre Pro at the time. Good point.
-
2 minutes ago, Curious_George said:
Based on what you wrote above, I would suggest a separate preamp and 2 channel amp. This will give you maximum flexibility. Try and find a NAD 1130 / 1155 / 1240 preamp. The 80's produced some good preamp gear and the price is nominal depending on who made it. These are excellent preamps for the price. Then seek out some 2 channel amps.
I don't disagree with this as a valid choice because 80's technology finally fixed Otala's TIM distortion issues.
Like Klipsch speakers over 40 years old, you have to contend with old components, especially capacitors, needing replacement, and now throw in oxidation on the RCA jacks, and noisy switches and volume controls are now your problem since all are out of Warranty! LOL.
-
On 9/19/2022 at 2:12 PM, gigantic said:
I currently have a Denon AVR that sounds great and does everything I need it to, but I've been seeinga lot of mention about having a dedicated two channel receiver. What's the benefit? also, is there an advantage to vintage 70's gear, which is all the rage these days, vs amps and receivers from the 80's and even now?
To the guy with low post count that called me a "schmuck" here, you are acting like a schlemiel or schnook, in my OPINION, and I'm still undecided about which is the best description.
I have NEVER resorted to name calling any poster on this forum in 16 years until you volunteered the term fueled by ignorance or inexperience.
The OP never asked anything about separates. Introducing yet another opinion on something unhelpful to the ask, and should not be considered in the discussions. But that has never stopped anyone from doing so, obviously.
To summarize my relevant responses, ignored or misconstrued:
Yes there are differences in amplifiers. When we compare, side by side, modern AVR's (used in 2.1 only), to older 2-channel only Solid State products with no remotes, worn out 'lytic caps, noisy pots, and no Subwoofer outputs, Age becomes a factor, and that is most certainly Audible when compared in "apples to apples" fashion.
I see no relevance to saying "well, the amps can't do XXX watts when all channels are driven" when the output is to be used in 2 channel only, with or without subwoofers. There is nothing "comical" about choosing the newer, modern gear vs. older stuff.
-
On 9/25/2022 at 10:38 AM, Zen Traveler said:
Yep. I learned way-back-when that my RF-7s had a jagged frequency response curve, with a couple of impedance dips below 4 Ohms (I also remember reading 3 Ohms, but don't think that was confirmed) and above what would be crossed over to a sub. It seemed that finding a power source rated for 4 Ohm speakers was needed/beneficial since I like to listen loud. That could be a reason so many RF-7 owners would benefit from a seperate amp but also upper-end AVRs (especially THX Ultra II UNITS) fit the bill and that's the route I took.
Upper end AVR's are more affordable than separates, with really great perfomance in 2 channels, which was the OP's request to start with!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Tom05 said:
If people claim to hear a difference I believe them.🤓
So do I, but when someone gives an all encompassing GENERIC opinion, like: "Modern AVR's don't sound as good as old 2-channel amplifiers." The Bullshit button comes out of the drawer in a millisecond! Almost as bad as the "high end idiots" on other forums that say "all horns sound colored."
A better example, from another forum, is the false belief that old Altec 15" woofers (overpriced at $1,500 each new from GPA) have "magical properties" when those of us who understand Thiele/Small parameters KNOW and can PROVE that modern 15" woofers, by measurement AND Listening, outperform them in every way for 1/8th of the Price!!
The prevailing attitude there is "screw measurements, my ears never lie." As if every audio product was never measured during their iterative development to the point where they can finally be heard. Those are the ultimate Bullshit statements. Like in politics, the truth is hard to find.
-
2
-
-
On 9/25/2022 at 11:18 AM, jjptkd said:
Obviously different amps sound different otherwise as stated before why wouldn't there only be a single best design? Some of these threads look like they belong over at ASR..
If someone asks for very specific advice, they should get valid details when advice is given, besides the kind that reads "it's my opinion and screw you if you don't agree" type of answer with subsequent stubbornly digging the heels in defense of said opinion, easily strays from the original request.
Besides the term Bullshit, propagated by PWK himself (Buttons and T-shirts) should Never be construed as swearing or an insult on this forum of all places. If I were the OP, I would choose the opinions to consider wisely, since there's money involved, with ZERO financial responsibility on the part of the opinion givers.
I've been here since 2006, trying help others and sharing good/bad experiences in the process. I assure you that my integrity is and shall remain intact, regardless of the reactions to my text, whether deserved or not.
