jdmccall

If you want simple (no sub?) and considering size of room, I would recommend Heresy IV's or Cornwall IV's at most. I really feel Heresy IV's would be best option in light of room size.

I never met Bob, but I certainly perused his website a lot and have appreciated his contributions to the the on-line community of audiophiles. Condolences to his friends and family.😢

I thought his review was a bit schizoid. He lists all these areas in which he felt the speakers were not so great, but then goes on to say how he loves them. I think that would leave a lot of his viewers confused, to say the least. Does high sensitivity, controlled directivity and low distortion make up for a multitude of loudspeaker weaknesses? ...Maybe it does!

Thanks for all the advice! I think I'll definitely do flac this time.

It is tempting. Then I think about how many CD's I could buy each month with that subscription money. But I'm kind of OK with free 128k streaming. Then seek out the stuff I really like on CD or SACD. I would like to get some good rips of my existing CD collection, though; mostly to assemble playlists. Maybe I'll make one more stab at it. FLAC this time...and maybe just rip the good stuff to speed the process and conserve hdd space.

My style is to throw it all out and start over. That could be why I have made 3-4 deep attempts to rip my CD collection. So far, I have to say it's been way more trouble than it's been worth. And I am ready to throw the baby out along with the bathwater...again. The only DSP I apply during ripping is loudness normalization. This could be the culprit, although my understanding is that it merely equalizes loudness differences between tracks so that they all sound nearly the same volume when played back together, as would be the case in "random" mode playback. In EZ CD there's two normalization options: loudness and peak. I am using loudness. All my rips were made like this, so.......🥴

I use EZ CD Audio Converter. Settings were all at their default positions. I don't know if levels were maximized or not. I've always thought 320mp3 was pretty much transparent to the original, but apparently not in my case. Not that my ears are golden...believe me --they're not. I've thought for awhile that my streamed files didn't sound like they should and this comparison bears that out. I've tried a few of the on-line comparisons of WAV files vs. varying levels of data compression, and always had to listen very closely to pick which was which, especially with 320kbps. So.......I set about to delete my mp3 files from my Buffalo Link Station. ARGH!!! I can't find a way to do it!!! I'm about ready to delete them with a hammer.

Today I listened to a 128k jazz stream (The Jazz Groove) through the Tune-In internet radio service. It sounded amazingly good considering the low bit rate. Then I listened to some of my own ripped 320k files. They sounded pretty awful. They weren't jazz recordings but they were ripped from a decent sounding CD (Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years"). Finally, I listened to that Paul Simon CD. Yes, it for sure sounded way, way better than my mp3 rip. So, what's the end of it? I'm not too surprised the CD sounded better than the 320k rip (LAME); but I am surprised those 128k streamed files sounded so much better than my own 320k rips. Was it just that jazz recordings usually sound better than pop recordings anyway, or was it something else; some magic processing applied to the streamed files to enhance them? How can 128 sound better than 320? What other factors besides bit rate could affect SQ?

My Parasound runs really cool, too, and it's a class AB (...I think). I like it real well and have no complaints but I've just been cipherin' on amplifiers and power ratings and current delivery and low-impedance drive capability....you know, important stuff like that. Primary motivation, I suppose is the Denon PMA-1600NE integrated that I'm thinking would sure look nice with my Denon CD player. The Denon is rated 70W into 8 and 140W into 4 Ohms. Probably more than enough for my Cornwalls...but is it? My Parasound 2250 v.2 is rated 275W into 8 and 400W into 4 Ohms. So I'm wondering if I would actually miss the power, SQ-wise, or could the Denon actually sound better because of it's ability to double it's 8 Ohm power into 4 Ohm loads. I don't recall seeing an impedance plot of a Cornwall IV, so I don't know how low their impedance may go. I should check into that.

Oh, OK. I kind of like that. I think I would still prefer black for me, though. It would sure be nice to have options, though. Thanks for the pic.

Don't know that I recall what lamb's wool grilles look like. Not like lamb's wool, I hope!

