rongon

I finally got these KG 4.5 beasties to a state where I like them. After much consultation with people who know a lot more about crossover design than I do, it became apparent that the original KG4.5 crossover is a truly strange design. --------------- I bought a spare pair of KG4.5 crossovers on eBay that turned out to be very different from the ones in my speakers -- even though they say "KG4.5" right on the circuit board. These later-version crossovers are the exact same as the KG5.2 crossover, but with a 33uF NP electrolytic in the woofer circuit instead of 28uF. The KG5.2 is a more normal-looking circuit. The 5.2 uses the same Tractrix horn and tweeter as the KG4.5, and the woofer circuit is identical between the KG4.5 and KG5.2 crossovers. So I swapped in these newer-version KG4.5 crossovers, and instantly heard that a "hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" coloration had gone away. The tonal balance is similar, maybe a bit more laid back in the upper mids with the newer version crossover. I think the verdict is that the original KG4.5 crossover has some seriously weird flaws. Replacing it with this undocumented later version crossover has helped things a lot.

I bought my SL1200MK2 in the classic silver right before the price went up from $450 street to $750. Within months they went up to $1100, then they were gone. I'm awfully glad I got mine, because it's been a really solid, good sounding performer. Previous tables were an old AR-Xa, harman-kardon T60C, Thorens TD-147 (I think), maybe another one or two that I've forgotten. I have a TD-124 that needs restoring, too. The Technics was plug n play, and really sounds as good as anything else I've had. Incredible quality for $450. BTW, in response to the "it's a lousy DJ table" comments -- Look up the history of the SL1200 and you'll see that it was originally designed to be a home audio-friendly descendant of the SP-10, sort of an SL-110 with arm and base included, ready to go. It was built like a tank and came with rock steady speed control, so was adopted by DJ's. Its roots are totally in audiophile territory. And don't tell me the Technics SP-10 wasn't a great table! --

No, that adds more electronic hooey to the signal chain.... and the speaker crossover is already an equalization circuit. Even if I had the money for a truly transparent sounding digital EQ, I'd still rather buy better speakers first. I think eight Mark Audio Alpair 7's would be nice, and have someone make ported cabinets for them. Or biamp with a pair of Alpair 7's run from a triode amp and cross over a pair of mono subwoofers below 200 Hz or so. That would be if I had a lot of money around. These fairly inexpensive KG4.5's have been a great way to learn. I believe the 1980s - '90s mid-line Klipsch speakers have hidden potential, but it takes some "DIY" work to get the most out of them. I also think the Klipsch "house sound" tends toward a "hot/bright" treble. Fortunately, they're efficient enough that taming their response a little will still leave a relatively high-efficiency system in place. I'm comfortable losing a decibel of efficiency to get a more relaxed sound out of them. My next step is to add a fixed L-pad attenuator network across the tweeter terminals. A series resistor of 1 ohm and a parallel resistor of 50 ohms should yield a drop of about 1.5 decibels. I'm hoping that the tweeter actual impedance is close to its 8 ohm nominal impedance. If not, it will change the crossover point of the high-pass network, and we'll see if I can hear it. Oh what fun... -=|=- PS - Does anyone have impedance, voice coil inductance specs for the K-85-K tweeter? (I can measure the DCR, but my cheap LCR meter has bitten the dust.) -- edit: I measured the DC resistance with a DVM, and it shows 8.1 ohms. That's pretty high! Usually the DCR of a nominal 8 ohm speaker will be about 6 ohms or so. Is the K-85-K horn tweeter more like an 11 ohm driver? Or should I treat it like an 8 ohm driver? PPS - A friend of mine once had a client with a pair of La Scala that he thought were a little harsh sounding in the highs. My friend replaced the original EV T35-type tweeters with Raven ribbons. According to the client, bliss followed. I should point out that La Scalas cost just under a grand on the used market, and those Raven tweets cost a few hundred dollars *each*. So far, I'm in for about $350 with these KG4.5ti's. That's a big difference. --

