mobile homeless

This belongs in the "headroom" thread. We would definitely have the Audience Award at Sundance.kh

This thread is amazing. If it were a script, it might make honorable mention at Sundance....or maybe the audience award. kh

Good lord.... more wrong connections, assumptions, associations via the Klipsch 2 Channel Forum. Why would we have it any other way; its this place's specialty and is more pervasive than comfort food at a Golden Corral...kh

Sure wish I could come over and hear a good sub implementation in a music only system. To this day, I havent heard it. Many love them and I tend to find them a nice addition when watching an action movie in a HT system. But I have yet to hear a sub done in a way I like in dedicated music system. I have some friends that wouldnt do without it, however. Sounds like you have found the good mix/compromise in your setup.

Where in the world did you read this, Dee? This sounds like something that someone that loved tone controls would say trying to summarize someone that didnt favor tone controls. The word "audiophile" now has more negative connotations than "liberal" these days, perhaps for good reason. On the other hand, it sounds to me like this memory of yours went through some re-wording in translation. In my opinion, the reason people dont prefer tone controls is most are trying to remove parts that degrade transparency, and tone controls, in general, are surely not a help here in this regard. Many tend to be mediocre and coarse and you get an improvement in transparency when either OUT of the system or when switched out of the circuit. Personally, I think they are a hindrance once you get your system to a certain level of see-thru quality (of course, as Dean did mention, there are many forms of filtering throughout the chain). I dont know of many quality preamps that run them for this very reason. I have actually done away with as much switching/filtering as I can in my Cary leaving only source selection and volume attenuation. The balance is even gone. This is personal preference and I have eschewed tone controls since the early 80s. That being said, I have tone controls in all my vintage equipment but dont find myself using them either (they arent particularly accurate either with "flat" rarely being so). As for the loudness button, what can I say. I dont think I have heard a loudness circuit that I have felt sounds natural enough in implementation to use. The ones that dont roll out at as the volume increases are even worse. My brother constantly uses "loundess" in his system and every time I bring over some music for him to hear, I groan as ever single boosting device is activated, producing a sound not unlike a disco. He loves it. IT sounds as canned and artificial as a SRS WOW, another "godsend" for the MP3-Boombox crowd. I share the same disdain for the average equalizer - I personally find them degrading sound and outweighing the advantages. Obviously, some are far better than others but I havent heard one I felt didnt degrade the sonics in too long to remember. The goal of natural transparency took front and center and it seemed that additions to the equation were not IN the equation. I think I have shifted more toward musicality as a goal but still favor the quality of ultimate natural transparency as part of the goal. I will say this is a personal preference and some love the ability to be able to tweak the response to their liking for each recording. I understand the motivation and goals here but just found them causing more harm than good in my applications. kh

Is there any way we can combine this with Dean's post as a Klipsch Forum 1-2 punch?

Good lord...

Max, I have one question: Why? At least you're one step closer to HT now. heh... kh

Sounds enticing. Ultimately, it's not a matter of balancing on the fence rail as much as a realization that my listening room just WONT work for Klipschorns. I had two chances as well as another forum member offer me Khorns at unheard of prices. When it came right down to it, I dont have the proper location/room configuration nor the storage area to keep them in the condition they deserve.kh

And I remember having arguments with many here on topics they held with iron fist certainty, only to completely shift with more exposure or experience. Unfortunately, the iron fist certainty sometimes stays around as the subject and conclusions revolve. This idea of perspective is a key issue, and with it the awareness that must come into the equation at one point or another.This is an interesting thread. Where's some Thunderbird when you need it? kh ps - Unfortunate this thread moved to a new page...