Well, I'll give'em that at least the badge isn't dead center in front of the tweeter. It's slightly above but I would think it could still be blocking or reflecting some sound. Not that I could ever hear the difference anyway as my high frequency hearing ain't what it used to be. But still...it's just not a good look for a $3000 speaker, imho. They could have mounted the badge in a corner as in the III's. Just sayin'. It's not like it's keeping me up nights.🙂 As for the grilles on all the latest Heritage...not a fan. They can look great in the right light, but that's just the problem; they are extremely sensitive to light. They can look like something wet's been spilled on them a lot of the time, or that the cloth is sagging...but it's all light reflectivity effects playing tricks with the eyes. I suspect it's the same thing that's causing the moire effect that shows up in a lot of pictures of new Heritage speakers. Personally, I much prefer the looks of the old black grilles. In fact, if I could buy a pair of Cornwall IV grilles in black from Klipsch, I'd already have them ordered...unless they were too crazy on the price, that is. On the positive side, the current grilles do seem to be very acoustically transparent...and they can look great --in the right light (just like most of us! I considered buying the CW3's instead of the 4's mainly because of the grilles and the price, but by the time I pulled the old trigger, new CW3's were getting pretty rare on the interwebs . Still, I'm glad I got the 4's; they sound wonderful! Plus I like the current natural cherry much better than the old "Heritage" cherry. I would definitely have got walnut if I'd gone the CW3 route. I think I'd have loved their sound, too (I loved my old '85 cornwalls so why wouldn't I love the 3's?). Whilst I'm obsessing over speaker appearance, I may as well throw in my 2 cents worth on the grille/no grille subject. I generally like speakers either way, but my preference depends on the speaker in question. I love Cornwalls with black grilles on. The new grilles...meh. Without grilles, I like the looks in lower light conditions but less so in bright lighting. Too many visible fasteners (any visible fasteners) tend to ruin the naked look. Same reason people most always look much better COVERED UP!! OK...with people, it's not fasteners, but you get the point. Also, to look best naked, the speaker should be veneered on the front! Put the dad-gummed expensive and purty would where we can see it!!! Grilles...I really love metal mesh grilles and perforated metal grilles, but I imagine the dimensions of the cornwall would rule that out. So...I'm not crazy about'em naked. I like'em but not without caveats. Oh gee, I think it's time to take my meds. It will all seem better then.

Hmmm...interesting.

In light of all preceding, which is "best": an amp rated 70W into 8 Ohms / 140W into 4 Ohms, or an amp rated 275W into 8 Ohms and 400W into 4 Ohms? Which, if either, would sound cleaner and more dynamic driving speakers that dip to 4 Ohms at some frequencies? .....asking for a dumb guy I know.

Well, over four months have elapsed since I got the Cornwall IV's and I just today finally got around to trying them full-range without subs. Measurements were done with my trusty old Radio Shack analog spl meter and a Stereophile Test CD 2 disc. They were stout down to the 50Hz range, dropping significantly below that but unexpectedly coming back to a usable level in the 25Hz band (my room's 22' length helps with that). I didn't actually listen to any music without the subs. I just took some measurements without them and decided there was no point in going further down that road. That big drop in output in the 31.5 to 50 Hz range needed fixed! So I proceeded to go thru my subwoofer set-up. First, since I use two subs, I balanced them with each other. Then I balanced the subs with the speakers, running the Cornwalls full-range and rolling the subs off above 40Hz. When I got that right, I played with phase. I could not get a satisfactorily smooth output until I varied the phase of the subs with each other, running one at 90 degrees and one at 180. That did the trick Measured response now was smooth (enough for me!) ... +/- 3dB from 25 to 160Hz. Time to "let there be music"! Put on Stevie Wonder's "Innervisions" and cranked it up to an appropriate level (The Lady of the Manor was away.) Ah...that's real NICE!! I also reduced the input level on the amp considerably to try to reduce a low-level buzz that seems to be coming thru the speakers from it. I'd had it maxed out but was pretty much never getting the preamp volume control above 40 on it's 0-100 (or so) range. I set them down to the mid-point and still only had to go to 60 on the preamp volume to get real loud. Noise was much lower, too. Oh yeah, I found a good use for those little circular rubber thingy's that Klipsch ships Heritage speakers with (behind the grilles). I found they make good footers! I put six under the front corners of each speaker. Looks good and I think...they sound...better. Maybe. YMMV, of course. And here's a new bad pic: p.s. I wonder whose idea it was to put the "Cornwall" badge right in front of the tweeter?

OK, let me re-phrase: What I'm trying to determine is whether "high-current" amplifiers have real-world, audible advantages over other designs. It makes sense to me that with reactive loads, as most all speakers are, the ideal amp should be able to double output power with every halving of impedance, in order to eliminate audible distortion and dynamic limiting when reproducing music or any other dynamic signal into varying impedances. Of course, few amps are ideal! So my question is...will my amp, even though it's not rated to double its power going from 8 to 4 Ohms, still be able to do just that...to a point? In other words, let's say my amp is loafing along driving a pair of 8 Ohm rated speakers at a low volume level. At some frequencies, these 8 Ohm speakers drop to 4 Ohms, though. Would the amp double its power, thereby preserving accurate dynamics and low distortion...or will distortion rise and/or dynamics be limited, even though the power output is nowhere close to rated max? Maybe another way to frame the question is this: I used to own an NAD amp rated 150W into 8 Ohms or 4 Ohms. Is such an amp still able to double its 4 Ohm power, relative to power into 8 Ohms...until 8 Ohm power output reached 75W, beyond which, 4 Ohm power would become increasingly distorted and dynamics increasingly limited?