More fun today. I went a little crazy at Walmart -- bought six packages of their craft felt (polyester felt) with peel-off adhesive backing. Lined the insides of the KG4.5ti's with it. I could immediately notice a reduction in a nasal-sounding ring that was in the box resonance. Put back the drivers and the foam (stuffing), but kept the foam up more toward the tweeter end of the box, letting the air move between the woofer and the port. The result? Well, there was an obvious increase in midrange clarity. Much less mud. That's the good part. The bad part was that the tonal balance went from the stock "plump" to more "lean" or "thin." To test to make sure the speakers still make bass, I played the old Telarc CD of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (Cleveland Orch., Lorin Maazel conducting). Oh yeah, these speakers make some serious bass! WHAM! SLAM! No problems there. The bass is now more damped, much better controlled. The woolly bass I was complaining about is now totally tight and fast. So, tighter bass and clearer midrange. That's all good. Really good, actually. I was thinking of selling these KG4.5ti's to a friend, but now that I've done all this, I'm having second thoughts. Unfortunately, the tweeter still has that "electronic" edginess to the high frequencies I was complaining about. As far as I'm concerned, that's the last major fault in the speaker. I think I want to reduce the tweeter level by a hair, maybe 2dB. Any ideas how to do that? Here's the KG4.5 schematic: According to the speaker design books, I'd put an L-pad right before the tweeter, after the crossover. After the 3uF cap to the tweeter "+" terminal would go a series resistor. Then something like 100 ohms between the + and - terminals of the tweeter. I guess I'll go find that book and try to figure it out. Been listening to these speakers all day, switching back and forth to the Snell's. The Snell's are warmer, and have a nice way with acoustic instruments. But they sound polite and small compared to these modified KG4.5ti's. The Klipsch's have more slam, go louder, play tighter bass and have every bit as clear a midrange now. The Snell's only clearly win in the high frequencies. The silk dome tweeter is very smooth. The KG4.5ti treble is "harder" and gets to be a bit much. So before delving into crossover mods, I tried an easy "fix" for the KG4.5ti's. I took a sheet of polyester batting (a Christmas decoration "snow blanket" actually) and lined the backside of the grille cloth with it, in front of the tweeter only. It actually sounds quite nice this way! The highs are tamed. Maybe a little too tame. But only by a hair. It's funny, I'm right back where I started, trying to tame the tweeters. But the speakers are performing at a whole 'nuther level now. They don't sound cheap at all. Very, very clear and fast. -=|=-

First of all, since this is the Klipsch forum... Klipschorn (I don't know what year, but probably 1980s) - I heard them in a guy's apartment, driven by a big '70s Denon receiver. Awesome. Lots of dynamics, effortless (of course). Surprisingly good highs, but maybe a little "sharp" or "etched" (but that could have been the receiver's fault). Not at all "shouty," as I recall. Even orchestral music sounded really good. I was thrilled by them. Altec Voice Of The Theater - I've heard two pairs of these, driven by a variety of systems. First ones I heard were at the Fi store on Watts St. in NYC, back around 1991. Driven by a Fi 2A3 amp (SE, about 3 watts). I remember they had a glorious midrange, and great dynamics. No bass. Didn't go very high. But exciting, and surprisingly smooth, considering their "public address" looks. The second pair I heard was in a guy's loft, driven by a Sony receiver (probably late '70s vintage). Nice. Filled the large room effortlessly. Surprisingly smooth sound considering the receiver. I was expecting "shouty" mids. Only a tiny little bit, as I remember. I'm not sure how they'd do on orchestral music (strings?). Snell Type J/III (ca. 1993) - I first heard them driven by a single-ended, parallel 45 amp (ca. 3 watts per channel) at a friend's place. They sounded amazing for such little power. Great soundstage, good dynamics, very clear. Excellent on strings (hard to do!). Kind of a "polite" sounding speaker, but with good dynamics. I also heard the Audio Note version driven by an honest-to-gosh Audio Note Ongaku (no comment...) I got a pair just recently, and driven by my push-pull 2A3 amp (6 watts/ch) they sound just like I remembered them. Only problem is some dynamics compression at loud-ish volumes, and maybe an overall "warm" presentation. But nice, and easy to drive. And by the way... The silk dome tweeter is partially horn-loaded [] . I remember hearing a Snell Type K back in the 1980's, at a hifi store. I thought they sounded punchy and dynamic, and nicely clear. I think I had a small pair of B&W speakers at the time and thought I was happy with them. Tannoy T185 Dorset (ca. 1981) - I got these in the mid-'90s from a guy who found them in the street! (He also found a mint pair of T155 Chester in a thrift shop. He's got Tannoy karma.) These have pretty woolly bass from the passive radiator, but they are of the high quality Dual-Concentric (horn tweeter) type. Very, very smooth for a horn tweeter. Nice detail, clarity. Warm presentation, maybe a touch "shouty." Sound a little flat or "opaque" on orchestral recordings, but tympani, etc. are "you-are-there." Excellent on vocals. Plays loud and clean from 6 class A watts per channel. These have kept me happy for 15 years. Quad ESL (original version with the brass grille) - They don't go low, they don't go high, but what a beautiful, smooth midrange. I've heard two different pairs, and loved them both. I understand they need at least 20 watts or so to sound good. Lowther (don't know the driver model or the cabinet type, about 1990 or so) - Extremely crisp detail, sometimes "you-are-there" real. But shouty. Sounded like a bad peak in the response at about 2kHz. Super-efficient, full-range driver. Some SET lovers swear by them. My family had a pair of Dynaco A25 back when I was a teen. I remember them sounding very good. My mother decided they would make good outdoor speakers, and of course they got ruined. C'est la vie. I'd like to get a pair to check out... About the same time, my then-girlfriend's parents had a pair of AR-3a. They had a really loose, woofy bass, and typical 1960s dome tweeter sound. I didn't like them at all. But those are the only ones I ever heard, so who knows... I've heard several B&W 801's, and had a friend with 802's driven by Bryston amps. They're very good, but to me they sounded kind of... dead. I never could use them because I like weenie little tube amps. I wish I had known about Rectilinear, ADS, etc. Back in the '90s, you could find them being thrown away, or practically given away. I remember hearing a pair of ADS that I thought sounded OK. -=|=-

