kink56

Well as it comes to surround sound for music, I typically do not sit among the band and have members playing all around me. But that is not the entirety of my argument. But some people understand what I am saying and others do not. I have no desire to dissuade to persuade those who do not. I am just offering my perspective. Take it or leave it.

I find that a LOT of 50 year old recordings sound much more natural and life-like than many modern recordings using modern formats. When I evaluate components I am far more apt to use Ella Fitzgerald's 'Round Midnight from Clap Hands Here Comes Charlie album than I would use Dark Side Of The Moon or the latest from innumerable pop star or rock albums. It is similar to the Robert_KC comments on his using unamplified live orchestra music as his standard rather than amplified or electronically enhanced/processed music. I KNOW what the human voice sounds like. And so few modern recording can come close to capturing it as well as many "50 year old" recordings. I think it has to do with modern aesthetics. Back in the day the GOAL was to capture music as accurately as possible. Now the goal is to make a "consumer product" than does not have fidelity as a priority but a marketable "sound" as its priority. Very few of my 5000 albums sound much like real human voices or real acoustic instruments. They try to create new sounds rather than replicating the actual sound. It is like two schools of thought on car restoration. One is to restore a car exactly like the factory original, including all decals, casting dates, ink/chalk inspection marks etc. The other is to make a custom car for a specific purpose (read: market) which does not even take any historical knowledge of the car in question. So much of today's music is being engineered by people who grew up with video games as their sound reference and may have never even hear a real violin or saxophone in the same room with them.

My opinion is HT and audiophile are mutually exclusive. They have totally different priorities from what I can see. One is concerned with high fidelity and the other is enamored with "hi-fi" effects and pizzazz factor.

Yes, and between these two extremes one has to choose what is more important. I personally want both, but cannot afford what it would take to do so.

I may be wrong, but I think ProAc still uses plywood.

I notice that on this forum imaging and soundstage "spatial presentation" is seldom near the top of the priority list, and often dead last. It would make sense as this is not the priority of heritage Klipsch speakers either and almost any monitor speaker on stands can beat Klipsch in that respect, even $300 ones.

In general I prefer the tone of Yamaha pianos over Steinways, but that is a preference, not based on anything scientific.

Heck I can hear the difference between two Gibson J-45s in my hands often only a few serial numbers apart! As for A/B comparisons of amps, I may not be able to tell the difference. BUT, whenever I live with an amp for awhile and then introduce another amp, even if I have used it before, I can immediately hear the difference. A youtube clip will obliterate the subtle differences between the two violins or between two Gibson J-45s. Or even two models of Klipsch speakers. I have even swapped 57 Classic humbucker pickups between two 1996 Gibson Les Paul 59 reissues, and then they each sounded different. So I am saying two Les Pauls, two sets of pickups yielded 4 distinct sounding combinations. It boils down to what you are listening FOR.

Aren't they still available? They are still active on Audiomart. I have been kicking around the idea of getting some sort of CornScala or Cornwall style speakers. The two in this thread each seem interesting, if not pricey.

Or maybe this would be your cup of tea?: https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649451819-klipsch-cornscala-cornwall-la-scala/

Well imaging AND bass would be ideal, of course.

Yeah integrating subs is a pain for sure. I am never quite happy and tweaking them. I see how it would be tempting to scrap them and use the Forte I full range and be done with it.

Oh the professional line, worth considering!

I agree. It may be because many subs are not fast enough to match with Klipsch speakers. I really need the 20hz to 40hz that no Klipsch Heritage speaker can cover. (many cannot cover much below 60hz). But even without a subwoofer, the Forte I, I have is not too shabby, at least to 40 hz or so. But the subs I have move a lot of air and have a visceral impact I hate to give up. Most subs are designed for Home Theatre these days and being "musical" is not their priority. Home Theatre is the bane to audiophiles.

So what speakers do you have that replaced the Cornwall III?

I agree about the Forte III. I had them for awhile and MUCH prefer my Forte I. Referring to my OP, I had Cornwalls back in 1979, BEFORE I ever understood imaging and soundstage. So, I never set them up for such. I put them in the corner for bass. So my recollection of them is not useful for my current criteria. For some reason the Heresy III has better BALANCED bass (though not any more extended) than the Heresy II I had. The Heresy II bass response was "shelved" down its entire range of the woofer. And for some reason the Heresy III are not as glaring as the Forte III. I would love to hear from someone who recognizes the bass bin resonance the La Scalas have and have heard the La Scala IIs to determine if they have addressed this problem effectively. But, I am not going to gamble, so barring this information, I will probably end up with Cornwalls. In fact I may seek out later Cornwall II with the banana plugs instead of going with the new Cornwall III. I understand the Cornwall II have a better midrange than the Cornwall III.

Maybe some of you remember my review of Belles I had. ( I hated their bass bin resonance ). In that review I also mentioned I heard some K-Horns that had that same problem. Now I know many may not notice or care about this problem. But for those who do: Has the new La Scala II addressed this problem? I currently have Heresy III in my bedrooms system and Crites modded Forte I in my main system. I like both. But I am trying to decide between La Scala II or Cornwalls as an "upgrade" from my Forte I. If the new La Scalas still have that bass bin upper bass resonance/exaggeration, then they are 100% out of my consideration, and would go to Cornwalls. But I am so drawn to La Scala II for some reason that has no explanation in logic. Bass extension is not a problem for me, so the shortcomings of the La Scala II bass extension is not an issue.

HIFI exacerbates OCD, doesn't it?

Yes, I will admit I give up the best when it comes to imaging and soundstage just by the fact I have Klipsch Heritage speakers. But I want to get the best imaging I can from them. There is something about some Klipsch models that I like even over other speakers that image better, even though imaging is important to me. It is a compromise for sure.

Just wondering how other people think on this matter. Placing various Heritage speakers to optimized the bass response is most of the time not the best placement for imaging and soundstage. Way back before I even knew about the concept of imaging and soundstage, I placed my Klipsch speakers in the corners to get the most bass. That was 40 years ago! Now I place my Klipsch (or any other speaker for that matter) where I get the best 3-D soundstage and specific location imaging results. That means my bass extension is not optimized. No matter though, I have a stereo pair of subwoofers for that. So, what is YOUR priority when it comes to speaker placement. Could be one of the two I mentioned or it could be some other priority entirely.

I have Crown SL-2 preamp, Crown PL-3 power amp, Nakamichi CDP-2A CD player, Klipsch Heresy and ENTEC L-F10 subwoofer for my bedroom system. I like it.

I have Forte I and I do not toe them in. I seldom toe in any speaker I ever had.

I find it funny how much rationalization AGAINST the possibility that a real high end system cannot possibly sound THAT much better than Cornwalls and McIntosh (for example). I know I will never be able to afford a true high end system, but I am not going to try to fool myself that they don't blow anything I have ever owned away. And NO a $200K systems does not sound 10 times better than a $20K system, but I am willing to say they DO sound at least 50% better (1 and a half times better). And that is what some people are paying for. And maybe a $500K system with sound 10% better than that. You have to pay a LOT to move up a significant level. And even the richest most serious audiophile will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of bucks to get that last 2-3% and NEVER actually get there. It is as each increment is half as big as the last, until it becomes miniscule as at the same time the expenditure become more astronomical. It is called diminishing returns. And there is MORE to a system than PLAYING LOUD.

Very cool indeed. Great to see kids learn stuff with hands on experience. Fun, fun, fun!