Idontknow
-
Posts
383 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Idontknow
-
-
-
Video on the Forte I is now on YouTube under “drD E”. No reason for anyone to get a Heresy IV.
-
-
captainbeefheart , I was curious what you like as a listening system yourself. You are obviously a mountain of knowledge. Do you normally listen to solid state amps and/or tubes? What speakers and what music do you generally listen to? Curious how a person with your knowledge selects gear. btw, now you know why my avatar says idontknow. Thanks
-
1
-
-
What I didn’t understand about the review was when Amir started to explain his listening impressions. Why with as much knowledge as he should have does he make 9 watts sound as if it’s nothing when in fact it takes just a few watts to run various types of efficient speakers and just explain that to the audience so they understand properly and aren’t mislead? The other issue is he didn’t explain which infinity speakers he was using. I asked him and he wouldn’t say. I did research and found out they were 6 ohm speakers with 88 dB efficiency called the Infinity R253. In the video, he explains that the amp needs to be used with efficient speakers, yet why does he act disappointed when he listens to it himself without matching his own speakers correctly in the first place? It just gave me the impression that he wanted to bash the product to make it match how it measured. That’s the impression I got from that, but maybe I’m wrong. So, what I can’t understand is why he would rate the floppiness of the bass at louder listening levels without matching the correct set of speakers himself?
Also those speakers he was he was using are about $400 speakers. I’m okay if people enjoy inexpensive speakers, but shouldn’t he be using something nicer in order to help discern the differences of the gear he is comparing?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, jjptkd said:
They trashed the Carver 275 as well although admittedly there were some pretty legitimate complaints about build quality, safety and not hitting rated spec's they never listened to the amp which is a shame as its one of the best sounding amps I've ever had the pleasure to own.
I think its a little amusing that the Carver 275 is their second "worst" rated amp and I replaced it with their second "best" rated amplifier the Topping PA5 and while its a fraction of the price and decent in its own right it is no where near the sound quality (IMO) of the Carver-- just proves to me that those type of reviews are meaningless in terms of listenability.
That’s what’s interesting about your comments. Even though things can measure badly, they may still sound good but I think in the end as captainbeefheart said, if it sounds good to us that’s what matters.
-
3 hours ago, captainbeefheart said:
Don't take what Amir says personally, he is objectively testing what an amplifier should do by definition, which is not add anything to the input of the amplifier. He basically uses SINAD as the test that determines how good an amplifier is, or it's purity if you will, which is what the definition of an amplifier should be from a technical standpoint. SINAD is noise and distortion in relation to the input signal, the more noise and distortion an amplifier has the worse it rates on the SINAD scale. These measurements tell us good information if you know how to interpret it. As long as you understand that you may actually like an amplifier with it's own "voice" which is not a pure amplifier, it's adding coloration, information that was not present in the original input signal. I am a stickler for noise, I truly think that should be as low as possible but not all distortion is created equal as I explained in the other thread. Amir is objectively testing how pure the amplifier is, not if it sounds good or not as that's subjective, as long as you remember this you can still use his tests to your advantage.
I may not be remembering the same test review but I think it scored poorly because the two channels were not balanced well which doesn't really say anything about the circuit, more that the particular specimen they had on hand was not functioning correctly and with the help of a good tech could get the two channels matched better. The fact the tube amp has more distortion and noise is why it rates so poorly on the SINAD scale. I have built and worked on far too many ST70's to care for, it's a decent amplifier but by no means is the best amplifier I have ever heard. The ST70 was remarkable in that it was an affordable piece of gear that gave good power and decent performance, it brought good quality music to many people which was great. It is a very simple circuit, nothing elegant or high tech but it did it's job well and when they are functioning as best as they can they are pretty good. They can reach around 1% THD at full output which is audible, I have measured them down to .3%THD when care was taken which I feel is getting to the point of questionably audible. More importantly is perspective, with efficient speakers I know I am well below 1 watt of power for my listening levels and 1 watt is actually quite loud. The ST70 has maybe .05%THD at 1 watt which should be inaudible and so it does a great job where it's being used at. Some may even argue the little bit of harmonic distortion at these levels isn't enough to cause major trouble but enough to sweeten the sound up, and now we are back to the argument of is an effects box, an amplifier with euphoric distortion considered "high fidelity" because it isn't a precise recreation of it's input. I believe you can have your cake and eat it too, I don't get hung up on low order harmonic distortion so long as it isn't up way past 1%, many SET amps that are afraid of feedback will easily show 5%THD at low power levels and these are effects boxes, adding information for pleasure to the signal so from a purist standpoint it may not be considered "high fidelity". I see many 300b amps that have 5% THD at just a few watts yet review well because they sound good, the distortion is pleasing and can introduce something positive to the mix. Can we call them a bad amplifier? Depends on the definition of course, I'll agree okay it's not a great clean amplifier if that's what you are looking for but if it sounds good and you like it then it's a good amplifier for you and that's all that matters, just don't get angry if the amp you like tests poorly in an objective testing procedure where the goal is to measure the accuracy of the amplifier. I have come to the conclusion that lower order harmonic distortion can be up near 1% at full power and sound great, I won't call it an accurate amplifier but if it sounds good that's all that matters. With higher order harmonic content the level of distortion needs to be much lower or else it will have a negative impact on the amplifier and sound bad. I feel that the tube amps that have 5%THD at low power levels will cause some music, simple music to sound actually better because of the harmonies introduced but when complex music is involved these harmonics may not all sum to harmonious intervals and have a muddy effect, it's just not clean enough for some music. I feel there is a happy middle ground of not too pure and also not too distorted and these amps are the ones that seem to do everything well. But then again they will never objectively test accurate and so from a scientific standpoint they are not a pure and clean source of signal amplification but I am okay with that so long as it doesn't get to be too congested with coloration.