A further update... I'll call these modified KG 4.5's the "KG4.5ti" (titanium diaphragms from Bob Crites added). The KG4.5ti's are back in the living room. The titanium tweeter diaphragms needed to break in. I added some felt around the perimeter of the tweeters, hoping to break up any baffle diffraction modes. That helped, noticeably. I couldn't get all the way around the drivers because of the way the grilles fit on the baffle. I did what I could. The result? Upper mids got a bit more forward, but noticeably clearer. - I'm now getting better imaging from these speakers. It's really quite enthralling. - I'm also getting beautiful highs (a big change!). I played a 1987 Denon CD of Ravel orchestral stuff (Ma Mere L'Oye and Pavane, etc.). It's a minimalist recording, mostly relying on an X-Y pair of mics for stereo. On my other speakers, this recording sounded kind of murky, not detailed. Some things would poke out of the mix here and there, but a general murkiness prevailed. With the KG4.5ti, the imaging is very precise and clear, with percussion popping out at you, much like it does in a real-life concert hall. The faults are still there, but less aggravating. - You have to treat these speakers like giant headphones. There is one, and only one, proper listening position. Go off to either side and the soundstage disappears. I guess Tractrix horns have a relatively narrow, controlled dispersion characteristic. - The upper mids and highs still have an "etched" quality to them, sort of "electronic" (a friend of mine called it "shouty"). It's better now after the titanium diaphragms and felt baffle treatments, but it's still there. I think that's the "horn sound." - The mids are still a bit recessed, but I'm sitting near-field (about 5 feet away), so that's actually a blessing. Could be a problem in a bigger room. - Voices tend to sound a bit "confused," kind of like how they sound out of a PA system. There's a resonance somewhere around 1kHz that needs to be damped. Possibly woofer cone break up modes. Dunno. - The bass is still on the loose and boomy side. I'm going to a crafts store to get sheets of wool felt to stick on the inside walls of the cabinets. I'm hoping to lose some midrange glare from box resonances, and maybe tighten up the bass a little. I now have over $300 in these speakers, but I have to remind myself that this is downright cheap for the sound they give. I'll bet an internal brace from front baffle to back wall would help a lot. -=|=-

Hello again... I'm finally moved in at my new place, and have had some time to play with speakers again. I got a pair of the Crites upgrade titanium tweeter diaphragms for my KG 4.5's, and finally put them in a couple of days ago. The verdict? A lot of the problems I mentioned with sibilance and a sort of "sizzle" over the highs have been fixed. The highs are most definitely smoother with the titanium diaphragms. The combination of the duct seal damping of the woofer baskets and tweeter horns, and now the titanium diaphragms, has all really smoothed out the KG 4.5's sound. I also scored a pair of stock KG 4.5 crossovers from ebay. I'll use them for experiments with capacitor transplants. My plan is to find mellow, smooth sounding caps for the 4.5's. I have a few paper-in-oil 0.22uF caps I can use for bypass. I recently lucked into a pair of Snell Type J/III in very good shape. Even the foam surrounds on the woofers are intact. These Snell speakers are supposed to be easy to drive for weenie triode amps like mine, and so they have proven to be. The Snell Type J/III's are rated at 91dB/1w/1m, which is the same as the Tannoy T185. I played them both side-by-side, and they are very close in level, and actually sound quite similar. The Tannoys have a bit more "shout" to their midrange (horn sound?) and definitely go lower, while the Snells have a bit more depth to the midrange imaging and more sparkle and "air" in the treble. At this point, I like the Snells an awful lot. They are surprisingly dynamic, definitely the most "jump" I've heard from a cone-and-dome system. (I should point out that the Type J/III's tweeter is a silk dome with partial horn loading, so we're still not completely in AR/KEF/B&W territory.) By comparision, the KG 4.5's w/ duct seal and titanium tweeters have a more "scooped mids" sound, with a treble sheen and fat bass, and lots of dynamic "jump factor." The KG 4.5 plays noticeably louder at the same volume control setting on the amps than either the Tannoy or the Snell. Definitely higher efficiency, and definitely a more aggressive sound. I briefly listened to the RF-3's, when I first moved in. They still throw out gobs of detail, but still sound "hard" and harsh in the mids. Kind of a fatiguing speaker at this point. I haven't spent any time on them as of yet... So I now have a whole menagerie of pretty decent speakers to play with. Right now the Tannoys are taking a rest, while the Snells are in my living room system driven by the push-pull 2A3 amp, and the KG 4.5's are in the bedroom being driven by a push-pull, triode-wired EL34 amp, which puts out a whopping 10 watts per channel. The KG4.5's sound really good in that room, although they're still a bit bright. But they are a lot smoother sounding than they were with the polymer diaphragms in the tweeters. The Crites tweeter upgrade is a huge success. I'm hoping they continue to break in over the next few days. -=|=-

