robert_kc

FWIW, my answer is my post immediately above. Your thoughts?

IMO, the average consumer is not going to look at technical data about a recording. As a classical music lover, my criterion for assessing the quality of a recording is fairly simple: Does the recording sound like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house (where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural). I recognize that memory is fallible – nonetheless this is my criterion. We listed in an earlier post some examples of recordings of classical music that sound natural. OTOH, I have a studio recording of Anna Netrebko (who I love) singing a collection of individual arias from operas, and some of them sound to me like an engineer ruined them (i.e., it sounds like a pop recording’s “wall of sound”). Did some producer convince Anna that their heavy-handed approach to editing is necessary to sell CDs? Maybe it’s more complicated than this, but the attitude of many classical music lovers (including me) is that we want recording engineers to keep their grubby paws (and their software or DAW or whatever they use) off our recordings. Sometimes the recordings that sound the best are the ones where the liner notes say that the recording was NOT electronically manipulated (I.e., no signal processing). Again, I’m not a recording engineer, and therefore I’m probably over-simplifying what is required to faithfully capture what was heard in the symphony hall or opera house. As I said in an earlier post, each consumer must define their goals for reproduction of music in their home. Do they want to blast heavy metal music so loud that they it might cause hearing damage? Do they want unobtrusive background music, in which case dynamic compression may be indicated? (My opinion is that dynamic range compression should be handled by a parameter setting in the consumer electronics, as is the case with my Oppo universal players and Chromecast Audio. I have mine set to “Off”.) Do they like thumping bass? Sizzling highs? My goal is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera. (Though there are limits to the dynamic range that almost any home hi-fi system can reproduce – except perhaps those of you who own Jubilee. I’m thinking about the difference (in a hi-res digital recording) between the opening of Movement 4 and Movement 5 in Mahler Symphony 2.) And I want the inevitable deviations in recorded music to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant – to my ears. On one hand I recognize that this is probably more complicated than the average consumer (including me) might assume, on the other hand there are some 60 year old analog recordings that sound natural, and are enjoyable to listen to. (Did the old mics and tube equipment used to record classical music provide an inherent form of dynamic compression that is pleasant when played on a home hi-fi system?) As I said in an earlier post, it seems to me that for some pop music – specifically if there never was a live performance (not even in the studio) - the issue of high fidelity is not as relevant. (If the music was never performed in the real world, how is it meaningful to talk about hi-fidelity reproduction? You can’t “faithfully reproduce” something that never existed in the real world.) Apparently, for at least some pop music, the issue is what sounds “good”. (Or, perhaps, what is a “winning formula” – i.e., for winning “ear-share”, and winning “wallet-share” by selling CDs and downloads. For most consumers, what grabs their attention, and causes their head to start bobbing up and down?) Moreover, what sounds “good” apparently differs on cheap earbuds vs. in the car (where there is high ambient noise) vs. on a good hi-fi system in the home. (This is not something I’m concerned with, because I don’t often listen to pop music. With that said, I respect the fact that different people like different music.) I’m not saying that recording engineers should never have an active role in any recordings – as long as it’s disclosed. For example, I like the following recording (for more than one reason), which apparently involves sophisticated audio and video editing to create a product wherein a single classical guitar player performs all 4 parts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPu1om4WZsQ (Unfortunately this is not available as a Blu-ray video.) This reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend recently. He said that he really liked his CD of Ray Charles performing with the Count Basie orchestra titled “Ray Sings, Basie Swings”. I told him that I like Count Basie, and some of Ray Charles’ work … but Ray Charles and Count Basie never performed together. (AKAIK.) This recording was created by engineers - but at least they were honest about it in the liner notes. (“This pairing never happened, but it should have.”) And I believe that I have a recording wherein Anna Netrebko sings a duet with herself. (However, I’m not crazy about this recording – it has that “over-engineered” sound. I’d rather hear (and watch) a real duet between Anna and Elina Garanca.) Regarding the “average volume level” of recordings, I was amused by an Amazon customer review of a recording of miscellaneous arias sung by an opera singer. The customer complained that “something was wrong with the recording”, because it was at a much lower volume level than all of their pop recordings. My perspective is the opposite. The digital folder that contains the few pop recordings that I possess is labeled “TURN DOWN THE VOLUME – Pop Music” to remind me to not blow up my speakers (and my ears) when I listen to them.

