Jump to content

Ski Bum

Regulars
  • Posts

    1136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ski Bum

  1. Greetings, and welcome to the forum! For those with a weakness for SET amps, and just going by the thoughts of others here who also share the disease, 845 amps are among the most cherished for their charming tonality. I would want to keep as much of that as possible. One option would be to passively bi-amp, with the 845 for the tops, and something with bigger balls for the bass bins. It wouldn't take much power to make a rather notable increase in bass authority. Do you have an extra amp lying around, preferably a Quad or other nice tube amp, maybe a pp type for more damping and power than the 845? I think such a setup would at least address your problems and do enjoyable things to your synapses. Another option to consider, one which would allow you to continue to use your amps, would be to try adding a couple big, proper subs. Something like those Funkywave 18" monsters, which are among the few subs which have a chance of keeping up with 'Scalas, yet not take up 3/4 of your room like a horn sub would. This would cost more than a small amount, but 'Scalas need subs anyway. Have a look: http://www.funkaudio.ca/Special_Offers.html (In no way affiliated with these guys, but they do subs properly. Their kits would be a worthwhile DIY project.) Our resident 'Scala owners will be along share their experience and recommendations any time now...
  2. In that case, forget what I said. Unlike it's larger brethren, I don't think the 315 has pre-outs/main-ins. I know the 325 and up do. I suppose I should have asked exactly which NAD you were using. Sorry for the confusion.[:$] You can still connect your sub using the amplified/speaker level signal, as your original post asked about. It's your only option. It should work just as well for all practical purposes. I don't think you would be able to hear a difference wheather the sub was fed a line level or speaker level input.
  3. The only way the signal gets to the power amp section of your NAD is through the main inputs (it's not connected internally). You would only need to use a splitter if your NAD is of the older variety with just one set of pre-outs. Some of the newer ones have two sets, so a splitter isn't necessary. So, if yours is of the first variety, after turning it off and removing those horseshoe connectors, connect a couple y-splitters to your one set of pre-outs. Now you essentially have two sets of pre-outs to work with. With one leg feed the sub, and the other back to the main-ins (you won't be able to use those horseshoe jumpers, but that's unimportant, just as long as the signal gets to the main-ins somehow).
  4. Dennis, you have me thinking about other measuring criteria. I've always wondered how well Klipsh would perform using something like Geddes power response critera. I suspect they'd do pretty well. It would be interesting. You're lucky to have a friend with such a collection of high zoot gear for you to hear first hand. Thats as good as a high-end boutique shop, except for the fact he won't sell you the salons, of course. Whenever your over there, tell him how flat and dull they sound, throw in some scowling, be convincing, and maybe he'll eventually cave. Directly comparing the Salons and Philharmonics will be a treat, not exactly an everyday opportunity. I don't think many of Philharmonics customers get the chance to actually hear them before buying, let alone up against a serious reference grade competitor. You should seek out some Jubs to listen to, just for shits and giggles. They're the ultimate Klipsch. They provide an unforgettable, almost life changing experience (you'll immediately try to figure out how on earth you're going to fit them in your home, and scheme ways to convince your wife that they are essential).
  5. How does that old audiophile adage go? I spent all that money only to find out I didn't have to spend all that money to get great sound. Something like that. For your sake, I hope your friend doesn't figure that out until you get the Salons or some other of his cast-offs! Maybe he'll get off that merry-go-round, as the Salons fall into that "last speaker you'll ever need to buy" category. The Philharmonics you're considering are of that caliber. To lots of us here, Heritage is the answer. Once you taste the fat milk, you never want to go back to skim.
  6. By your admittedly tough criteria, I think the situation is essentially similar to the RF-7 II. I don't think they would pass the bar you've set. I doubt they would be any better than the Palladium measurements you saw. Subjectively, I've never heard a Heritage series speaker I wouldn't take over a Reference series speaker. I have not heard the new RF 7 IIs, but I have heard several others, including an in-home audition of RF82s. My old fortes smoked 'em, so bad it made me slightly embarassed for Klipsh on the new offerings. So I feel Heritage is a clear and distinct, and satisfying, step up. They are more detailed and revealing in the midrange, less shouty and piercing (RF7s are supposedly better than 82s here), just more even keeled and transparent all around. Cornwalls are HUGE, too. About twice the size of my fortes.