So, after deciding I was liking the newly altered KG 4.5's, yesterday I switched back to the Tannoy speakers and gave them a fair hearing. I put the Tannoys in a better location than before, more in line with where the KG 4.5's have been. The results? - Tannoys are less efficient than the KG's (KG's play way louder before breakup) - Tannoys are smoother sounding, less intense than the KG's - KG's have bigger bass, but not as tight and controlled - KG's have a sort of "sizzle" that rides over the highs, all the time. Can get irritating. - Tannoys don't seem to go as high up in frequency response as the KG's. But they are smoooooth. - Both are very clear sounding, lots of detail and great imaging. Once again, I'm impressed with how well the KG's can compete with the Tannoys, which cost an awful lot more when new. I think the amps need to be voiced for the speakers. The KG's need a really mellow amp with a laid-back high frequency presentation. The Tannoys need an exciting amp, with a more intense, zingy high frequency presentation. So it boils down to a question of taste. But it's been fun improving the KG's. They respond to tweaks very nicely. --

My first Klipsch setup, and I'm diggin' it. BUT... I found the highs to be a bit harsh and have been experimenting with a simple 50 or 100 ohm resistor across the tweeter terminals to tame the highs a bit. All I can say is that I like the sound better with a 100 ohm resistor connected from tweeter + to - terminals. I don't have test equipment to 'prove' whether the change is technically better or worse. The 'correct' way to do this would be to put a Zobel network across the tweeter (K-85-K). But in order to figure the capacitor value, I'll need to know the voice coil inductance of the tweeter. Does anyone know how I can get this info? Has anybody here applied a Zobel network to a tweeter to equalize its impedance? Your results? I'm looking to tone down/chill out the tweeters' brash and somewhat harsh (in my opinion) sound. I don't think it's a 'capacitor transplant' issue, but I intend to do that too. Thanks! -=|=-

I applled another tweak to the KG4.5's that I think is worthwhile. The duct seal tweak really helped. The mids became much clearer. But the high frequencies were still just a bit "hot" sounding, a bit harsh. Enough that it's been bothering me. I was reading about impedance curves and their influence on the frequency response from a speaker driven by a tube amp with relatively high output resistance. Since I'm using a tube amp that I'm sure has a relatively high output resistance, I figured I'd better see if the harsh highs I was hearing could be toned down with a compensation network (crossover tweak) of some kind. One idea is to put a resistance in parallel with the driver's impedance. The tweeter driver's impedance likely has two pretty major peaks, one at the crossover point, and the other up high where the acoustic response begins to roll off. In theory, since two resistances in parallel are reduced in value by R1*R2 divided by R1+R2, the basic impedance of 8 ohms shouldn't be changed much, but large peaks of something like 100 ohms or more would be reduced by a lot. In my example, let's say we take a 50 ohm resistor across a speaker with nominal 8 ohm impedance and DC resistance of 5.5 ohms: 50 * 5.5 = 4.96 ohms will be the new DCR of the driver+resistor. That's probably not too bad. Let's say the driver has an impedance peak of 100 ohms at a certain frequency. 50 * 100 = 5000 50 + 100 = 150 5000 / 150 = 33.33 So we've reduced that 100 ohm impedance peak to about 33 ohms -- In theory, at least. I started by putting a 50 ohm 10W wirewound resistor across the + and - terminals of each speaker, just to hear what would happen. Bingo! Smoother highs. The downside? Wasted power. The amp couldn't go as loud with the resistors there. So I took out the tweeters and tacked in the resistors across the + and - terminals of the tweeter itself. I figure the HF section of the crossover will isolate the resistor from the woofer, and that should allow the amp to drive the woofer more directly. I then wired in the resistors and put the tweeters back in the cabs. Result? Well, with 50 ohms the tweeter sounded a little 'closed in', maybe a touch too mellow. So I took out those resistors and put in 100 ohm 10W wirewounds. The effect of these resistors is pretty subtle, but I think I've found a good compromise between brightness/harshness and easy-on-the-ears. The 100 ohm resistors round off the harshness just enough. The best (proper) way to accomplish this would be to put a Zobel network on the tweeters, basically a resistor and capacitor in series, wired from the + to - terminals of the tweeter. The resistor would be a little more than the DC resistance of the tweeter (probably 7 ohms), but the capacitor has to be calculated using the voice coil inductance of the tweeter. Do you think the folks at Klipsch would be able to tell me the voice coil inductance of these tweeters? At any rate, I was just listening to the system this morning, playing a nice, mellow Denon CD by swing legend Papa Jo Jones, with Hank Jones on piano.... Also a gold CD pressing of Bill Evan's "Interplay." It's all sounding pretty darned good to me. These are the best $250 speakers I've ever had. I think I'm beginning to see what makes you Klipsch fanatics love these things so much. I have a friend who made a line array out of Jordan full-range drivers, with a couple of Jordan woofers down low and Raven ribbon supertweeters. It's the most high-resolution, dynamic speaker system I've heard so far. Sweet sounding but fast, quick and dynamic, and not fatiguing or harsh in the slightest. Holographic "you are there" imaging that just won't quit. The cost? Each of his 24 (12 per side) full-range drivers cost $150 or so. Each of his 4 woofer drivers cost at least $200. Each of the 4 ribbon tweeters cost over $200. Then he had cabinets made. This is just waaaaay out of my financial reach. No way. I heard another guy's system with a beautiful EL34 amp into Wilson WATT/Puppy speakers. You know, those pyramid shaped things on top of 100 lb dual-woofer cabs. It sounded great, but had that "hi-fi salon" sound. Polite. Recessed. Really good, but not exactly my cup of tea. Oh yeah, and they cost over $10,000. Again, no way am I getting anywhere near that. OK, so I come home to my humble listening system, to my $250 Klipsch KG4.5's and my homemade triode amp. You'd think it would be put to shame by such expensive systems as I just heard. You know what? It sounds good. I get great dynamics, really quite good clarity, solid imaging, bass that goes low enough, and with my tweaks, all that clarity and speed with no listening fatigue. For $250, no less. KG4.5 + some simple tweaks = great budget speaker for flea-power tube amps. I'm now a happy Klipsch owner. Gotta save up for a pair of Forte II's or Chorus II's with the tractrix mid horn. Or maybe a pair of Altec 19's. And I haven't even started on the RF-3's yet. See what you've done! [] -=|=-