-
16 minutes ago, Curious_George said:
My JBL L100 killers (another name for my non-stock Heresy I classics or HIP's) sound awesome after the changes. If I had to give up all my speakers, I'd keep these and a powered sub.
You are not alone with this conclusion.
-
So to skip all the bullshit (even my own)................I have owned Denon, Yamaha, and various Onkyon AVR's in the past 15 years. I now use separate Pre Pro and discrete power amps, with Gain Controls to allow the full operational benefits of AV technology as part of a BETTER 2 channel experience.
Starting with the modern remote controls. Add to that having 1 or 2 SUBwoofer outputs, which all main speakers need, but you still have the option Not to use it when living in an apartment (I lived in both apartment and houses so I know about pissing off neighbors with to much bass). Now throw in the ability of having Room Correction for 2 channel as well as 5, 6, 7, 9 or 11 total channels if you wish, but we are talking about using only TWO. So the issue of not meeting the power specs written by marketing department does not apply for 2 channel usage, as stated by the OP.
Everyone who ever heard my "Indy System" in 2 channels with subs, that used an Onkyo AVR as it's main control unit, driving a Klipsch K-402 mid with K-1133, and B&C DE-250/QSC horn lens with signal level output to power amp/gain unit on my Quarter Pie horns said it was the best they ever heard with subs off, and the best they ever FELT with my subs ON.
So going forward is a better choice than going Backwards as other opinions have suggested here.
But hey, it's your ears and your money so you can choose all the bullshit you want here. Mine or anyone else's. But I do claim to have lots of experience that says "it depends." Either way it's your choice after all.
-
2 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:
So let me get this straight. If I don’t believe an audio/video receiver sounds as good as a well designed two channel amplifier, I am a fool?
You didn't get anything straight about what I said, obviously. You called yourself a fool, not me. But I do consider those who take internet opinions as absolute, as foolish. Especially those opinions assumed to be facts not immediately backed up by experiences, scientific findings, history, facts, etc. as part of HOW and WHY the opinions are even so STRONGLY stated to being with.
-
On 9/19/2022 at 2:12 PM, gigantic said:
What's the benefit? also, is there an advantage to vintage 70's gear, which is all the rage these days, vs amps and receivers from the 80's and even now?
Back to our regularly scheduled program based on the OP.......................
All other things being equal? No benefit. There are very benefits in going backwards in technology. The exception would be: only if you love desoldering tired old Electrolytic Capacitors and replacing them with Gold Nichicon caps and also spraying de-Ox-It on the pots and switches, there are very few benefits, other than pretty, shiny aluminum knobs the Japanese were champs at creating. Sound benefits? None that can be proven otherwise.
In case you missed it when your read the naysayers Opinions with missing or incomplete data.
On the "even now," part of the question? Are you asking about now buying 70's and 80's stuff?
If so, Dr. Matti Otala's TIM distortion discovery in Solid State POWER amps in the 70's was not fully implemented in most consumer products until the 80's. After that, Low TIM implementation marched forward in all amp technologies as part of the goal and taken pretty much taken for granted. RIP to the man who found the slew rate issues that allowed Tube Amps to sound better than SS for too long. You can't ignore history if you want to give opinions based on progress and facts.
If "even now" means buying new stuff, it's hard to go wrong with modern class D performance if you want real performance without raising the ambient temperature of your room in the process.
-
3 hours ago, billybob said:
Depends on the AVR, and the dedicated separate as to quality of reproduction...☕
I see someone actually makes sense!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:
work backwards from there on a best-bang-for-your-buck and diminishing returns philosophy. 😊
Good philosophy.
-
2 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:
It’s my opinion. You don’t get to call bullshit on my opinion. You can take that shit somewhere else…..So can you. But you know that neither of us will.
-
14 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Question, why should someone who has actually done things have an opinion more valuable then bloviators who have not? Just asking for a friend.
LOL. I even attended a direct radiator based loudspeaker design showcase yesterday in Grand Rapids (about 20 people total). I was amazed at the overall Quality of sound from small boxes and small drivers. Each speaker got equal time, set at 83 db level, playing the same songs, regardless of size.
