Ski Bum
-
Posts
1136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Ski Bum
-
-
Hi - newbie looking for some info. I just picked up a pair of 1981 walnut khorns for $1200 and I'm in love with them. They look and sound great. Currently they are mated with a Denon AVR-1700 receiver (70 wpc I think) and a cheap sony cd player. From what I've read the Denon receiver isn't a good match. I'm reading that low watt tubes are the way to go and that I need a separate preamp/amp system instead of a receiver. Specific advice for someone new to this world is what I'm looking for. Thanks in advance for any advice!
You've definitely got the speakers which allow you to use low watt tubes. I personally love SET sound, and would encourage you to try some out. Depending on the particular amps, you may or may not need a pre-amp, it all depends.
300B SETs: the creme de la creme of single ended, direct heated triode amps. Typically wicked expensive, and require proper design to reach their potential, which many brands seem to have missed. Tread carefully.
2A3: Also highly regarded, dht SETs, with correspondingly high tube prices. I recently saw a pair of Wright 2A3's on Audiogon for $800. That would be something to keep an eye out for.
Various pentode-wired-as-triode amps...don't rule these out. Decware, for example, offers extremely nice sounding, high value gear, and neither the amps nor the tubes are expensive. The amps of this type I've heard seem less 'tubey' than the 2A3's and 300B's regarding midrange bloom, perhaps better for someone with SS sensibilites taking their first foray into tubes. This type of amp can range from affordable amps like Decware, to ridiculously expensive such as Serious Stereo at $12K for a pair of monoblocks.
PP tubes are more powerful, and lack the SET magic, but they do sidestep the primary SET weakness, low power. And pp tubes will still probably tickle your ears and synapses more favorably than SS. They also run the gamut from affordable to ridiculously expensive. User 'NOSvalves' could probably hook you up with a ST-70 which would rock your world for a reasonable price.
Whichever way you go, prepare for some musical enjoyment! Tubes rule!
-
There have been a whole bunch of new guys lately. Has anyone noticed? No avatar, no system profile, a few unusual questions but not obviously a troll. What's going on?
Well, as one of the relative newbs, when I try to update anything on my profile I get 404 errors. If you really give a crap, I own some Klipsch, a bunch of other speakers, a bunch of amps of all different flavors, a bunch of cd/dvd players, a couple turntables, an active crossover, and several pre-amps. I'm pretty homely, so please consider the generic profile avatar as a favor to you.
I'm w/ Coytee...it's the influx of folks who've only recently found out that Klipsch Heritage kicks ***. For any Audiovox spies, please take note of the interest in Heritage products. I hope the cinema/commercial division (i.e. Hope) is enough to keep Heritage kicking for a while longer.
-
Hmm, interesting question. Even a small Decware will pull some juice, being class A and inefficient, but I imagine you won't do much better power-consumption wise going the tube amp route. Decware amps sound excellent, if you haven't heard them. Very low powered, but highly seductive personalities, classic SET imaging/transparency.
If you're using your solar to charge batteries, you could keep the amp build simple (no need for rectification if you're on DC power). The battery powered SETs I've heard sounded great. Of course they drained the batteries in just a few hours. I'm sure something like one of those Virtue chip amps could have run for a week on a similar charge, while producing much more output than a flea SET.
-
I don't know too much about electronics, so I have a couple more questions.
So ... if the continuous power of an amp, all channels operating, after the specified 1/3 power preconditioning time, is measured just below clipping, and it also comes in at distortion that is at or below whatever the current FTC standard is, wouldn't the continuous power be a higher figure than a "RMS watts" figure (even though fictional) that is mathematically derived using all of the same conditions (e.g., not fudging by using tone bursts, etc.)?
I guess I'm just trying to see if continuous ratings are less conservative than properly & similarly derived, but imaginary, RMS watts figures, i.e., would an a amplifier rated by a reputable company (like McIntosh or you-name-them) as "120 watts RMS continuous" be rated at about 170 watts continuous? Another way of putting this might be "Would an amp rated by a good manufacturer at 120 watts RMS in 1975, now be rated as about 170 watts continuous? I'm still hung up on the 0.707 thing.
The other question is whether modern, good, solid state, amps behave differently if the continuous signal used to measure power covers the whole 20 -20K bandwidth, or just 1K... I'm asking because I think I recall John Atkinson using 1K to determing the amp power.