Living room, TV room, and basement.

Here’s my current systems: Living room: Stereo speakers are Snell Type CV. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source components are Oppo BDP-95 (with USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings), and Dual 1249 with Stanton 681EE. Amps include a pair of McIntosh MC30s, Scott 296, McIntosh MX110 / McIntosh MC275, a pair of Pilot HF-56 mono receivers, an NAD pre-amp and Acurus A250 power-amp for movies, and a McIntosh 2155 driving JBL L830s in the kitchen / dining room. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and a Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switch connects the Oppo to the amp. Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. TV room: Stereo speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source is an Oppo BDP-105 (with USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings). The amps are Scott 399, McIntosh MC225, Kenwood KR-9050, Fisher 800B, Fisher X-1000, Scott 299C, McIntosh MC240, and an NAD C375BEE. The tube amps are for music. The solid-state amps are for movies. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switches connect the Oppo to the amp. Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. Office: Stereo speakers are JBL L880. Sources: Oppo DV-980H SACD/CD/DVD, and my Windows 10 laptop with Music Streamer II DAC. Amps: Fisher 500C, Scott 299B, Altec 353A, and an NAD D 3020 for general internet use (and summertime). Banana jacks allow me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and a Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switch connects the Oppo to the amp. Basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Source: Oppo UDP-205 (with USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings). Amps: Scott 272, Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO, Scott 222C, McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp, Fisher KX-200, Scott 296, Pilot SA-260, Scott LK150. A patch panel allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo, and a power amp to the MX110Z. Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. Bedroom: The speaker is a single Klipsch WF-35. Source is an older CD player. Fisher TA 500 (AM/FM mono receiver). Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. Photobucket has stopped allowing linking to pics. I'll try attaching a couple of pics here:

As I said earlier, if the goal is audio nirvana – when you forget about the equipment – and lose track of time and become completely lost in the music – then I think there are many paths to the top of the mountain. Different people enjoy traveling different paths.

I have an SACD that I think may have an engineering problem, but I’m not 100% certain: Reference Recordings RR-136 Saint-Saëns Symphony No. 3 "Organ" (Kansas City Symphony) SACD. Reference Recordings has graciously offered to accept a return and provide a refund. (Their current opinion is that the SACD is OK, and that the problem is with my equipment. My understanding is that they forwarded my email to their engineer, but I haven’t received any response from the engineer.) Before I return the SACD I thought I’d check to see if anyone else owns this SACD, and can share their experience: Saint-Saëns: Symphony No. 3 in C Minor "Organ Symphony" My concern is that the lowest organ pedal notes on this SACD are extremely loud, in comparison with the 24bit/176kHz FLAC stereo download (HDTracks) of the same recording - particularly on track 6, 1:20 – 1:50. And the deep bass is extremely loud in comparison with my other SACDs (5.0 and 5.1), FLAC downloads, and CDs featuring pipe organ music (including Reference Recordings 133 “Organ Polychrome” featuring the same Julia Irene Kauffman Casavant Organ in Helzberg Hall). And I’ve played a test CD that has warble tones at a variety of frequencies, and deep bass is not exaggerated. Moreover, I have full season tickets to the classical series performed by the Kansas City Symphony. And I’ve attended several concerts in Helzberg Hall featuring the Julia Irene Kauffman Casavant Organ. I’m familiar with the live sound in Helzberg Hall, including the pipe organ. (Though I haven’t heard the KC Symphony perform Saint-Saens Symphony 3 live.) IME this SACD’s deep bass is unnaturally loud compared with the live sound in the hall. I’ve experimented with the software settings in my Oppo players (UDP-205, BDP-105, BDP-95). I have the Oppo software parameters in each player set similarly – i.e., so that the subwoofer plays for SACDs. The same settings work OK for all other recordings, and I therefore think that the problem is not with the Oppo players. (Of course, I could be wrong …) My subwoofers in my various systems (SVS Sub16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW, and Klipsch P-312W) are connected to an Oppo player. The Oppo players are also connected directly to vintage tube amps - no AVR or preprocessor. (In other words, the Oppo units provide the “pre-amp” functionality.) The subwoofers are adjusted so that all other recordings of classical music (including pipe organ) have an appropriate amount of bass. Does anyone else have this SACD, and play the SACD layer (vs. CD layer), and have their system configured to engage the sub when playing the SACD layer, and have large subwoofers?

