Kevin S
-
Posts
338 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Kevin S
-
-
14 minutes ago, wdecho said:
I say always trust your ears vs paper, graphs, plots, engineers, etc. Much as the vinyl vs CD's debate. But will agree not everyone hears the same. If one cannot tell a difference they could be considered blessed. I forget the correct figure PWK once said but it was something like " Only 3% of the population hears what I can hear." I can hear a difference between a chop, chop CD vs a LP. But then I do not have a 5 grand DAC to compare a LP against a CD.
I believe there are many times audio buffs spend tons of money for different component and claim it to be superior to less expensive gear only because of the money spent. Your brain tells you it must sound better, look at all the money I just spent for this thing. I have been guilty myself many times in the past.
I confess to not being a golden eared audiophile. I do not hear the differences people claim to hear in electronics, cables etc. But I consider myself very able to discern differences in the sound of speakers and the changes of their placement in the room. Those changes swamp any differences in electronics, cables etc. for me. So I learned years ago, but later than I probably should have, to focus my efforts on that. PWK’s (and Roy’s updated) Heritage speakers, when placed as they were designed by PWK to be placed, just sound “better” to me. As far as I am concerned, that, and the fact that they have survived the test of time in the marketplace, proves the science behind them to be valid.
-
1
-
-
Over the years I have owned the entire Klipsch Heritage Series of speakers except the Belle. Currently own H III’s. Have also owned numerous “conventional” direct radiating speakers. I am not an engineer or scientist, and thus do not understand much of what is posted regarding horn/speaker design theory. My ears tell me that PWK and Roy’s science trumps the science of the naysayers.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, JFHSQT said:
Actually I am running the LS IIs full-range (with no crossover) from my Luxman/PrimaLuna rig out of an Oppo 205, and sending the analog signal into my Anthem which is processing the full analog signal through ARC and sending the low frequency content over to the SVS. So even without the sub, the LS IIs are always reproducing the full-range output of the Oppo.
OK. Sort of a “Double Bass” effect that many AVR’s offer. Then perhaps the overall level of the bass dropped quite a bit when the sub was muted. That would certainly make the bass seem to “shrink”. Try level matching the comparison at the listening position and see if your perception changes.
-
1
-
-
When you hit the mute button on the subs was the bass you were sending to the subs redirected to the LaScalas? If not it wasn’t really a valid comparison.
-
3
-
-
It has always struck me as odd how many "purists" listen using sources and amplification that have easily measurable, and based on their professed abilities to hear the most minute differences in sound reproduction, easily hearable distortion. And, if they are Klipsch Heritage speaker owners they own speakers designed by a man who considered such distortions an anathema and designed his speakers to have the lowest distortion possible. In fact, the speakers probably have lower distortion than anything they have hooked up upstream. Yet they turn their nose up at a tone control, or any other such device, because of it's supposed impact on the purity of their highly distorted sound.
-
4 hours ago, wdecho said:
What if you have tried everything simple like speaker placement and listening position and the expensive speakers you just bought are still too bright and tiring and irritating after an hour or so of listening. It may not be a fault of the speaker itself but probably has more to do with the environment it is placed in. Speaker manufacturers are not going to market a product that most consider irritating. But no two environments are the same, hence the need for some to make some adjustments. There are expensive ways of changing the environment the speaker you just bought are in but rarely is this acceptable especially if there is a significant other living in the same house. What if you are a purist and are against any form of tone controls seeing their use as being more detrimental to the sound quality than the results they are supposed to correct. What is someone then supposed to do? Chalk it up as a bad purchase and try and sell them at a lose? I suppose one could do as some members here have suggested and design a new complicated crossover using electronic formulas and calculations to attenuate the driver a few more db's. That is if the schematic of said speaker is published. But then if it is not one could then remove the crossover and reverse engineer the crossover and produce a schematic and then go through the complicated process of designing a new crossover for the frequency points of the original crossover and then add a few more db's of attenuation for the problem driver using the complicated electronic formulas and calculations members here have suggested. But wait there is a simple aftermarket product called a L-pad that is not supposed to upset the crossover to any degree that will reduce the brightness and harshness that is very irritating after an hour or so listening. But then there are members here that say "no you cannot do that". They have enough electronic background to produce formulas and calculations explaining how one resistor for attenuation of the driver in series is going to totally upset the crossover. But wait there has to be another resistor in parallel with the driver to keep the impedance of the driver the same which is supposed to keep the resistance the crossover sees the same so as to not to effect the crossover points in the network to any extent. But then there are critics willing to claim 'Oh no you cannot do that" as well. But then there are critics of most any electronic circuit in the audio field. There are critics of running a J-fet at the IDSS value as Nelson Pass does in some of his products saying the same thing, "Oh you cannot do that". His response is "I do it anyway."