  7. Wow, your friend has some pretty damn expensive gear. You just need to hang out over there more often, and let HIM keep spending HIS money! Since he sounds like a guy with constant upgraditis and good taste, just buy his old speakers when he replaces them with something even more expensive. (That's an approach that many here on the Klipsch two channel forum follow, and we save a bundle!) His Salons are kick *** in all reagards, genuinely top-notch. The linkwitz: great engineering and thought behind them, but $14K for a DIY kit speaker? Really? That's kind of ridiculous. Minimum of six channels of amplification. Minimum of 6' from back wall for the dipole trickery to really work. Too much complexity, hassle, and placement restrictions if you ask me. I think I'd rather own old Quad 57s than those anyway.
  8. Only the whole cornucopia will do. Does a wine connoisseur only enjoy one particular vintner? Multi-systems here, two I would consider top-notch for my mid-fi budget. Klipsch get the most air-time.
  9. Like we're saying, apples to oranges. FWIW, I want my speakers/system to be without a hint of compression up to 100db, even if I rarely listen that loud. Some recordings with exceptional dynamic range demand it, even if average levels are 75db or lower. I sit about 12' or more from the speakers, so to get to 100db at the listening position may require them to hit 110+db at 1m. That is not even remotely a concern with Klipsch. Ruler flat response, or wide dynamic range, pick your poison.
  10. Dennis, without proof, I'm guessing the RF-7 II would have comparably worse measurements than the Philharmonic. If you're holding out in the hope that they measure better than the Philharmonics, save your time and just get the ones with published data. Since this is the actual Klipsch forum, I'll stick up for the home team, I'll give it one last try. How about an analogy. How about comparing a Lexus LFA and a 1960s AC Shelby Cobra. The Lexus is state of the art, top-shelf performance, a thorough implementation of the latest and best technology. The Shelby is a brute, old technology, all motor and not much else. Now which one will be more fun to drive? A tough call, but you can't say that the Cobra experience wouldn't literally grab your attention and provide a truly visceral experience. Seriously, aside from absolute measured specs, the choice between the two seems highly room and use dependant. Pick one, kick back, and get back to enjoying the music. Like I said, I've heard Salks, which are probably pretty close to Murphy's designs. They were very superbly neutral, but way more polite than Klipsch. WAY more polite. Meek even. While they softly caress you, Klipsch reach out and grab you, shake you, and demand your attention.
  11. 'Cause ya can. [] Rumor has it that tubes + Klipsch sounds pretty good. And, in case you coudln't tell, it was a sarcastic reference to one of the possible results of Klipsch addiction.
  12. Score![Y] Another Heritage convert. Livin' in the midrange, oh yeah! Nah, just save up for some big subs. You'll have Cornwall type performance with more placement flexibility. Parts Express can hook you up. Yes, but be careful, the veneer is quite thin. Check through the forums, I'm sure this one's been answered somewhere. It will involve removing the old finish with some type of solvent, light sanding, and re-stainig w/ boiled linseed oil or oil/varnish of your choice, re-sand again, reapply finish again, re-sand...Despite the tedium, you can get them looking just gorgeous. Use the SN to determine their age. As HIIs, I imagine the caps are tired. I would have to say that new crossover bits makes a notable difference, so strongly consider either the Klipsch HIII upgrade or Crites updates.
  13. Hmm. In looking over those graphs, I'm struck by a couple things. I'm sure they are flatter and smoother than what the RF7II can pull off. But I also can't help but notice the relative lack of sensitivity, and wonder how that plays out as the output increases. Even at 40 watts input, they're only hitting 104db. That would take a mere two watts for the RF7II. How high can the Philharmonics be pushed before compression sets in? How would the measurements look at 100 watts input, or 200 watts? How do you think they would do trying to realistically reproduce the full dynamics of heavy percussion, or a symphony orchestra playing Mahler's 5th, or some full throated opera, at full reference levels? Unsurprisingly, the Philharmonic's published specs omit such high spl situations, where the weaknesses of their design are exposed. Despite the lack of perfectly smooth, flat freq response, the upper limits of the Klipsch is going to be in the 120db range before compression sets in, where the Philharmonic is probably starting to distort around 110db (guesstimate) and probably banging the poor little Revelators voice coil by 115db. Below those respective levels, where one would actually be listening to them, the distortion with the Klipsch is going to be relatively lower due to the fact the drivers are operating so low in their performance envelopes. PWK's philosophy may be old, but it is as valid today as it ever was; distortion is inversely proportional to sensitivity, with high sensitivity resulting in uninhibited, clean dynamic capability. Throw in controlled directivity, and reasonably (sort of) flat response, and you get the Power, Detail, and Emotion of real music. Now, the whole name of the game with this endeavor can be characterized as either a quest for the perfect reproduction of the signal, which I would argue is an elusive yet worthy goal, and a good tool to separate the wheat from the chaff when shopping around, or the convincing simulation of live musicians present in the room. For me, the unrestricted dynamics of horns/high efficiency gets me closer to the second characterization than overpowered, overworked lower efficiency systems ever seem to. The system I have downstairs measures flatter than my Klipsch, I've RTA'd it to find out, but doesn't quite capture the essense of live music the way the Klipsch do. Horns are typically a love 'em or hate 'em affair, so if you liked the RF7s, you're one of us. Welcome to the madness. Next thing you know you'll be playing with tube amps!