My solution - which is great for me as a hobbyist who collects tube amps - is to have different amps that pair well with different recordings. This Swan Lake recording sounds fabulous with my Scott 299C - with the tone controls set to my taste. Played on an MC240 (no tone controls), it can be a little bright. Bottom line, I generally recommend that people get an amp with tone controls, due to the variances in recordings.

Thanks for your suggestions. I’ll suggest 2 concerts on Blu-ray that feature opera excerpts, in case you’re interested. (FWIW, for anyone who is not familiar with opera, I think these concert recordings are a good place to start – i.e., you have the opportunity to hear small excerpts of music from several different composers.) The Opera Gala Berlin Concert: Live From Waldbuhne In case anyone is interested in recommendations to start experiencing ballet on Blu-ray: Tchaikovsky: Swan Lake Giselle Do you listen to multi-channel SACD? I’ve been exploring Russian sacred choral music. This is stunningly beautiful: Rachmaninoff "All-night Vigil" Regarding old analog recordings that have been remastered, I have found a few that have surprising good quality. The following recording of Heifetz performing the Beethoven Violin Concerto in D (recorded 1955) is 2 channel. The Mendelssohn Violin Concerto (recorded 1958) is 3 channel. The Technical Notes state: “In this series of Living Stereo reissues on hybrid SACDs, we have used the 3-channel original tapes whenever they existed; when the material was recorded only in stereo, we used that tape.” “The DSD program is essentially identical to the analog tape,” “No signal processing was necessary to “improve” these extraordinary tapes.” Sounds pretty good to me. Beethoven: Violin Concerto in D / Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto in E Minor IMO these are all examples of good quality recordings. I wonder how much electronic editing (and DSP “mucking around”) was done on each.