It looks like the 5Z3P is a Russian or Chinese equivalent of 5U4G, which is a very common US-made full-wave rectifier tube with eight-pin base. --

I'm not sure I want to take on a (physically) large project right now. I'm also a miserably bad woodworker. Pathetic. ------------- The speakers are $300 for the pair. The cabs are in reasonably good shape, just some corner dings, scratches, dusty, etc.---------- What about the honky, forward midrange colorations? Do you think that's all bad cabinet resonances?

I would really like to hear a pair of Jubilee. That huge Tractrix mid horn looks like it should sound wonderful. You know, you're right -- a really well-recorded brass section *is* a great test of a turntable/tonearm/cartridge setup. I was just thinking of how good a well-recorded big band can sound, and how that same record can sound dreadful if played on a poorly setup system (spitty, blatty, etc.). I was thinking of a Telarc LP of the Mel Lewis Orchestra (modern big band jazz)... That's a pretty serious test of a system. I should go listen to it...

I got the chance to take a quick listen to a pair of Tangent 400's this evening. I'd been listening to my newly ductseal-dampened KG4.5's before I went to hear the Tangents. First, I did a quick comparison between the KG4.5's and my Tannoy T185's. The KG4.5 sounds more wide-range, with more sparkle on the highs, but the KG's have a recessed midrange, like a "high-fi salon" sort of tonal character. Fortunately, the KG4.5's are way more dynamic and clear in the mids. and less "tizzy" in the highs. They do sound pretty good. The Tannoy's just sound like a more expensive speaker (which they are). There's a relaxed, smoother quality to the Tannoy's, especially in the all-important mids. The KG4.5's sounded more "hi-fi showroom" to me. Right now, I'm liking the Tannoy's sound more. Maybe bracing the KG4.5 cabinets will increase midrange clarity. I also noticed that the difference in sensitivity between the Tannoy T185 and Klipsch KG4.5 is only one click of my volume control (2dB). The Tannoy T185 is rated at 91dB/1W/1m, anechoic. The Klipsch KG4.5 is rated at 95dB/1W/1m "in room." Judging by the difference between T185 and KG4.5, I'd say the KG4.5 would be more accurately rated at 93dB/1W/1m. I was hoping the Tangent 400's would leap out at me and say "Buy me!" When I got there, I saw that they were in kind of rough shape. The drivers all look pristine, but the grill frames were broken (although still usable) and the cabinets were in just so-so shape, with plenty of small dings and scratches. It didn't help that the Tangent cabs are not very good-looking to start with. They look cheap. There was only the headphone jack from a laptop PC to use as a CD player, and a black Denon receiver of some kind. Nice-looking speaker wires, though. Looked like braided teflon-jacketed wire of some kind. Might be that aviation grade, silver-plated, mil-spec stuff. I played my usual selection of speaker-testing music. Cassandra Wilson, Mahler and Cannonball Adderley/Miles Davis. I never got to Bill Evans. From the first few notes, I was reminded of my previous experience with Heresy speakers many years ago. Lots of midrange detail and lots of big dynamics, but a very forward, aggressive presentation. On top of that, there were obvious box colorations. The Tangent cabinets are downright cheap 'n nasty. Rap on the sides and it sounds like a big, hollow wooden box. Not a good sign at all. The cabs are quite light. I had no trouble at all moving them around. They feel lighter than the RF-3's. The forward mids (woofer to mid horn crossover region?) and the hollow box resonances were driving me crazy. No way I could live with those. Some really good points, but some really frustrating bad points. I didn't buy them. Hopefully I'll get to play with the RC-3's this weekend. -=|=-

What Cask05 wrote makes a lot of sense to me. ------------- Orchestral strings and well-recorded piano are great tests of a turntable/tonearm/cartridge. So, what good LP's of orchestral strings or solo piano would one recommend as top-shelf record player auditioning material? I'll suggest the RCA Living Stereo pressing of Mahler's "Das Lied von der Erde" for strings and vocals (and orchestral bells, and...). I also like the mid 1970's Deutsche Grammophon LP of Beethoven Symphony 6 conducted by Karl Boehm, but that wouldn't be a popular choice. Solo piano? Hmmm... The Max Wilcox produced RCA Living Stereo Artur Rubinstein recordings are well regarded. Chopin Ballades, anyone?

