Gliderguy3

Xytose: See my post on "which Image". There is not a lot of difference between the X5 and Custom 3 that I could hear. X5 has just slightly more pronounced mids (could really tell with a 1khz test tone, see mentioned thread for more details) If I had it to do over again I might only buy the x5's, but the custom 3s do have a slight improvement in sound, but then you have be pretty careful with the cord. See any of a multitude of other posts for the long rants on the custom series cords. I also own an X10 and S4. I think the C3 and X5 are tops for sound with only the slight midrange difference, and the more user friendly cable on the Image.

I now own Custom 3's, Image X10 and X5 as well as S4. I tried some side by side testing of the C3 vs X5 and C3 vs X10. I used a headphone splitter with my computer and some lossless FLAC files. I put the left headphone of one of the test sets in one ear, (for example, the C3) and at the same time had the other model (lets say X5) in the right ear. I listened to some music and some test tones, then alternated ears (C3 in right ear with X5 in left) and went back through the same sample tracks to allow for some high frequency loss in my left ear. The bass on all three units is very close. I have test tones at 200, 160, 140, 100, 83, 60, 50, 40, 31.5, 25, 20 hz as well as 1khz. Sarah McLachlan's "I love you" has a crazy strong bass line that sounds muddy on most speakers and headphones, I think it really shows how bad something with high harmonic distortion sounds. Klipsch products make it sound clean. I listened to some Chicago just for the horns and midrange. The X5 has a reputation for less bass, but I cannot really hear much difference. The C3 seemed to have a just noticable boost vs the X5 between 30 and 60 hz, but above and below that it seemed remarkably close. If there was some way to ABX tests headphones I think I would fail to discern the difference. At 1khz, the X5 was detectably louder no matter which ear. Treble on music did not seem to have much difference, but my hearing is sketchy above 8khz in my left ear. the 1khz boost I noticed with the X5 is probably where it gets its "forward" midrange reputation. I then compared the C3 to the original image (or X10). The bass was very similar again, but big difference at 1khz. the C3 was louder by quite a bit. the C3 has a sensitivity rating of 115 dB/milliwatt vs 110 dB/milliwatt over the X10. Looks like the X10 might be flat (but 5-6 dB below the C3) from the upper bass on up but with maybe a 5dB boost midbass down putting total bass output on par with the C3. I am not sure how sensitivity is rated but it looks like the upper bass and above must be the primary consideration. Finally I compared the two Image products. Almost deja-vu from C3 vs x10 - big difference at 1khz. If I could custom mix and match to build my perfect headphones, I would put the sound characteristics of the C3's into an X10 body and magically add a few dB more sensitivity (just because...). Since that doesn't seem possible, I think the x5's are just about perfect. If Klipsch could eq down the X5 midrange just a hair, I don't think most people could tell them from the C3's. I would take the bass from any of the three. After trying them head to head like this I think the differrence is really up higher and not down in the bass region. One thing I noticed with the C3 that I have yet to be able to duplicate with the X5 is they subjectively seem to be a bit more dynamic. Some recordings that I hadn't really thought much of in the past really took on a "live" feel, the snare and bass drums, as well as electric bass guitar sounded a lot more dynamic and live than I have ever noticed with any other headphone. the X10 remind me of some classic Polk Audio speakers I used to have, RTA12's. They were old when I got them, and may have needed some crossover caps replaced, but they sounded very smooth and were easy to listen to. If I were going on a 15 hour flight halfway around the world the x10 might win out over the x5 just because I think they would fatigue the ears less. I haven't done the S4 in this comparison, but back to back normal comparisons I am certain they have more mid bass than any of the others. Almost too much. I have found the reduced bass setting on a classic Ipod brings them close to the rest of the Klipsch family. Someone with better hearing than me will have to comment on the treble end of things. I am physically not capable of discerning a describeable difference with my current limitations.

I currently have a set of promedia 4.1 speakers, My new computer is a Sony Vaio L116 all-in-one with only a headphone out and an optical sound output. I need to find a simple preamp that can accept and decode the optical signal to discreet preamp level outputs to run the Promedias. I suppose I could buy a basic stereo receiver to do this task, but am looking to keep the solution as elegant and small as possible. A couple of pluses would be a way to power a front center speaker and a set of headphones. Again, a full a/v receiver would definitely work, but I am not familiar with any really tiny ones. My computer desk has a place a little wider than 11 inches that I could put a small component. The height and depth are not particularly restricted, it was where you would put the normal tower CPU. Probably at least 18 inches available for both height and depth. Any thoughts? Does Klipsch or anyone else make an optical preamp adapter such as this? If I go to a full A/V receiver I would be tempted to get a set of Quintets and set up my promedias somewhere as an Ipod listening station, although it may take a while to set aside THOSE funds... I know the Promedia's were designed for close range listening, would I find the Quintet's to have any undesirable characteristics when used as a computer system? Thanks in advance!