Chris, Please share a list of your favorite Blu-ray classical videos. Thanks

Chris: First, let me say that I wish that I could hear your Jubilee. (Even though I can’t fit them in any of my listening rooms.) Second, I’ll define a point of departure (for some, but not all). I like classical music and opera. Not pop music. I think it’s important for each individual to define “audio fidelity” or “high fidelity reproduction” based on their goals for their hi-fi system. Perhaps for a recording engineer that’s fidelity to how the master tape sounded on studio monitors. (I’m not a recording engineer – so I can’t say. Candidly, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about want a recording engineer wants – I care more about what the composer and conductor wanted.) Perhaps some are concerned with how disco music sounds in a discotheque. (I don’t know, and don’t care.) I’m not interested in pop music, which is largely created by producers and engineers using electronic technology. Rather, I’m interested in classical music, which involves instruments that have a natural sound. (We know what a violin sounds like.) Moreover, classical music recordings are based on natural instruments performing together – i.e., a performance in the “real” world. Pop music OTOH often involves engineers combining audio from different musicians in different locations at different times, and in many cases mixing in electronically produced sounds. How can someone discuss fidelity to the sound of the “original” performance, if there never was a performance of the music? What meaning does “high fidelity” reproduction (or “audio fidelity”) have for most of pop music? (I want to be clear about my perspective: I respect the fact that different people like different music. To each their own. If you like electronically produced pop music and your goal is for your home hi-fi system to sound “good” – I think that’s OK.) Which leads me to my first assertion. I regard as a “myth” the idea presented in the 4th video (posted by twk123) that the audio quality in all live performances has decreased in recent years. This has not occurred at my local symphony hall, where no electronic sound reinforcement systems are employed. There is no DJ (or sound board operator) involved with the live performance of classical music in its intended venue (at least in my local symphony hall and opera house). My goal for my home hi-fi systems is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera house – or perhaps I should say an accurate facsimile. Because a full-scale orchestra cannot be reproduced with 100% accuracy via recorded music played on a hi-fi, this introduces subjectivity regarding sound quality (i.e., which compromises a listener prefers to accept). Moreover, different people have different sensitivities to various aspects of sound. (For example, some people are sensitive to spatial imaging, some not.) I believe that all technology associated with sound reproduction is imperfect. Some of these imperfections are immaterial to most people, whereas some imperfections make a difference to some people (but not others) based on their hearing and what’s important to them. (For example, some people want to be able to recreate the sound as loud as the original performance, some people don’t. Some people want to feel the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ, some people are willing to sacrifice this facet of the overall reproduction. ) Each individual must choose the trade-offs that suits him or her. Because it is impracticable for me to instantly switch back and forth between a live orchestra and my hi-fi system, my memory must come into play. I attend live performances on a regular basis. I listen to my hi-fi on a regular basis. My assessment of whether or not what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system sounds like a live performance – or like a pleasant facsimile of a live performance – is more important to me than what some electronic test equipment indicates. My ears are “adjusted” - or “calibrated” – by virtue of my full season subscription to the symphony and opera. What I’m used to is the natural sound of classical music. That’s what I strive for with my home hi-fi systems. (Clearly this approach is imperfect – but that’s life.) In my listening notes from testing my hi-fi systems my highest rating is “excellent – magical”. In other words, to me the sound was astonishingly natural – and I was “drawn into” the music – and dare I say – it sounded good. No hi-fi system is perfect. I want the imperfections in my hi-fi systems to sound pleasant when playing classical music – not unpleasant. I want that “magical” moment when I’m listening (for example) to my SACD of Brahms German Requiem and I completely forget about the hi-fi equipment - because I’m moved by the music. If in my listening notes I consistently rank – based on many listening sessions over a long period of time – system configuration “A” (including a specific complement of tubes) as “excellent – magical”, and I consistently rate other configurations as something less – that tells me that configuration “A” is the best configuration in that room – for me. The sound of a symphony orchestra is complex, and a few published hi-fi specs like frequency response, signal/noise ratio, and THD do not capture all qualitative facets of reproducing this complex sound. And a calibrated mic and PC-based “room correction” software do not completely define a hi-fi system’s subjective sound quality. In other words, the sound quality of a hi-fi system is not completely defined by commonly published technical specifications. The differences in sound quality between hi-fi components is sometimes subtle – but it’s these subtleties that can make the difference between a hi-fi system “sounding pretty good”, and what I call “being drawn into the music” – i.e., forgetting about everything except the music. I use my ears to decide when I think that my hi-fi systems sound closest to natural music – vs. letting electronic hardware and software decide for me. (I imagine that some people’s ears adjust to sound that has been altered by some form of electronic processing. If you’re used to listening to an AV receiver (or pre-processor) that employs digital signal processing, then that AV receiver may sound “normal” or “good” to you – particularly if you are listening to pop music.) While science certainly has a role in the technology associated with hi-fi equipment, my belief is that people’s perception of reproduced sound can’t be completely explained by science. Hi-fi equipment is designed based on electrical engineering, and test equipment is essential in its development and testing. However, IME satisfactory electronic test results represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality. The ultimate goal IMO is not to satisfy an oscilloscope or distortion analyzer or some software tool, it’s to satisfy a music lover. And that involves a music lover listening to the reproduced sound and either having a smile on their face – or not. This involves synergy between all hi-fi components, and the listening room, and the listener’s ears and brain. If “audio nirvana” is that subjective moment when a person “gets lost in” the music they love – and the rest of the world vanishes – then I submit that there are many paths to the top of the mountain. Room EQ. Tube rolling. Component matching. Cartridge pairing with music genre. Etc. It’s part science and part black magic. Moreover, different people enjoy the hobby of hi-fi by focusing on different facets (e.g., high tech digital cataloging and networking, spinning vinyl, rolling tubes, room EQ, DIY speaker building, etc.) Moreover, different people have different constraints, such as budget, room layout, available floor space, home decorating priorities, etc. (For example, I prefer traditional décor. I put original artwork on my walls. There is no way that I’m mounting foam panels in my living room. To each their own. I can fit tower speakers in my listening rooms, but not La Scala, Klipschorn, or Jubilee.) Bottom line, there is no “one size fits all” solution, or even approach to home hi-fi. IMO there is a significant subjective facet to the enjoyment of reproduced music in the home. If you achieve audio nirvana via room EQ – cool. If you achieve audio nirvana via tube rolling – that’s cool too. That’s my 2.5 cents for now. OP: Is this relevant to what you want to discuss? P.S. OP: You posted 2 videos. Suffice it to say that these two videos are very controversial, and have been hotly debated. (I’ve watched both videos a few years ago, and don’t care to view them again.) My recollection is that the methodologies of some of their listening tests have been questioned. For example: What is the provenance of the music samples? (Garbage in / garbage out.) How were the digital recordings manipulated? (I have concerns because the music samples apparently were manipulated by PC software, and this causes me to assume that part of what I’d hear might be artifacts of the PC software.) IMO, the fact that one video is titled “Audio Myths Workshop” and the other is titled “AES Damned Lies Workshop” raises a red flag regarding the impartiality of these investigations. One of the panelists, JJ, begins by telling a story about how he tricked some college friends with a fake listening test. Based on the panelists’ smirks, this further causes me to question their objectivity. One thing that JJ said that I agree with: “Everything can be steered.” “If you’re convinced that everything sounds the same, you’ll steer things that way.”