Completely IMO: Stanton -- From what I've seen, these are "DJ" 'tables, available from the likes of Guitar Center or Musician's Friend. Not recommended. Audio-Technica -- same as above. Thorens -- A good maker, but not the market dominator they used to be in the 1960s and '70s. Rega are generally considered a better deal in the sub-$1000 category. Denon -- They only make a couple of 'tables, and they look like low-budget affairs. DP-300F looks a lot like Rega, Music Hall, et al. Nothing like the big direct-drive Denon 'tables of old... Music Direct is having a sale on Rega P3-24 -- http://www.musicdirect.com/p-5363-rega-p324-matte-black.aspx http://www.musicdirect.com/c-727-rega-p3-24-special-offers.aspx I'd look for a good used Thorens TD-125mkII. Those often came with SME 3009 tonearm mounted. That's a classic combination, and so long as the turntable was well-maintained, really hard to beat.

I'll pile on and also recommend Technics SL1200mkII (if you can find one in good condition). I bought one new from KAB Electro Acoustics just before the big price increase from $450 to $750, which was a year before they were discontinued. I put a Denon DL110 cartridge on it (high output moving coil, about $120) and have been happy ever since. You can upgrade the SL1200 in quite a few ways, and many have been very happy with the KAB mods. ------------------- There are just as many who swear the SL1200 is a terrible turntable and that the Music Hall or Rega belt-driven turntables are way better. I have heard several of those cheaper belt drives and never was impressed. The Rega tables are very good, though, just not the cheapest ones. Check out the Rega P2 (~$650) or P3 (~$1000). ----------- There are a number of 1970s Japanese direct-drive turntables that are also quite good, but the prices have been rising of late. Unless you know what you're doing, beware Ebay-purchased 'vintage' turntables. They are often broken in one way or another. Craigslist is a better source, because you can go audition the turntable before you buy. Bruce's idea about buying a DJ coffin with two SL1200's and selling off all but one table is a good one, but does require some work. Also, a busy DJ will have abused the turntables and tonearms, so you may be getting two worn out 'tables, even if they look OK cosmetically. Even the best turntable/tonearm will sound bad if it's damaged or just plain worn out.

More experiments! Last night, I stopped at Home Depot and bought another few pounds of Duct Seal. Coated the KG4.5 woofer frames, following the method of planet10 from over at DIYaudio.com. [ http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/111724-extreme-basket-tricks.html ] The result? SUCCESS! The KG4.5 woofers have stamped frames (i.e. cheap). Remove a woofer from the cab, hold it from its magnet and tap on the frame, and you'll hear a distictive "bong" sound, like the sound of a poorly made bell. It sounds like it's in the 500 Hz range and has a decent amount of sustain. Not good. Once again, a coating of Duct Seal removed that problem. Rap on the frame now and all you get is a dull "tink" sound, with just a little hint of ring left. After putting the woofers back in, I hear a marked reduction in upper mid sibilance. Why would damping the resonance of the woofer frame improve the subjective performance of the tweeter? Ya got me... But I'll take it! The upper bass/lower midrange now sounds more full, maybe a little warmer. That same region also sounds more clear, less muddled. This is the biggest improvement so far. Now that I've damped both the woofer frame and the tweeter's plastic horn, there is a big difference in how the upper notes on a piano and orchestral bells sound. Before the Duct Seal treatment on the tweeter, bells sounded very ring-y and startlingly lifelike, even exaggerated. After the damping, they sound more "accurate," or more like I've heard from good cone 'n dome speakers (i.e. not as loud). I'll guess that the undamped tweeter horn rings a bit, which adds some extra zing to the 5 to 10kHz region, and that this has been toned down by damping the horn. While I am very happy with the reduction in perceived sibilance on vocals and the greater accuracy of reproduction of jazz ride cymbal, I kind of miss how orchestral bells used to "pop" to the front of the mix. I listen to lots of jazz, so any obnoxiousness in reproduction of jazz ride cymbals cannot be tolerated. I might get around to removing some of the Duct Seal from the tweeter horns, just to see if I can find a pleasant compromise between "zing" and "accuracy." We shall see... I've read a few threads with pictures of the RF-7 and some other Klipsch crossovers. I see they all use film capacitors. While they don't use anything exotic, the stock caps look like decent-quality metallized mylar. Nothing wrong with that. My experience with cap replacements has been that you'll only get a huge difference when changing capacitor types, such as when replacing non-polarized electrolytics (usually wretched sounding) with good quality film caps. Going from decent mylar film to top-shelf polypropylene usually yields more subtle results. Usually you'll get a little better clarity, a little smoother highs, maybe a little less "grain" in the sound. More of a tweak than a make-or-break change. This Duct Seal experiment has been more than that. It has made me want to keep these speakers. They now sound quite acceptable. I could not enjoy the KG4.5's in their stock state -- too much harsh sibilance and confused lower mids -- but now they're a nice pair of budget speakers that are more efficient than anything else I could get in their price range. Now to the RF-3's. Their problem is a completely unacceptable level of harshness in the upper mids to lower trebles. If I can tame that, then they'll be even better than the KG4.5's (the RF-3's are more efficient and have tighter mids and bass response). First, though, I need to figure out how to get the drivers out of the box, without damaging anything. Wish me luck... -=|=- PS -- I listened to "Solar" from Bill Evans Trio "Sunday at the Village Vanguard" (Analogue Productions SACD). Paul Motian's drums nearly leap out of the speaker. Amazing. The drumset sounds big as life, with just a weenie little 6 watt per channel amp driving. This is great sound for only $250 in speakers. []