I will not listen with a speaker that I consider irritating and I will not resort to distorting the signal with tone controls. Most high end products do not have tone controls or equalizers for a reason. I have multiple buffers and preamplifiers and I assure you none have any form of tone controls distorting the sound. They are not necessary for a properly designed amplifier and speaker system. I consider them as a tool for the masses who are not that serious about quality sound or maybe cannot hear the difference. You will not find tone controls on preamplifiers Passlabs sell for the starting price of over $5,000 and going up. If tone controls are so great why is someone as talented as Nelson Pass not including them in his products?
My point guys is there is an aftermarket product called a L-pad that is designed and made for too bright a driver. Simple, effective, and cheap that will cure the problem of a too bright irritating driver in a speaker and you can rest assured you have not destroyed your crossover by using one. All you will do is make your speaker a joy to sit down and listen to.
I mean no disrespect to any member with a different viewpoint. I am guilty of being too opinionated and not being too diplomatic in my correspondence. I can assure you I respect your opinions and try to see and understand your viewpoint. Many times I am wrong and I try to apologize to the individual when I find out I have done so. I just like to keep subjects and cures as simple and effective as possible that most anyone on this forum can understand and employ. I want to apologize again if I have offended anyone. I try to acknowledge my faults. It is more important to be civil and respectful of others than to be right.
If you purchased expensive speakers that are irritating to listen to after an hour of listening, you should probably revisit your purchasing processes.
I am blessed with ears that, while I feel they are discerning, cannot hear gnats fart or grass growing. So I hear no negative effects of well implemented tone controls. The fact that certain respected manufacturers exclude them from their products doesn’t automatically make other respected manufacturers that do include them wrong. They each have their reasons, I am sure. Different strokes for different folks.
I suspect that a discerning listener, who does hear the effects of things such as tone control circuits in their off position, would hear the effects of an L-pad modification, regardless of any proof that they shouldn’t. So I would be surprised that a purist would implement such a fix to their expensive speakers.
If all else has failed, and before ripping apart and modifying my speakers, yes I would sell them and try to not make the same mistake on my next purchase.
I have no real talent for making modifications. Obviously, if one does have such talents, they have that option. However, if one is inclined to purchase expensive speakers, presumably chosen at least in part out of a respect for the talents of the person(s) who designed them, I think you destroy the intrinsic value of the speakers by cracking them open and modifying them. Unless you intend on keeping the modified speakers forever, you still stand to suffer the same or greater financial loss when you replace them than if you simply sold the unmodified speakers and moved on right from the beginning.
Thats my opinion on the matter. But like I said, different strokes for different folks.
-
I would humbly suggest that you leave the good work of Mr. Delgado and his associates at Klipsch alone and continue to fine tune speaker placement and listening position. If your receiver/amplifier has tone controls, maybe give them a twist.
-
4 hours ago, rjp said:
To me the HIII sound better at closer listening distances. Basically, the closer I get the more I like them. Tried the couch about 15 feet away from 8' separated speakers and the sound is not as good unless I crank it up to really get some air moving. As I move closer it gets better. For low/moderate volume I seem to like them best at approximately equilateral triangle positioning. Is that considered near field? Say 8x8x8? It may be that at greater distance I am getting reflections from the far wall. Room is about 16 feet wide and 28 feet long, speakers about 18" out along short wall.
A 15 foot listening distance is definitely far field and certainly includes more of the room in the sound. I think 8 feet is fairly normal and not considered near field. Fine tune the 8ft listening distance and adjust the toe in to change the tonal balance and stereo imaging to your liking. A few inches to a foot in the listening position can make a fairly big change. An inch or two in toe can as well. Mine are a 13x12x12 triangle. The speakers are toed in 45 degrees.
-
1 hour ago, rjp said:
Oh, they cross over in front of the listener, so it would off axis indeed. To achieve this geometry I would have to move my couch back or move the speakers closer together. So if I put them only 6 feet apart and toe at 45 degrees they would cross over at 5.2 feet in front. So in order to have then cross over "well in front of the listener" I guess that means I should sit about 8-10 feet away. Does that sound right?
If possible, try to keep the speakers as wide as possible, as close to the wall as possible, toed in 45 degrees and move your listening position to fine tune to your liking. This might help explain the thinking: http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Dope_750801_v15n2.pdf
-
5 hours ago, rjp said:
Then I get the impression he liked to hear as much of his horns as physically possible
I think Westcoast's suggestion was for those of us who may want a little less.