It appears that we have some very knowledgeable and experienced contributors - however I’m still not clear as to the OP’s intent for this thread. OP: Are you asking people to comment on the videos that you posted? (Suffice it to say for now that these two videos are very controversial, and have been hotly debated.) Videos that others have posted? The videos cover a broad range of topics – IMO too broad for a single thread. FWIW, I think you’d probably get more people participating if you stated your position on a more specific topic, and asked for others’ opinions.

Please explain the specific issue that you want to discuss.

Will this system be used for music only, or will it also be used for Blu-ray and UHD movies? (Don’t forget concert videos.) You must decide if you want to try “high-resolution” audio, such as SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray, and high-resolution FLAC downloads (e.g., 24bit/192kHz). Or, is the convenience associated with streaming more important to you? (Garbage in / garbage out. Your hi-fi system will never sound better than the signal you feed it.) Assuming you want to explore all that new technology offers, I agree with others’ recommendation of Oppo universal disc players. The newer the better. The “high-end” models have “audiophile-grade” DACs and analog circuitry. The newer Oppo universal disc players support downloaded high-resolution FLAC files (e.g., 24bit/192kHz from HDTracks), Blu-ray (audio and video), and the newest model plays UHD discs. They all play SACD (including multi-channel and stereo), CD, and DVD. The simplest way to handle down-loaded hi-res FLAC files is to copy the files from your computer to a USB drive, carry the USB drive into your listening room (i.e., “sneaker-ware”) and plug it into the USB port on the front of the Oppo. (If you want to get fancy, use DLNA networking instead of sneaker-ware.) The UDP-205 and BDP-105 can also serve as a DAC. For example, I connect Chromecast Audio’s (more on Chromecast later) Toslink connection to my UDP-205 and BDP-105, in order to use the Oppo’s DAC. Or, if you don’t have cable TV, and you want to play broadcast TV audio through your hi-fi, you can connect a Toslink connection from your HDTV into the Oppo’s DAC. The last 4 generations of Oppo universal disc players provide “bass management”, and support 2.1 (i.e., stereo plus sub) in addition to 5.1: UDP-205, BDP-105, BDP-95, and DV-980H. Bass management involves a built-in crossover, and an RCA line-level connection for a powered subwoofer. The newer models have adjustments for the crossover frequency. The benefit of this implementation is that it does NOT involve running the high-quality stereo line-level output from a DAC through a subwoofer’s plate amp, with the sub’s plate amp connecting to the main power amp. Rather, the stereo analog line-level output from the Oppo can connect directly to a power amp (or integrated amp or receiver), and the subwoofer line-level output from the Oppo connects directly to the sub. Bottom line, if an Oppo UDP-205 is in your budget, IMO it’s all you’ll probably need for digital music and movies. It has audiophile-grade DACs built-in, and supports almost any digital format for audio and video. If you invest in a UDP-205, you have many opportunities to explore “enhancements” such as high-res audio, subwoofer, surround-sound, UHD movies, etc. I’d caution against Bluetooth if you want hi-fidelity sound. If you want to try internet radio (there are countless free internet radio stations), and services such as Spotify Premium, the Chromecast Audio that I mentioned above is a no-brainer. They retail for $35. Chromecast Audio can plug into an AUX input on your SX-1250 via an adaptor cable, or it can plug into a DAC (e.g., Oppo UDP205) for arguably better sound quality. Spotify premium sounds pretty good, but not as good as a top-quality SACD, or Pure Audio Blu-ray, or 24bit/192kHz FLAC download. The breadth of music available on Spotify Premium is impressive. Some people use Spotify Premium to explore new music, and then buy hi-res versions of selected recordings. OTOH, many people are happy listening to all their music via Spotify Premium. If you want to add surround-sound – and keep your SX-1250 - you can use the Oppo to decode 5.1, and add amps and speakers for the center and rear speaker(s). Don’t let a salesman at a big-box store tell you that you need to get rid of your SX-1250 and get an AVR. There’s lots of help available with setting up these technologies. I can provide parameter settings for an Oppo UDP-205 (or BDP-105, or BDP-95) for a 2.1 set-up. Good luck, and keep us posted.