Regarding your C272, remember that's some variation on class G/H with dual supply rails, which kind of confuses matters compared to an amp with a conventional power supply. 'Continuous power' reflects the lower power rail's limits, which is 150w, or 171w at slightly more forgiving tolerances. The high power supply rail provides the added headroom, drawn on when the signal demands it, but is only available for fairly brief periods, so a continuous signal will default back to the lower supply as soon as the higher rail is exhausted. But it should be able to roast along at 150w all day long. With a variable signal (music), it's capable of 300+ or however many unclipped watts. It makes understanding NAD specs a little strange, but they do at least spec conservatively. It's also why your NAD rated at 150w 'continuous' sounds as powerful a conventional amp of 250w or more RMS power.
-
Your water analogy doesn't hold water. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)
Music is an AC signal, not a continuously flowing signal like water. Imagine the volume of water in your hose, and the attached nozzle/horn, jiggling back and forth. Small fluctuations in water pressure from the hose are reflected in the jiggling water at the nouth of the horn, which couple to the air over the entire opening of the horn, rather than just from the small hose orifice, thus moving more air. The horn acts as an impedance coupler between the water vibrating back and forth (driver movement), and the lower impedance air, the medium through which the sound is transmitted. The horn acts to exapand the effective radiating area of the driver by better coupling it to the air, with the air (or water in your analogy) within the horn acting in piston like motion between the driver at the throat and the room air at the mouth. The direction of motion at the mouth is focused specifically by the particular horn shape.
I don't think that horns act like hose nozzles.
There's a lot more to it than I know, which is very little (tractrix vs exponential, square mouth vs. rectangular mouth vs ellipsoid mouth, etc). Perhaps others will chime in.
-
Let us know, Angus.
Check this out:
http://www.fat-man.co.uk/docs/product_07/iTube_Mothership.shtml
"Product Features: Awesome Stunning Stellar" That's hilarious! I want one now just because of the audacity of that.
-
Someone else here used the analogy 'pulling the boat with the Prius'. Driving those full range with so little power is in that territory. I'll bet it would sound sweet for less demanding material, but would fart out for big full-orchestra climaxes.
Then again, I took my similarly powered amps to the store to try with RF62's, and it was louder than expected. It depends on what his expectations are.
edit: Hey, you recommended Decware in another thread. Is your nephew's amp one of theirs? The amp I took to the store was one of theirs, probably the same model (SE84C). While they sound fantastic within their limits, their power is quite limited. I've since moved to bi-amp setups, relieving them of any bass duties, and in that application they work extremely well.
-
+1 on the Decware recommendation. They're about the least expensive amps I've found which are able to provide the full fledged SET thing. Lifetime warranty is correct. Even if you find one used on Audiogon, if you send it to Steve for inspection/mods/updates, he'll extend the warranty to cover you.
-
'Alternative' tube stereo integrated? This should have you covered:
http://www.decware.com/newsite/TORII.htm
As far out as that thing seems, it has everything you requested.
-
I can't find any specs for the KD-15 passive radiators, Klipsch couldn't provide them, and they've sold out of that item. Would the Dayton NS390-PR be a sufficient replacement? For forte II. Thanks in advance for your help!
-
I'm some what surprised that I don't notice any coherency issues going from essentially a single driver design to a 3 way design, but that probably just means my novice ears aren't as susceptible to it. That's a good thing in my book...
I don't think it's your novice ears. Do you have any speakers w/ crossover points in the 1.5 to 2 khz area? Compare those to the druids or klipsch and there is more chance you'll pick up on crossover induced misbehavior. Those squakers handle everything from 600 to 6000 hz, with crossover points well outside of our hearing's most sensitive range. PWK said that music lives in the midrange, and the Chorus / forte's really nailed it.
First time I heard the druids was at RMAF a couple years ago. After several rooms of low sensitivity/high power systems, the druids stood out with their dynamics, that kick that only high sensitivity provides. It was like a breath of fresh air. They were playing some Jaco-esque, rippin' bass jam, which from your own description probably played to their strengths. I liked 'em. A speaker with character, to be sure, but at least it is an engaging, colorful character.
-
What is the difference between the sound of the Druids and the Chorus II's?
I heard the druids a couple times. They have the dynamic impact of high efficiency speakers, which is impressive, particularly to the uninitiated, but Klipsch Heritage walk all over them for over-all, top to bottom response. The druids probably are a friendlier load than Klipsch for the micro-watt SET dudes. I didn't find them objectionable really (they have dynamics and punch, for sure), just not quite as flat and neutral as the Heritage I use to at home (forte II, very similar to Chorus II).
-
Congrats on your recent aquisition, and welcome to the forum!