  14. Well, Dennis, I'm still saving for retirement, while you sound like you've already done your saving. Kudos. For this relatively poor Ski Bum, it's used forte II w/ Crites hot-rod mods. I think they'd give RF7's a serious run for their money, if not flat out smoke them! I still think RF7s and Philharmonics is apples to oranges. I haven't seen measurements on the RF7, but I think one of the German hi-fi rags has a review with at least some measurements. I'd be willing to bet that by most current prevailing objective measures, the Philharmonics would smoke the Klipsch. In real life, I think the philharmonics may have a tough time indeed of providing that spank, the attack and dynamics that horns give. While neither is without character, I think it would be tougher to get the Klipsch to be quite as neutral as the Philharmonic, and likewise tougher to get the Philharmonic to sound as kickin' and lively as the Klipsch. The dynamic punch of horns seems more like real music to some of us Klipsch fans, and worthy of giving up the things other approaches do better at. They both place completely different demands regarding room placement, listening distance (aren't the Philharmonics open baffle/dipole mids?) and such. Best solution is to have a full horn system in one room, and a full Philharmonic system in another! Check this out: http://community.klipsch.com/forums/p/140739/1441085.aspx Scroll down to the post showing the decay plot, looks pretty rough, particularly those spikes up at 11 and 15khz.
  15. Wow, that will be quite the apples to oranges comparison, the controlled directivity and high sensitivity of horns vs. the direct radiator apprach with those fancy planar tweeters. I'd bet the Klipsch are lumpier, but more dynamic and hard hitting, than the philharmonics. They will each play with your room in pretty divergent ways. I've heard many Salks, but none of the Philharmonics. They were nice, very polite compared to Klipsch though. Welcome to the forum, DPS. Is the Den part of your name for Denver by chance? Kuvo has a bunch of free passes to RMAF, thought I'd mention it if you're local, might be something you're interested in.
  16. Just about everyone's room is a bass-response nightmare and could benefit from room correction eq. (But even discussing it seems like some foray into the dark side, somehow against the whole ethos of retro Klipsch analog super hi-fi...oh, shit, these aren't the cozy confines of the two channel forum, this is technical questions! ...runs from the light...) I have a well calibrated 2.1 system (non-Klipsch), which after much fussing and fighting, barely hangs with the fortes sans subs. To do actively managed and room-corrected bass, with subs up to the task, would require spending about three times what I spent on my fortes to do justice to the music.
  17. Wow, sorry for being so combative with my previous comment. There is going to be overlap when the cutoff frequencies are set correctly (they're not brick wall filters). Fortes roll off pretty steeply at ~35hz. Even with it's low pass filter dialed back to 40 hz (a typical lowest possible setting on many subs), the sub will still have output extending to higher frequencies, depending on the slope of the filter. For much of the bass, 40-80hz, there will be three sources of bass, giving a good chance of smoother response. Without more capabilites than the NAD had, its a matter of level matching and room placement to get the smoothest response possible. While not ideal, that's what we're working with. To run subs with proper setup and control, even if only for two channel use, an AVR or pre-pro with dedicated bass management and room correction features would do the trick. I also seem to recall Velodyne and SVS selling outboard room-correction devices of some sort. Even with such control, I would first try running the fortes 'large' or full-range. I personally don't don't really feel the need for subs with fortes for my exclusively music listening. (Listening to Prayer Meeting with Stanley Turrentine and Jimmy Smith right now...awesome album!...lots of deep, rumblin' organ bass.)
  18. The high input impedance of the sub's amp only lets the tinitest bit of signal trickle through, which is what I was referring to. (Sorry, electronics terminology is not my area of expertise, but I'll take blood dyscrasias for $1000 any day.) Every NAD stereo integrated I've seen or owned has pre-outs, and the newer ones have two sets of pre-outs. By using speaker level inputs to the sub you end up with the signal going through both amps, unnecessarily. Why do it if you don't have to? Also, why route the signal through the sub's high-level pass through? It's not really necessary when using fortes. They're not some puny bookshelf speakers that need the coddling, and they probably have distortion specs in the bass that is on par with, possibly better than, many subs. They only need help in the lowest octave, that's it.