I know nothing about MWM bins, and I have no affiliation with the seller. With that said, there's a set of 3 in Kansas City: https://kansascity.craigslist.org/msg/d/klipsch-mwm-sub-cabinets/6190821216.html

I live in a medium sized city, and used La Scala speakers rarely become available. When they do, they usually appear to have been used in a commercial environment - i.e., flat black cabinets with handles bolted to the side. And they usually look like they've been drug behind a truck. My assumption is that a 20+ year old pair of speakers that's been "road hard and put away wet" probably needs new drivers and crossovers in order to perform at their full potential. And I'm not interested in the "industrial" look of black cabinets. I recognize that many people live in large cities where good quality used gear becomes available more often. And, again, I respect people who have the skills to rebuild speakers. P.S. The RF-7 II can be a little bright. I recommend tube amps with tone controls. IMO the RF-7 II sounds fabulous with a Scott 296. P.P.S If I had the room to accommodate them, I would have looked at the used Klipschorn that were available locally. They appeared to be in excellent condition. Asking price was $3,500. I would have liked to have heard them, but I didn't want to waste the seller's time.

FWIW, the seller (ronco21) that I recently bought my RF-7 II from stated: Brand New Factory Sealed. Full Factory Warranty. Original First Run Cherry Veneer. Minor Outer Carton/Packaging Scuff Only. (I have no affiliation with the seller.) Based on my experience, the only thing to be aware of is that I had to pick up the speakers at my local YRC freight terminal. For me this was a painless process, and I almost prefer it to having to sit at home all day waiting for a delivery truck to show up – sometime between 7AM and 7PM … The worker at YRC cut the packages from the pallet, and helped me load them into my truck. I was pleased with the purchase experience. I decided on new RF-7 II vs. used heritage speakers for several reasons: floor space, inability to find nice used heritage speakers locally, and my lack of interest (and skill) in completely rebuilding used speakers. I bought these additional RF-7 II for my basement system. (I went from 2.1 to 4.2) My basement is the only room where I might be able to fit something the size of La Scala, but not readily. (My other 4 systems are limited to tower form factor.) I’ve been watching CraigsList for quite a while, and most used Klipsch heritage speakers that became available were completely beat-up POS. (There was one nice looking pair of Klipschorn for $3,500, but I can’t accommodate corner speakers). Based on their appearance, my assumption is that all of the La Scala that I saw had been “used and abused”, and undoubtedly needed all new drivers, crossovers, cabinet refinish, etc. Plus, most were painted black, and I’d end up with an ugly speaker. I respect guys who rebuild speakers – but it’s not my cup of tea. Bottom line: I got a brand-new, flawless pair of RF-7 II in beautiful cherry veneer for $1,799. They take up a relatively small amount of floor space, and sound great with my tube amps. I think this represents a great value. I’m happy with my purchase.

A new stereo pair of RF-7 II are currently available from authorized dealers on eBay for $1,799 including shipping (USA). I recommend the cherry veneer.