Was looking at the price of Sonicaps and Axon Film&Foil. It will cost something like $70 to replace the 2.5uF and 3uF caps in both speakers. That seems like a lot to pay for an experiment that might not even work out. ------------------------ I don't quite trust the Sonicaps because of the advertising/description. It doesn't say anywhere what the construction is. If they're metallized polypropylene, then I don't want to pay that much for them. I'd get film&foil for that kind of money. Anybody know what type construction is used to make Sonicaps (metallized polypropylene or polypro film and foil)? ------------------------------- Have you tried WIMA MKP metallized polypropylene? Those are the red 'box' capacitors that were really popular in the 1990s. I have some WIMA MPK10 in 2.2uF 250V and some of the same in ERO (Roederstein). I also have some really good sounding film&foil 0.22uF 400V ERO that I could parallel with the 2.2uF to make 2.5uF (nominally 2.42uF, but that should be close enough, no?). That would leave only a pair of 0.82uF caps to buy to parallel with the 2.2uF to make 3.0uF, and the non-inductive wirewound resistors (which are expensive enough at $4 a pop).

"Audyssey"? I don't understand the logic of making speakers with built in EQ (the crossover) that require an electronic EQ to make them sound acceptable. But OK, maybe you have a point there... maybe I should give up on them. It's just that these RF-3's throw out such a convincing image, and all that detail... If I can only tone down that treble harshness, just a little... -- I performed my first tweak on the KG4.5's. I took out the tweeters and covered the back of the horn with a layer of Duct Seal (heavy putty that never dries and is the consistency of modeling clay). I have to say I was a bit surprised by the apparent cheapness of the driver. Coming from earlier experiences with B&W and Tannoy and being pleasantly surprised at the high quality of their drivers (cast frames, large magnets, etc.), I was underwhelmed by the KG4.5 tweeter. It's surprisingly small, and the plastic horn is decidedly lightweight. The horn also rang like a bell when I gave it a good tap. The Duct Seal helped reduce that ring quite a bit (the "bong" sound became a dull "thwack"). I put the tweeters back in and there's a noticeable improvement in midrange clarity. The first tweak is an immediate success. I'll try this on the RF-3 tweeters soon, and report back. I suspect the RF-3 woofers will also need Duct Seal on their frames. This will tame any midrange resonances coming from the frames, especially likely if they're made of stamped metal. PS - Don't get me wrong, I do realize that the KG series was designed to be a budget line, and they do sound really good for the money. Being able to get a high level of performnce from inexpensive materials is a sign of some very good, clever engineering. It's also encouraging that the speakers responded so well to a simple tweak. I think there's more potential for improvement in there... -=|=-

Hey t-man, thanks for the corroboration on the KG sound vs RF sound. Nice to know someone else has heard what I think I hear... Hopefully I'm on the right track. _______________________________________________________________ OK, so I gather that the KG4.5 will benefit from better capacitors. Sonicaps are much liked on this forum. I think they are metallized polypropylene, which is fine, but I have liked polypropylene film and tin foil capacitors in the past, so would probably go with those if I can. At any rate, it's pretty obvious what to do with the KG4.5's, as they need a little more clarity and speed. Better quality capacitors, some internal dampening on the driver frames and cabinet walls, and additional cabinet bracing should deliver all that. The question remains what to do about the RF-3's excessive brightness. Has anyone worked on these speakers? Upgraded capacitors? Reduce the output from the tweeters a little? There's a 2 ohm series resistor in the HF circuit which could possibly be increased in value to bring down the tweeter output a little. -=|=-