Really appreciate your detailed explanation here. I gotta print your responses up. I really respect what you are saying and although I don’t quite understand these technical aspects anywhere close to your level, I am starting to appreciate it more because you seem level headed on both sides as a listener and a tech. That’s the best of both worlds. Your experience far exceeds mine as I am more a listener but I’m definitely going to be listening to you as well haha!
-
1
-
-
Did anyone see Amir’s recent trashing of the Bob Latino Dynaco ST-70 on Audio Science Review’s YouTube channel? Thought the review was horribly done with several errors. I’ve had this amp for several years and it’s nothing like he describes.
-
1
-
-
Wow, that’s a wealth of interesting info! I can see you know your craft extremely well. I’m going to re-read this post a few times to make sure it sinks in. Very much appreciate you sharing such a detailed explanation on this. I think the OP will be in good hands with your insight. Thank you 😊
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Audible Nectar said:
Did you furnish the original Forte cabs or were they cabs he had and then just sold the whole works restored as pictured here?
I am just finishing complete component rebuilds on three Cornwall pairs here, and short of the veneer they are as good as I can make them. I have thought about having these cabs reveneered in the future but they have everything else they will need for the next 50 years. So I do have that curiosity as to a potential "suitor" to reveneer my cabs but would want them to be MY cabs (no trades) and wouldn't need the inner components replaced, short of maybe the "batting" for sound absorption.
I love the character of these old builds and thoroughly love having them in reworked condition. The Forte is one of Klipsch's all time greats; that speaker had a balance in its presentation that made it sooooooo good for sooooo many who couldn't necessarily handle the bigger stuff.
Outstanding.
They’re just original Forte I’s re-veneered along with new Crites crossovers installed. Klipsch Restorations keeps a truck load of Klipsch’s original speakers so you can select any speaker. They had the II’s available but I preferred the I’s.. For example here’s their list of of original speakers in stock for restoration below. They were done in about three weeks. The thing for me is I love vintage gear and if it can be restored to like new, that’s all that matters because I actually prefer some of the older gear anyway. If newer gear sounds better, then no problem. I’m happy to buy newer gear, but I like knowing more specifics before subscribing. I’m buying another house with more corner space specifically that will allow me to use Klipschorn’s. Those are my dream speakers and I will contact Klipsch Restorations for a pair of those as well the moment I’m ready. Klipsch has really hiked their prices up in recent years because they’re becoming more of a marketing company. That’s fine since they still make really beautiful gear, but it’s just going to cost more to support that campaign.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:
Congrats. But 2750.00 is not what I would call " a hell of a lot less money" than Heresy IVs. I guess it's all about perspective.
Good luck with your new speakers.
Thanks Shakey, and despite my ongoing rants I do appreciate you guys. I agree it’s not a whole lot less, but there’s no doubt they will outperform the new H IV in my mind so for me I felt it was a win win situation. I’ll share my thoughts again once I get them in my hands and spend some time with them and report back with you guys. Regardless, I appreciate your thoughts.
-
1
-
-
Yea, distortion has always been an oddball factor for me since that's often what gets measured by techicians but I've never really been able to pinpoint as to what level it measures to actually be audible. BTW, I'm under two avatar names, "angelaudio" and "idontknow". It's a long story, but I just wanted to inform you that you're speaking to the same person, haha! There's something a bit odd regarding distortion that I heard with one speaker vs another. Have you ever had a situation where a floor noise or or high pitch type of distortion is more audible in one speaker vs another? I don't mean with regard to bass, but with regard to a sizzling sort of effect in the high to midrange. Not sure if that's making any sense to you. Let me know and I'll try to describe it more.
With regard to the OP and the Yamaha S1200, what I was experiencing with it is that there just didn't seem to be any spatial separation between instruments compared to my Alan Eaton 45's, VTA ST-70, Decware Zen and even a recent Will Vincent ST-70 I reviewed. I didn't account that to be distortion. Are you saying distortion has something to do with the effect? I've generally understood that tubes usually measure with more distortion than SS.