Disney Hall looks fabulous. FWIW, I see that Saturday April 21, 2018 the LA Philharmonic is performing Beethoven Symphony 9. I presume that the LA Philharmonic does not use sound-reinforcement in Disney Hall. Have you heard Beethoven Symphony 9 heard performed live in a symphony hall? It's a great opportunity to hear the full power of a large scale symphony and chorus. For the OP – on May 5, 2018 the Houston Symphony is performing Brahms’ German Requiem. Another great opportunity to hear the full power of a large scale symphony and chorus performing a beautiful composition. I respect the fact that different people like different music. The only point to my posts is that the world's greatest music is available without sound-reinforcement systems to "muck it up" - and I think many people who haven't heard a large scale orchestral (and choral) performance in a high-quality symphony hall might be surprised by the power and beauty of the sound.

If < 100 lbs, consider Greyhound Package Express.

The 1,600 seat Helzberg Hall (pictured above) sounds fabulous for symphonic music, with no electronic amplification. The Julia Irene Kauffman Casavant Organ, Opus 3875, features 5,548 pipes, and mechanical action (i.e., no electronics). The adjoining 1,800 Muriel Kauffman Theatre sounds fabulous for opera, with no electronic amplification. We are fortunate to have benefactors who generously support the performing arts.

Just a thought: Go to a concert where no electronics are involved.

Thanks for your responses regarding speaker height. In most of my rooms, I have limited floor space, so a speaker’s footprint is important. Because I want the largest cabinet volume for a given footprint, and I want the HF driver at the optimum position, tower speakers are indicated for me. (I can’t accommodate Klipschorn or La Scala in most rooms due to their footprint.) Based on the limited information currently available about the RF-7III, they don’t appear to include any significant upgrades compared with the RF-7II. Because I like the RF-7II, and they’re currently available deeply discounted, I just bought 2 more RF-7II (cherry) to “upgrade” the 2.1 system in my basement to surround sound. This system will be used primarily with surround-sound (SACD and Blu-ray) classical music and opera, and will be powered by vintage tube amps. I now have RF-7II for left, center, and right. Based on several circumstances I won’t bore you with, I’ve combined the L&R rear line-level outputs from my Oppo UDP-205 player into a single channel, and I’ve repurposed an existing single RF-7 for a rear speaker. And I’ve added an SVS SB-16Ultra subwoofer (left side) to my existing Klipsch R-115SW (right side). I was hoping that Klipsch would have introduced a new speaker they might call an “RF-9” – i.e., a version of the RF-7 that is equipped with upgraded drivers and enhanced refinement and performance, and is possibly larger. And/or I would have liked to see a large 3 way tower – that could be called an “RF-9”, or marketed as a new member of the heritage family (perhaps slotted above the Chorus?). I have Palladium P-37F towers in my TV room. IMO, they are a different product – i.e., a luxury item with premium cabinet design (i.e., boat-tail shape) and premium veneers. Perhaps another way of describing what I’d like to see is a new product about the size of the Palladium P-39F (i.e., the largest Palladium tower), with top-of-the-line components, and delivering TOTL performance, but without the boat-tail shape (thereby lowering cost and increasing cabinet volume). The consumer could be offered an option of “regular grade” wood veneer, or various premium grades of veneer, thereby covering more than one market segment. Bottom line, I was hoping that Klipsch would introduce a new TOTL tower speaker. I respect the fact that people have different needs, different tastes, and different budgets. With that said, short speakers that must be placed on stands seem to me to represent a lost opportunity - i.e., given the same amount of floor space being consumed, a taller speaker could be built, which presumably would improve performance. I think it’s great that many people like Heresy, and many are excited about the Forte III, but my question is why don’t they build a variant that’s approximately 50 inches tall?

I’d appreciate it if someone would please explain the rationale behind short speakers that must be placed on risers or stands. Why doesn’t the manufacturer make the speaker taller, which would put the HF driver at proper height, and increase cabinet volume (and presumably bass) - without consuming any more floor space? At the risk of heresy, I have the same question about the Forte. (Pun intended.)

I collect vintage tube amps, which I enjoy, but my systems might not meet someone else’s criteria for “high-end”.