  19. Hola, Duff. Do you hve a sub? The HII will not dig as deep as your RFs. They will surpass the RFs in midrange clarity, where the meat of the music is. You'll love living in the midrange! Heresy + sub systems will rival larger Heritage speakers and exceed the RFs. IMHO. Listen to them. Inspect them thoroughly, any cab blemishes you can use to haggle down the price. Folks in these parts generally consider the HIII to be the best iteration of the breed. The upgrade kit from Klipsch is a worthy investment, now or down the road. Bob Crites also offers crossover and driver upgrades, is reasonably priced, fast, and a pleasure to deal with. Crossover and driver upgrades will result in notable gains, very worthwhile.
  20. Since you are using a stereo NAD amp, I assume you don't have any built in bass management. I wouldn't worry too much, as your fortes can handle a full-range signal without any problems; feed 'em directly from the NAD. Use a y-splitter from the NAD's pre-outs, one end back to the NAD's main ins, and the other to feed the sub a line level signal (to avoid amplifying the signal, then stepping it back down to line level and re-amplifying it; high level inputs on subs are only to be used if you can't send them a line-level signal, and with your NAD you can do so). You'll probably want to get a bigger sub that is adept at the deepest bass, and cross it over ~40hz using the sub's built in low pass filter. Something like a Rhythmic FV15. (I mention Rhythmic because they're tight and dry, very 'musical' subs, and seem to do well with high sensitivity mains. There are plenty of other options.)
  21. Some good replies here so far. Although I frequently switch stuff up, I typically use a SET for the horns, and SS for the woofs. Plenty of bass, plenty of headroom, and lends itself to fine tuning on the fly, a nice feature indeed. It's not perfect (still passively bi-amped, using Crites passive crossover). However, one thing that causes me to switch things up on occasion (i.e. run full range with the tubes) is that on my fortes, the crossover from woofs to squakers is ~600hz, and there is a huge amount of musical information below 600 hz. While exclusively using tubes full range, they may not plumb the depths with as much authority, but there are some very stimulating things they do on the lower mids and upper bass that my ears really enjoy. And my room is small enough to get away with the small amps and still have decent bass. As a bonus, I can completely bypass my pre-amp when running tubes (or ss for that matter) full range, for the most simple, minimalistic signal path possible. If I could fit a sub in my listening room, or rather if another large box could get by SWMBO's radar, I'd probably run the fortes exclusively on tubes. One of these days I may go fully active. I have four SET channels and two SS channels of amplification available. Hmm. Be warned, gagelle, this is how the whole Klipsch addiction progresses. But it wouldn't be a 'hobby' if it didn't lend itself to such tinkering, right?
  22. You're correct, and kudos for your practice. Wish the producers of all the music I buy felt the same way.
  23. Well, vinyl recordings don't suffer the brutal compression that many digital recordings often exhibit (but that's more a critique of production than the end format).
  24. I think erik2a3 is on to something regarding 300B amps. In addition to the circuit, they demand proper iron, without which you end up with the more syrupy presentation. Unfortunately, there are probably more of the syrupy variety than examples of well executed 300B amps, but thats what happens when folks are more interested in capitalizing on the 300B reputation than making a good amp. And the ones that DO fully exploit the 300B are typically expensive, reflecting the high cost of the big trannys. 2A3's seem to be a bit more cost effective. And PWK had a 2A3 amp in his office, fyi, although I doubt it was a SET. Someone mentioned Decware, which is what I use 'cause I'm a cheapskate. Steve's particular recipe seems low on the syrup, and high on the 'air/space/holography', with a nice, deep extended response. This works great for me, coming from an exclusively SS background. Ignore Steve's hyperbolic sales pitches, but don't overlook his amps. They sound amazingly good. Speaking of which, Decware is having it's annual open house in a couple weeks. Attendees invariably bring their own amps to compare, so if you're near Peoria, IL, it would be a good chance to personally audition a whole bunch of esoteric SET gear. I think it's the weekend of Oct 7-9.
  25. Power wise, you're A-Ok, and you should be fine with the Carver. Not sure if that's one of the Carver amps voiced in a particular fashion or not, but that's more a matter of personal preference anyway. Chorus do like deep breathing amps, despite their high sensitivity, as I suspect the load they present is no walk in the park. Kind of like most Heritage. So good and proper SS, or tubes, are just what the doctor ordered.
×
×
  • Create New...