Basic question here: Let's assume we have two amplifiers, one rated at 100W @ 8 Ohms and 120W @ 4 Ohms, and a second amp rated 100 @ 8 Ohms and 200 @ 4 Ohms. My question is can the first amplifier double it's power into 4 Ohm loads up to it's rated 120W or will its power into 4 Ohm loads always droop (not double). For example, could the first amps power also be spec'd as 60W @ 8 Ohms and 120 @ 4 Ohms? Or would it's power into 4 Ohms never be double it's 8 Ohm power, regardless of the power level? Probably a dumb question, but there it is. Thanks!

Joe Biden's leg? .......sorry! couldn't help it.

I like the "swarm" idea, too. Multiple small-ish subs of suitably high output that can go cleanly down below 30Hz. (Personally, I don't worry too much about sub 30Hz reproduction.) Place the subs strategically to get flattest response and though they may not match the max output capability of the mains, they will do pretty darned well for the most part. And if you are adding bass that otherwise would not be reproduced at all, then I think that's a good thing, even if it isn't as low distortion as a horn might be. If Klipsch was to market a line of Heritage-branded subs, it bothers me not one bit that they weren't designed by PWK. If you want to say they're not "real Heritage", I say you're right, but so what? I don't consider Forte and Chorus "real" Heritage either. And I sure don't consider any sound bar or bluetooth speaker Heritage. But apparently Klipsch does and that's fine. They can do whatever they want. I just want subs, and yeah sure, even surrounds, to as much as possible be a great sonic and style match for Heritage speakers. I think if they succeeded on both counts they'd make some money and a lot of Klipsch Heritage fans would be pleased. Just not too many who frequent this forum.🙂

All right! Now we're cookin'! Have you seen current Parts Express sub kits and drivers? They have a lot interesting options for do-able amounts of money. And since they're in kit form, sky's the limit as far as finishing them to mate well with Heritage. Here's an example: 18" driver, 4 cubic ft. sealed enclosure, no amp or x/o.......app $509.

So...I guess nothing but a horn-loaded sub the size of refrigerator will be acceptable to some Heritage owners. OK, that niche within a niche within a niche market would appear to be served satisfactorily by commercial horn subs that are available. But for the rest of us, what is there? SVS, HSU, Rythmik, REL, JL Audio and no doubt others. But none look like Klipsch Heritage, and that is the point. I'd like for Klipsch to build me a high-performance, non-horn sub that would look and work well with Heritage speakers. Yes, I know I'm talking about a product that doesn't exist, and that is precisely the point. I would love for it to exist.

I don't believe at all that a sub designed to be used with a fully horn-loaded speaker (k-horn/belle/la scala) has to itself be horn-loaded. It comes down to the wavelengths being dealt with and the issue of practicality. Power is cheap and doesn't even have to take up much space (class D). Drivers capable of extreme excursion are available (Yes, I know: more excursion equals more distortion.). I think the secret is in the crossover. Keep the x/o point low enough and the low-pass filter steep enough. Go acoustic suspension to keep extension deep, distortion low and size reasonable. I think a sub could be designed that would please 95% of Heritage fans. The other 5% may already have pro designs and are happy campers. So...there's my design brief.😎 The KW-120THX is probably the closest thing to my idea of what a "Heritage" sub should be, that Klipsch has in their line right now. But it doesn't look the part. It could be made to look the part if Klipsch chose to do so, I'm sure. Make it a 15"'er and style it to match Heritage and I'm in. If a person want's more performance, buy multiples!

I didn't start this thread to debate subwoofer design or preference (specifically, industrial horns vs consumer ported or sealed), but to discuss the possibility of commercially viable sub designs that Klipsch might introduce to sell with and for their Heritage speakers. But good threads often take lots of twists and turns. This one just turned a little harder and sooner than I expected.

I'm glad y'all who own those huge theater subs are happy with them. Good for you, but that's just not what I'm talking about. Those are not even designed for home use. They are designed for theaters and perhaps other industrial uses. I'm not familiar with them at all and have no desire to own one. What I would like to see from Klipsch is just a good, high-quality, high-output series of subs that are designed to be really good aesthetic matches with current and past Heritage speakers. Performance-wise, the goal would be to match speaker output at crossover (maybe 40-60 Hz) and then just extend it on down as far and as cleanly as possible, keeping price and size manageable. Tall order maybe. Obviously, there's different ideas on what a "Heritage" sub should be, but I'm talking about one that would have appeal to a large cross-section of Klipsch Heritage owners.

I'm talking home subwoofers. Key words being "home", as in "designed for". Not that ugly and enormous 1502 theater thing. (No offense to any who may have one of those in their home or who perhaps have one they us as a home.) Other key word: "subwoofer", as in operating below woofer range. 50-60Hz tops, as I don't know of any Heritage speakers that can't function fine down to 60Hz. If crossovers are done properly, a good sealed or vented sub of sufficient size and power should not muddy up anything, but simply extend bass response right on down to 16-32Hz.