Yep, the last posts in this thread have really included some good points... So many conclusions on one piece of gear should be noted with (in the order they popped into my head): - associated components - system synergy - room with attention noted to size/shape/configuration/contents - music used to audition - music tastes - sonic preferences - listening habits - what constitutes quality - ability to set up the system to get its best - experience with other gear to compare it to - getting the best from the gear at hand (with attention paid to all the other points here) - ability to hone in own sometimes subtle differences - weigh in subjective vs objective and an understanding of how they interact - ability to weed out prejudice or deal with preconceived notions that might be faulty or steering limited conclusions - a sufficient length of time - the ability to realize that generalization rarely leads to uncovering the whole answer - ability to quantify and qualify all of the above while weighing in the many variables - the ability to put all of the above in text form without overlooking a variable all without putting foot in mouth. - the realization that given enough time, you will taste said foot at one point or another. That being said, I think some answers can be gleaned and conclusions drawn, at least within the variables. Doing this is no easy task. More often than not, it's simply not done with a lot of success if looking for an iron clad statement. One thing is for sure, the forums can be a piss poor example of awareness regarding much of the above list. And to top it all off, does the system ultimately convey the music in a way that gets you emotionally involved? Straight wire with gain, notwithstanding, does the damn whole works get your foot tapping or mind/emotions soaring? So many points to approach the whole mess.....That's what makes it both interesting and frustrating at the same time kh

This little analogy seems to go a long way in pointing at the problems with talking about amplifiers in absolutes and does a fine job a pointing to why many that write about it miss one variable or another in makng assessments regarding what is "the" answer to the question of what it means to have the perfect solution. I dont think I have found only one answer here, nor one goal, nor one pat sentence that takes you to nirvana, especially when the goals and means we use to measure and obtain them can shift with subjective ease, despite the attempts otherwise. Placing the goals and solutions of reproducing music within the constraints of a formula or set of measurements also often misses the finishing line (which can be a mobius strip), even if making it possible to get there. In this morning alone, I've read too many threads to count that include a coarse, encompassing statement on something concerning audio, seemingly missing the variables or conditions that make it so, all the while leading those wanting the answer that would fit in an A, B, C, D list to possibly say, "Ohhh...that's it." Posts on compression, bandwidth, headroom, straightwire with gain, minimum watts needed, maximum watts satisfied, are left with holes so large, one could erect a circus tent within, and have room for the trapeze wire act. Yet it all seems to stumble forward, sometimes coming full circle before the awareness factor comes aboard. It's an interesting ride as absolutes get bent and statements get erased. And then there's the music... kh

Ole DeanG, the wise veteran of the 2 Channel forum....Indeed. He's certainly made many a twist and turn. It would be interesting to hear his xovers. Perhaps some day - I'd like to give them a go. I've entered many a positive comment on early B&K amplfiers here but you wont see any in my house these days. What I will say is this company used to make some of the most musical, best bang for the buck, bullet-proof solid-state amplifiers I've ever used, especially for the money. I've had the top of the line B&K M200 Sonata Monoblocks and their bottom, B&K ST-140 and ST-202. The EX-442 was a great amp as well as it was basically the M200 but in one chassis instead of monoblocks without the dedicated power supplies. Their Pro 10MC was a great minimalist preamp (for SS, that is) with a bypass option of the line stage, and quite a different animal from the complexity in the latest B&K preamps. I would easily rank the little B&K ST-202 140Wpc MOSfet amp as one of the least expensive, most musical solid-state amplifiers I've ever had in my system (and a step up from the overachiever ST-140). In the right system, this amp just did little wrong. In my view, you could do a lot worse for much more money(yes, there were better amplifiers but a used ST-202 would bring many a smile). I generally prefer better Mosfet amps over bipolar for the most fleshed out midrange and natural presentation, especially in this price range. In my view, amps like B&K walked all over many amps of the era in this price range. You hear people talk of Crown, Phase Linear, Dynaco, and other SS of this ilk that you saw usually powering pro gear. Inserted in a home system, dedicated to music, there was no comparison in my book. The B&K solution was more dimensional and musical, with a more natural midrange and top-end. In my opinion, they were less bright, less in your face, and more refined sounding to boot. The ST-202 and up didnt suffer from the MOSfet mist syndrome you hear about and was more harmonically rich in the tradition of tubes. I will say that all these comments pertain to the B&K amps in the previous company encarnation. They made a sweeping change in the mid 90s and have a whole different philosophy. I have not heard any of their amps since nor ANY of their amps on horns. What finally made me part ways with B&K and solid state amps in general, this after having many excellent makes pass my way, was the fact that a little 40 year old, $100 all tube integrated from EICO made more music, in a more believable fashion than my $4700 of separates anchored by the $2000 B&K M200 Monoblocks. They were on Audiogon within a few months. Ultimately, I have found the best of tube amplification to by more naturally transparent, tonally correct, harmonically faithful, muscially engaging, and just more realistic across the board, bringing the emotion and soul of the musical performance to life in a way that I have not found duplicated via solid state. The latest Tripath digital amps do an excellent job for solid state with horns but after all is said and done, STILL dont replace the musical quality of the better tube amps. kh

Hell yes! I agree and dont know how you could either. When you get your backup, I'm scared to think what mode you'll be in.