Hey guys, thanks for the replies. Yes, I remember hearing Khorns and being very impressed, and surprised because I thought I wouldn't like a horn speaker. I'm sure I'd really like La Scala, Cornwall, Forte... The latest development is that this morning, before I went to work, I switched back from the RF-3's to the KG4.5's. I have a couple of CDs and SACDs that work well for auditioning speakers -- Waltz for Debby by the Bill Evans Trio (Analogue Productions SACD) and the standard CD of Blue Moon Daughter by Cassandra Wilson (vocals, percussion, deep bass, etc.). I also use an RCA Living Stereo SACD of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde for an orchestral example (nice bells in the opening theme and both male and female vocals). Anyhow... I realize now that each speaker does something really good, while having drawbacks. The RF-3 throws an impossibly solid 3D image for a sub-$1000 (when new) speaker. When you get the placement right, the singer is practically there in the room with you. Details like the glasses clinking and audience talking in Waltz for Debby are clear as a bell, almost like you can listen in on the background chatter in the club and hear what they're talking about at the tables. I've heard very few speakers that have that kind of low-level resolution. I'm tellin' ya, these things have some potential. The problem is, as I said before, that they get fatiguing after awhile. There's a coarseness to the highs. I'm really hoping it's the fault of cheap capacitors or maybe there are some cabinet or horn resonances that need to be tamed. The RC-3 is so much fun, but its brashness begins to wear on me. I'm thinking that it's a good candidate for some mellow sounding paper-in-oil capacitors, or possibly smoother/better caps with just a little attenuation of the tweeter. On the other hand, the KG4.5 is generally smoother and more laid back, but still suffers from a tendency toward sibilance, only in a more relaxed sort of way than the RC-3. When listening to the KG4.5, I miss the bold imaging of the RC-3, but I'm more able to just relax and listen to the music instead of bracing myself for the next sonic fusilade. While I feel the RC-3 needs to have its treble enthusiasm toned down, the KG4.5 could be a little faster sounding and needs to be cleaned up a bit, like it needs faster-sounding capacitors or something (polypropylene film and foil, perhaps). When I switched back to the Tannoy's, I remembered what I like about them (they're extremely smooth, relaxed and refined in the mids and highs), and what I find wanting (they're not all that dynamic, they have loose bass response and they fall off above 12kHz or so in the high end). I think my next move will be to brighten up and clean up the KG4.5's, because I like them enough to try it as a learning experience. I asked Bob Crite about the titanium diaphragms for the tweeters, but he's out of stock (again). So I'll put in better capacitors (Sonicaps? Axon film-and-foil?), put a layer of Duct Seal on the the tweeter horn frame (inside the cabinet, to tame any resonances) and on the frame of the woofer (ditto). I also want to brace the cabinet somehow, as it does sound like it resonates, which is likely muddying up the mids and lows. Sounds like fun? PS -- Can anyone tell me how much of an improvement can be had by replacing the inductors with better quality ones? I'm looking for smoothness, less brashness, less sibilance in the highs. And trust me, it's not the amplifier doing that. -=|=-

Well, this is getting interesting... I lugged my KG4.5's out and put in the RF-3's. The RF-3's are another step up in efficiency (they go really LOUD!), and the family resemblance is unmistakable (they're both EXCITING), but the RF-3's sound different. More "hi-fi", less "romantic" than the KG4.5's. They're still bright, maybe artificially bright, but very clear and fast, fast, fast. I like the RF-3 bass. It's quick and tight. BUT... I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with the RF-3's. The upper mids (~2kHz) sound somehow "mechanical" and artificial. It's hard to put my finger on it. There's a warmth about the KG4.5's that I miss in the RF-3's. -------------- I downloaded copies of the crossover schematics, thinking I might want to do some parts upgrading. I found that the HF on the KG4.5 has a 3rd order network, while the RF-3 HF has a 4th order network. As the networks get more complex, they get to be harder to drive by amplifiers with high-ish output resistance (like my triode amp with no negative feedback loop). That right there might be the difference in treble quality I hear between the KG4.5 and the RF-3. Incidentally, the more highly regarded RF-7 has a 3rd order HF network like the one in the KG4.5. I've always liked the sound of simpler crossovers (1st order sound the most relaxed to me), but I know you can't always use them. Anyway, I wonder if that's why I get a warm-and-fuzzy feeling from the KG4.5's and a cold shower from the RC-3's...

Or with the volume control in your computer's audio player software! You only need to go straight from the computer audio outputs to the power amp audio inputs. Connect the speakers to the amp. You are done, and that would be the best "purist" system option. No tone controls or balance controls to get in the way, no preamp circuits to add noise, etc. --------- 1960s tube power amps were all designed with very high input impedance so they could be driven by the tube preamps of the day. Any of those amps will be easily driven by just about any computer sound card or DAC. That makes for a simple setup. --------- I would be suspicious of Chinese-made budget tube amps. Their parts quality might be suspect and they might not be so easy to repair. Vintage USA-made tube power amps are relatively easy to repair (often point-to-point wired) and were made exceptionally well compared to much of today's throwaway electronics.

I heard a pair of Antique Sound Lab monoblocks with 6L6GC output tubes. They sounded pretty good to me. I even got the chance to open them up and look inside. Good quality, well-made stuff for a reasonable price. You could do a lot worse. -=|=-