However, 90% of them could not be played too loud, or their distortions became self evident. No horns were there, and there was some impressive, creative cabinet work with a few very clever designs. We all agreed that none of this would be possible today without the existence of free/cheap computer design tools for speakers/crossovers and measuring equipment. We've come a long way from the $20,000 required for a TEF system in the 70's, that's for sure.
The most impressive sounding speaker was using the latest Carbon Diaphragm woofer and tweeter drivers, with Twin opposing shallow 12" Subwoofers in a beautiful slim box that went down to 23 Hz. Guess what? The Canadian/Asian kid (28), a computer programmer, used Hypex 3-way, class D amps in the back of the box. He was the clear winner and the only one who could reach Klipshorn Level outputs. He did say he needed 14 db of boost at the low end to do it, however. Funny part is, the "kid" called it a Bookshelf speaker. Moral of the story, he needed about 500 unclipped class D watts to reach highest output when we asked him to "turn it up."
-
1 minute ago, henry4841 said:
Must have good eyes and do not sneeze for those diy'ers playing with those things. Wave of the future for sure. My last phono preamp was all surface mount.
I had one of the very first SOT-23 in my hand in 1980 when designing the motherboard for the world's highest capacity hard drive at that time. Originally, SO stood for "Swiss Outline" because it was used in early electronic watches (remember the Bulova Accutron?). I wrote the very first article published in the SMTA newsletter, but I can't remember what year, all before the internet was born. In production, you can't beat the modern "chip shooters" that can "speed plop" into solder paste at 15-30 components per SECOND with 0.1 mm precision and repeatablity. The only thing we should consider COMICAL (the latest word by a few here), with verifyable PROOF, is looking at hand wired tube amplifiers that are 40 dB Noisier than modern Solid State gear!
-
2
-
-
On 9/22/2022 at 5:54 AM, henry4841 said:
What can I say, those newer chip amps sound really good. Instead of tube computers we now use a computer designed around a chip, or as some call them a processor.
Many PhD's (mostly from Japan) who are chip designers and integrators that have touted the superiority of IC's vs. discretes for years. As a former Printed Circuit board designer, I would throw in PARASITICS as root cause of all the minutia of differences that may or may not exist. Either way, I was a pioneer of Surface Mount Technology, which has yielded smaller electronic assemblies with much better signal performance by minimizing the presence and subsequent effect of parasitics. Too bad existing and future word parasitics with negative contributions can't be filtered out on the web.
-
1
-
-
On 9/21/2022 at 2:07 PM, Shakeydeal said:
I'm sorry, but I am dismissing receivers out of hand. They are fine for car crashes and dinosaur stomps, but have no place in a high fidelity system. Before anyone gets too worked up, the usual disclaimers apply; YMMV, IMHO, etc., etc.........
And the bullshit keeps on rolling along.......................you have to equalize variable in order to have a valid comparison, which, clearly, the naysayers here do not do.
-
1
-
-
On 9/21/2022 at 9:51 AM, Joecoulson said:
Maybe because you say that if SS is to be used, that it doesn’t matter to have an AVR type amplifier vs the separates. That is comical.
Your opinion has no basis. Another cheap shot while hiding behind a keyboard, like all the internet people with opinions stated without proof............................something PWK didn't approve of.
Meet Roy Delgado
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
Clearly you have not identified who or what "one" is/was that was supposed to do the "replacing."
I had all horns (K and LS center) for over 30 years from my early 20's, when I could finally afford them after hearing them when I was 13 years old.
I actually didn't like the Cornwalls because they took up more Corner space than the Khorns (try it), so to this Klipschead (following PWK's principles), they should have been called Corncorns.
I bought my wife a pair of Heresys in 1983, and they provided "cleaning music" for her as they sat up on the top of dining room cabinets, firing into the living room.
So basically I didn't care about any of the Bass Reflex offerings, or keeping track of what was what. I only mentioned what Woody Jackson (VP of Marketing at the time) literally said to me, and nothing more. Fast forward to the present day Cornwall IV, I would say that the market DID decide, even though it took a while and some new owners to the second power for it to happen.
So basically I was both ignorant and indifferent the "tweener" period of history you speak of.
IOW, I didn't know and I didn't care! (still don't). But I just thought a statement from a Markeing/Sales guy who became K&A President thereafter was properly quoted and that it would add to the history for those interested.
PS: When I began my quest for Home Theater in the new millenium, I had both Chorus I and II as surround channels until I got more LaScalas to go with my MWM stack, but that's another story for another time.