That old CJ PV-10 can be a sweet preamp, and a much better deal with the phono stage (B had no balance if I remember correctly and was a step up from the A). On the whole, their presentation leans towards the richer side with the Audio Research more the bleached end of the spectrum. You lucked out and bought one of the only Audio Research that I think is really musical besides a few of the early models. I had a few in my system including the SP-9 Mk II and found it analytical to a fault and a downgrade musically from the SP-8. Actually, your results didnt surprise me too much. Indeed, I posted a long post with pics of the first Philly preamps here wth recs that it looked like a possible winner for the ducats. Do a search and you'll see the posts buried in the archives. Ditto with the CJ. I have some pics in here of the internals. It has all the right stuff and Ive since heard a few good things as well. The tube preamp is a godsend and an overachiever compared to the many solid state offerings in this price range. I havent REALLY liked a solid state active line stage preamp for long term since I dont know when and I've had some heavy hitters pass through. kh

The difference between the edge of a violin played in a room and the edge of the reproduction chain run afoul is not in the same category in my view. Ditto with the detail provided in most high-end systems which still fails to capture this top end realistically.

This is an astute observation, even for many that have been into this for quite some time; although, I might not say unnaturally loud bass and treble as much as exaggerated. This combined with the ability to play loud rank as two of the basic tenets of "good sound" by more than a few.kh

This is a tube that now interests me and will probably be my next foray into push-pull tube solutions. Not a lot of power but seems to be a sweet tube with very nice properties and an open midrange to boot. Some of the Japanese guys have really been getting into these 6V6 designs. I would think it an excellent solution, this coming from someone that has a great love for the EL-84, especially within the many vintage offerings. kh

Well, although I know about 95% of this forum wont agree, this sentence is a bit troubling to me. In my opinion, your moderating duties are there to help the forum itself. Let's say you get into a personal conflict with a member that has done nothing within the forum that anyone can see as being against the rules. Yet within a discussion that might turn sour, would you in turn BAN this member from the entire Klipsch Forum? Personally, I think this is misuse of the position if this was ever the case.kh

Interesting, you seem to be saying you should BAN this forum member from the entire Klipsch forum because of a "private message" to you? Perhaps this answers itself. IF you banned this person from posting here, it would be a misuse of that policy in my opinion. Then again, I dont see this banning policy always used in a fair and even way. However, if the same member that said this was horrible within the forum, that might be a different story. Then again, I tend to believe in the forums policing themselves.

Hence the invention and use/misuse, of the loudness/contour button and/or knob (ie Yamaha) seen in many receivers and integrateds, this to aid in low volume listening. Some did this feature far better than others. It was supposed to roll out as the volume increased. Early Yamaha gear recommended using their "contour" feature as the main adjustment after setting a basic "volume" level. I've never been a big fan due to the rather coarse nature of most, not to mention the addition of yet another switch. NAD was pretty subtle with their implementation.

If wanting to navigate directly to this article, go to the .pdf link below. Some interesting points within (including the quote from Klipsch on padding within the speaker). Not exactly the most compelling review but a good download to save for CW owners and those interested. I suspect they are reviewing the CW with the vert horns. Note spelling of Kornwall in filename... http://www.klipsch.com/media/Newscenter/Kornwall%20Review.pdf kh

True on the surface.... surely get your point.... Then again, drawing conclusions only from quantitative measurements without much understanding as to how they relate to what we perceive has been at the heart of many a problem in audio and the industry in general. We still have much to learn on the issue.kh

You missed my point. In that statement of mine, I am not putting down science (I agree with you on the importance), just some of the ways that dragonfyr used it to support his own conclusions. Personally, i dont think it was always good science nor science at all. On the other hand, the misuse of science and the ironclad conclusions that result from poor science has always been alive and well. Just labelling something "science" does not make it so. Audio surely has a long way to go in understanding how science relates to results. The intersection of perception and measurements is surely another interesting subject and the understanding of this relationship should always be growing to gain understanding (not to mention a better mousetrap, per say).