I would follow the traditional Klipsch suggestions on placement and work from there, which seems like what your doing. Try and place them (or orient your listening position) so the speakers are not directly facing you. The point where the on-axis lines intersect should ideally be a couple feet in front of your primary listening spot. That approach has worked very well in my similarly sized room using forte ii's. Fine tune your toe-in and proximity to the corners for the best bass/imaging.
That opening will rob some bass. But with the speakers on the opposite wall, that room will be drenched in Klipshy goodness too.
-
Thanks for your reply I am intrigued, which crossover are you using, I am have a difficult time; a) finding one
finding any opinoins about them Ah, unfortunately I'm stuck in the passive-crossover dark ages, simply passive bi-amping for now. Even with the power robbing passive parts in place, the 6 watts gets plenty loud (for my old ears, at least), and seems to work well in spite of the limitations. I'm almost afraid to go active, because then I'll get hooked and have to do it for all four sytems in the house, and that would be a huge PIA! The only active system I've had extensive experience with was fantastic, and the crossovers were integral to the speakers (M&K active monitors, and a pro-audio looking bass management unit).
Search the forums for 'active crossover' and you'll get many suggestions. Most will be pro-sumer type gear widely available at your local musician/pro audio store, and for less cost than you might expect. Other forum members are far more knowledgable than myself, and some of these guys have tremendous experience setting up their Klipsch as active speakers. You're in the right place.
-
The improvement in distortion is measurable. Intermodulation distortion is greatly reduced, almost to zero, as each amplifier is handling different parts of the frequency spectrum.
I would also imagine that in a properly bi- or tri-amped system, with amps connected directly to drivers w/o any passive crossover components would yield easily quantifiable results. A raw driver is a way friendlier, flatter load than said driver coupled with phase shifting, impedance-fluctuating passive crossover parts. Fully actice makes sense no matter how you look at it.
To the OP's original question, I use 300w/chan paired w/ approx 6 watts for the top end, and it works great within it's limits. I just don't crank it like a teenager that much any more. It's still good to over 100db at my chair before running out of steam, which is still bowl-you-over loud, and more than I can tolerate for more than brief sessions.
-
I'm not that tech-savvy - what would be the general advantage of the Outlaw receiver over the Music Hall integrated amp?
The Outlaw is a receiver, meaning it is a radio tuner, pre-amp, and amplifier in one box, where the MH is integrated amp, meaning pre-amp and amp in one box. If you listen to the radio, the Outlaw will save you from purchasing a separate tuner. Also, the Outlaw has a digital input which you can feed from your computer, and the onboard DACs in the Outlaw are likely superior to those in your PC, unless you have some sort of music/media centric PC.
Do I have to get a receiver with digital inputs as soon as I'm gonna hook it up to a PC?
Not necessarily. Your computer can send an analog signal (e.g. from a headphone mini-jack or analog outputs from your soundcard). Using a digital signal and utilizing the onboard DACs on the Outlaw/HK would be preferrable (the analog output of your computer has it's own DAC and output stage, adding complexity and distortion to the signal; which may be completely moot unless your using hi-resolution, uncompressed music files). Having a DAC built in to your receiver is a nice convenience in the digital age, and the two receivers I mentioned are the only stereo/two channel ones that have this. In addition, both the HK and the Outlaw have bass management built in, making the addition of a sub (or two) relatively easy.
Doesn't the Music Hall amp have those sort of inputs?
No, just analog. Thats not a reason to rule it out. The MH is a fine piece and quite a bargain right now, and if onboard DACs are not a priority for you, it would probably work very nicely.
Dang, I'm a bit confused now. Does the Outlaw have digital input? By the way, I forgot to mention that I am from Bulgaria, and ordering any of the aforementioned would be a bit of a hassle. I just found out the Marantz PM7200, which is available at a local audio store in Sofia, where I live. Would it be fine for the Klipsch? It would really help a lot and save me some trouble.
I belive that the Outlaw does indeed have a digital input. And that Marantz would work very well. It's an integrated amp, so it lacks the radio tuner of the HK and Outlaw. If you listen to the radio, you can always get one of those Sony HD radio tuners later on; they are dirt cheap and will smoke just about any tuner ever made (HD radio is free, and far better audio quality than satellite radio, fwiw). And don't be confused, once you know the jargon it will all make sense. You've got your sources (disc player, tuner, computer, phonograph, music server, etc); your pre-amp, which is the control hub for switching sources, volume control; and you have amps, which boost the signal so your speakers have something to work with. Each part can be purchased separately, for a high performance, adaptable, complex system; or you can go with integrated amps or receivers, which have two or more of the components stuffed into a single chassis, for uncluttered simplicity. While some integrated amps and receivers are compromised (most of them, actually), that Outlaw, for example, would rival the perfomance of separates.