45 deg corners does sound nice though.
Actually, he showed the 45 degree toe in crossing the speakers well in front of the listener, so the listener was well off axis. He believed in using the precedent effect to stabilize the stereo image over a large area.
-
FWIW, PWK recommended a widely spaced, floor/corner placement for all the speakers he designed (actually all speakers period) with a 45 degree toe in. If corner placement was unavailable, as in my situation, floor/wall was recommended, still with 45 degree toe in. Stands were not recommended, as all the speakers were designed as floor speakers. Reading his Dope from Hope papers on stereo reproduction, speaker placement and toe in is very interesting and helpful. If nothing else, I think he would recommend approximating the above as closely as possible.
-
FWIW, PWK recommended a widely spaced, floor/corner placement for all the speakers he designed (actually all speakers period) with a 45 degree toe in. If corner placement was unavailable, as in my situation, floor/wall was recommended, still with 45 degree toe in. Stands were not recommended, as all the speakers were designed as floor speakers. Reading his Dope from Hope papers on stereo reproduction, speaker placement and toe in is very interesting and helpful. If nothing else, I think he would recommend approximating the above as closely as possible.
-
Reurn, return, return.
-
23 minutes ago, pbphoto said:
MQA's name implies, and their marketing says, they control the sound end to end (analog to analog) by certifying and profiling every step in the sound recording and reproduction process. If MQA sounds superior/different to a lossless Redbook equivalent, is it because the technology can compensate for deficiencies in the chain, or is it truly able to unfold a Redbook stream into higher resolution sound, or did they simply re-master and/or re-EQ the source?
I've got an MQA capable DAC but I haven't played around with it too much. Another downside is you have to disable processing, room correction and volume control in your software streamer so that it passes the MQA stream untouched to the DAC, otherwise you don't get the MQA light.
As far as I am concerned, how MQA sounds compared to Redbook isn’t the true test, or the point. The real test is, IMO, is it identical to the original master recording, regardless of how well done, or poorly done, the original is.
-
I am curious. When comparing the original master recording to the MQA recording, wouldn’t the goal be for the MQA recording to sound identical, as opposed to better, different or worse?
-
I understand virtually none of the technical mumbo jumbo beyond the point that MQA manipulates, changes and oragamis the original source. And all of this is being accepted and applauded by many in the audiophile world who would otherwise proclaim any manipulation of the “absolute sound”, even slightly, by the use of a mere tone control for example, to be blasphemy. For me, this would indicate that there are reasons other than sound quality for MQA to even exist. And it’s acceptance by those otherwise opposed to any manipulation of the source is to be viewed with suspicion and skepticism.
-
-
Don’t go rushing to spend your money. Adjust the placement, including the toe in, of your speakers to your taste. Utilize the tone controls of your receiver. Those two things will fix the majority of issues and don’t cost a dime. And are immediately reversible. Don’t look for the most difficult to implement solutions. Keep it simple.
-
4
-
-
So, if I pour my Maker's Mark into a Pappy Van Winkle bottle, I then have Pappy Van Winkle?
-
Well, they were designed as floor standing speakers with an optional base that tilted them back a bit. No stands necessary.
-
1
-
-
Tone controls. Variable loudness control for low level/late night listening.
-
Yes, but slightly different. Every time I have left Klipsch Heritage, and I have owned all of the originals except the Belle's, I returned, realizing that the Klipsch's were more right for me (squawkers and all) and the others were not. My Klipsch lessons would need to have been applied to the others, not the other way around.
-
I use BitPerfect. I like the idea of playing back the songs in their native format, which BitPerfect switches to automatically. With iTunes, you have to choose a sampling rate and leave it fixed at that. Plus, i like iTunes user interface, and with BitPerfect you aren't paying for a new interface and other "equalization" tools you may not want.
-
1
-
-
IMO, If you plan on crossing over to your Cornwall at 80hz or higher, you could save a few dollars and use a Heresy for the center, as they both have the same mid and high frequency horns and drivers. Neither the Heresy or the Cornwall can match the LaScala for maximum output, but the maximum output of a Heresy is plenty loud in my opinion, so should not be a limiting factor when crossed over at 80hz or higher.
Naturally, the set up as you have already chosen it will sound phenomenal! Congratulations and good luck!
New Khorns???
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
As is typical, I am a bit confused. Wasn’t Roy Delgado responsible for the work on the updates to the LaScala II, Cornwall III, Heresy III and this new Klipshorn AK-6?