People have differing tastes, and different needs. People have different needs partly based on their room size, room shape, and furnishings. My TV room is small: 12’ x 13’. My Klipsch Palladium tower speakers are 5’ apart, measured center-to-center. There is no need IMO to “fill in” the sound via a center channel speaker, when the main speakers are this close together. As I said in my earlier post, all the music (and movie content, including dialog) is presented via the 2 main speakers when I select "stereo downmix" (vs. 5.1 downmix) in my Oppo universal players’ configuration parameters. (Results may not be as good if you select "5.1 downmix" and don't connect the center channel.) My Oppo players downmix audio to 2.1 in a manner that results in excellent sound quality, and the music (and movie dialog) is not compromised – even for movies (and SACDs) that feature surround-sound. (In other words, there is no missing content.) OTOH - In my basement system, the speakers are much farther apart (12 feet) than any of my 4 other systems. If I end up with extra speakers, I will experiment further in my basement system with a center channel. Because of the relatively large space between the speakers, I think there might be benefit to “fill in” the sound. And, because of the size of the room, the additional acoustical power provided by a center channel might be beneficial (with 5.1 recordings). Switching gears to rear speakers, some people like action movies, and enjoy the surround-sound experience. I prefer movies that have a story, and I generally don’t care about hearing sounds coming from behind me when watching a movie. IMO - for the types of movies that I watch – rear-channel audio effects do not enhance the movie’s story. With that said, I’m certain there are some scenes in some movies that I like that would be enhanced via surround-sound. (For example, the “echo game” scene in “House of Flying Daggers”. However, IMO the important part of this movie is the story (in this case an ancient Chinese tragic love story), not the special effects.) As I said earlier, I respect the fact that different people have different tastes. Some people would find my taste in movies boring. I like movies that are true stories, such as “Genius”, “Loving”, “Hidden Figures”, “A Street Cat Named Bob”, “Sully”, “War Dogs”, “Woman in Gold”, “Marguerite”, “Trumbo”, “Spotlight”, “Too Big to Fail”, “The Big Short”, “Margin Call”, “The Theory of Everything”, “The Imitation Game” “The Intouchables” (not “The Untouchables”), etc. These are all true stories that I enjoyed without surround-sound. And, I enjoy Blu-ray videos of some operas and ballet, and related movies like “Immortal Beloved” and “Amadeus”. Some people enjoy surround-sound effects in movies, whereas I regard such special-effects as largely a gimmick. To each their own. I like classical music and opera. I recently listened to several of my favorite 5.1 Blu-ray recordings of classical music and operas on a friend’s high-end professionally-calibrated surround-sound system. My friend’s system sounded good, but I heard no benefit vs. my 2.1 systems. IME, incidental sound (such as “hall presence”) in the rear speakers of 5.1 classical recordings has no benefit (and I heard no benefit associated with the center channel). My friend’s surround-sound system sounded different, but not better. Switching gears to subwoofers - IMO, subwoofers can enhance music, particularly for large scale orchestral music that features pipe organ. An example is the high-res 24bit/176kHz FLAC recording of the Kansas City Symphony performing Saint Saens Symphony 3 (Organ Symphony). Based on my taste in movies, occasionally a subwoofer adds to the enjoyment, but more often I find it annoying when extremely loud LFE bass comes blasting out in the middle of a movie. For example, last night I watched “The Man Who Knew Infinity”, which is a story about a mathematician from India. I thought it was a good movie, except there was a scene with an explosion that caused me to almost jump out of my chair. The room was shaking. I was not amused. Some people enjoy extremely loud LFE in movies, whereas I usually find it annoying. To each their own. In summary, IMO the most important speakers are full-range stereo main speakers, followed by a subwoofer, followed by everything else. (And, BTW, I can enjoy a good movie (and music) in mono.) Therefore, my answer to the original question “Is a center absolutely a must for HT” is this: Whether you’ll benefit from a center channel speaker depends on whether you want surround-sound (in which case you’ll likely need the center channel if the 5.1 mix puts dialog in the center channel) vs. a 2.0 or 2.1 downmix (which has no sound assigned to a center channel). Also relevant is your room layout, and your taste in movies and music. However, IMO a center channel is not a “must” in order to enjoy movies and music - if the audio is properly downmixed to 2.0 or 2.1 (i.e., none of the audio is omitted).