Ask yourself a few questions to help narrow down the choices. Does the amp/receiver/integrated have the power you need? (Everything mentioned in this thread so far would suffice, unless you have a HUGE room.) Next, does it have the features you need? (For example, do you spin vinyl? Look at pieces w/ phono inputs. Does the unit have the number of inputs you require? Would you benefit from one with digital inputs? Aesthetic considerations. Do you want the simplicity of integrated components, or the ultimate flexibility and upgradability of separates? Logistics -that Marantz is close by and within your budget. These are a few of the things you should consider. Just don't consider them more than they warrant or you'll end up being a screwy audiophile, more concerned w/ the gear than the music. Any of the choices listed so far would get you into the music.)
-
Perhaps you should consider a receiver w/ digital inputs, since you are looking to hook your PC to it (digi out from your sound card directly to the receiver's digital input, using whatever cheap cable will work). Check out the HK3490, or for a bit more the Outlaw RR 2150. Both would drive a pair of RF82's quite nicely.
-
The RF7-II narrowly beat out the Bose 901, which is number two on the list. Amazing. (They still make those? People actually still buy them? Unbelievable.)
-
I've got an old NHT X2 active crossover I'd be willing to part with. Barely used, like new condition.
-
This is my experience too, crossing just in front of the sitting position.
The classic Klipsch recommended method. It works.
-
That sounds like there crossing a little to far in front of you ? I tend to like them crossing just in front of where you would sit, to me it makes the soundstage sound wider, but it could be the difference in rooms also ?
The point where they cross is right over the foot of the bed. It sounds great there too.
With the 45 degree toe in, it seems like I am hearing more direct sound and less room interaction. Although the room is well damped, the left wall and decor is somewhat reflective; any excessive exposure to the direct sound really affects things adversely. After trying all different degrees of toe in, this is what I found to work the best in my room. Walls vanishing, transport you to the venue type performance. On par with my M&K nearfield setup, which images spectacularly.
-
Hola High-
Welcome to the forum!
I have an unforgiving room regarding placement; 13x16x9, only corners available, and not much room even there. So I have my forte ii's (footers removed) up on some ~10" steel stands, to decouple them from the floor a bit and raise the mid squaker above furniture/other obstructions, and shoved way back into the corners on the short wall with 45 degree toe in, Klipschorn style. The mid horns are right at ear level, with the speaker axis crossing about 4' in front of primary listening area. No subs. I was worried about overbearing, tubby bass being so far into the corners (the back corners of the cabs are only 6" away from the walls), but amazingly enough the bass is tight, dry, very solid to well below 40hz, and very cohesive w/ the rest of the sound. While I'm realizing more room gain, there is no bloat, just that fantastic, larger-than-life Klipsch Heritage thing in spades.
Lots of people would probably disagree with the severe toe-in and extreme corner placement for the forte/forte ii's, but getting them off the floor does wonders (on the floor that deep in the corners does indeed result in pretty fat, bombastic bass). It works for me, very well, actually, particularly with the placement restrictions I have. Now the forte's seem anemic and shrill when not placed deep in corners, at least to my ears. It seems to me that the forte ii's demand corner placement to restore full frequency response. Plus, by fully utilizing room gain, I maximize the forte's already high sensitivity and get to use lower power amps.
Listening to Garaj Majal right now, and the bass line is so life-like, unrestrained, and huge, I'm just lovin' it. I can practically see the strings vibrating. Yeah, baby, that's what it's all about!
-
Thanks Mark and everyone for sharing their opinions.
I'm in the 'music' camp. Got a couple SETs, more than a few conventional ss amps. They seem to all function adequately for what I ask them to do, but the SET's do have that almost psychedelic purity thing going for them. Mine even play nice with some speakers with which they should never work (multiple driver, complex crossovers, power robbing zobel networks...but the pairing works fantastically well, go figure).
Does anyone have experience with the old Quad 'current dumping' amps? Plenty of power, can push any load, unconventional but simple circuit with low part count, supposedly class A output. I've been curious about these for a while.
-
I have no idea what exchange rates are right now, but $2K offers a wide envelope of choices. I would give some ss class A a chance, and consider tube amps as well. Tubes and Klipsch is like chocolate and peanut butter.
finding any opinoins about them
Lots of Newbies, What's up with that?
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
Perhaps you should learn some spelling and syntax before you malign the intelligence of others.