-
My new Forte I's are finally on the way pictured below. I had them done in African padauk with modern risers and new Crites crossovers from Klipsch Restorations for $2750 shipped. I first listened to them in the 1980's and remembered loving them so much. That's far less than a new pair of Heresy IV's and I have had some personal issues with the Heresy IV's for a while now still. One is box resonance which the Heresy II doesn't have in comparison to the Heresy IV. The other issue is the overall timbre of the upper and middle range of the Heresy IV compared to the II. The II is unquestionably more airy, open and effortless compared to the IV during my endless comparisons. The II is also more efficient despite their claims. The IV is simply not as efficient by about 3db in my estimation which is important for the lower wattage tube amps I use for jazz such as the Alan Eaton 45's and Decware Zen.The other issue is that the only way to get the bass on the Heresy IV to become more audible is to turn up the volume to unreasonable levels when I'm listening to smooth, ambient jazz during the evening which I really dislike. I use a REL T5i with my Heresy II's, so I can set the bass to be audible at literally any listening level, something the IV's simply can't due on its own without tone controls and even then it's still questionable. I decided however that I wanted to take a different step from my Heresy II's which I've loved and continue to love for the past several years. I have no intensions of ever selling my Heresy II's. They've proven themselves in spades but I really wanted a speaker I could use without a sub for jazz music late at night.I wanted a speaker that wouldn't take up a lot of floor real-estate. I also know that the Forte's bass is in fact audible at lower listening levels unlike the Heresy IV's by comparison. The Forte 1's also have the lowest bass of any of the Forte line to date. So why the Forte I's and not the Forte II's? My concern was the coherency of the design of the midrange horn on the II vs the I. It's basically the same as my current Heresy II's which I already know I love, so I didn't want to deviate from the design. The bass in the Forte I is also slightly deeper compared to the Forte II despite the fact that the Forte I uses a passive 12" radiator vs the II's 15" passive.After having heard the Forte III's I was not interested in the newer heritage line. The III's were just too bright and brittle sounding up top. From the literature I've gathered, the Forte I uses the K-75-K phenolic tweeter. This is one of the things that attracted me to this speaker and if I determine that I don't like it, then I'll contact Crites and replace the diaphragms myself with titanium which brings me to the next thought. I realize there's more flexibility to work with a titanium diaphragm's sound and even though my Heresy II's currently use titanium diaphragms, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm completely sold on them.What I did is watched OCD HiFi Guy's video comparing the two different diaphragms with his Forte II's. This is a YouTube video, so obviously you're not going to get the full effect, but from a relative listening experience using my headsets, I don't hear anything that sounds better using the titanium in fact I think the phenolic sounds a bit sweeter and smoother as it naturally should. Listen to the video yourselves with a pair of headsets and see what you think. I even mentioned the bell analogy. Bells are made of metal because they resonate but imagine a bell that's made of a tweed or a phenolic sort of material. It would sound dampened and less metallic. So how does it make any sense that listeners would want metal diaphragms when the biggest complaint Klipsch has ever had to deal with is listeners saying Klipsch sound shouty and ear fatiguing. It makes no sense. You would think a phenolic tweeter should help that problem. I haven't experimented with diaphragms yet, but I intend to.Regardless, I can't imagine the Forte I's won't be an improvement and it's still a hell of a lot less money for a fully restored speaker than a new pair of Heresy IV's and I'm not a big fan of the Heresy IV like others are anyway. It's been absolutely impossible to find a pair of Forte I's in excellent condition. Nobody on earth is selling them despite endless searching for the past three years and if there was a pair, it was for distant pickups only. I just don't subscribe to the newer is better camp like most. I need to know more specifics as I'm as far from fanboy status as one could possibly be. That crap gets you into problems real quick.
-
5
-
-
The KLF20 has a massive soundstage. Not sure how you got that idea.
-
Good points guys thank you.
-
Forget everything else and get a first watt. They’re literally indistinguishable from the sound of tubes and better in some cases and you get all the benefits of solid state.
-
1
-
-
This is an old thread but pass labs with a forte? Why not a first watt? Pass labs just put you back to ordinary solid state sound compared to the first watt amps.
-
Decware’s lead times are absolutely absurd. 1400 amps!? Deckert needs to hire a couple of extra technicians with that much business he should be able to afford it. I can assure you it’s all because of the recent YouTube videos. You can Get Alan Eaton’s 45 amps and they’re equally amazing if not better and it only takes a couple of weeks. No need for a year an half wait for a Decware!
-
1
-
-
On 4/6/2022 at 7:16 PM, Buddy Shagmore said:
I had Forte 1's for many years. However when I bought them new in 1988, it was from some outfit in NYC, and they shipped me a mixed pair; not consecutive serial #s. Plus the grill covers were slightly different. One was black, the other a green/brown. I didn't even catch it for many months. as my apt was rather dark. I was just thrilled with the sound. A few years ago, I scored a mint pair of Chorus II's. I sold my Fortes to my good buddy (he loves them for sure). I did play them side by side before he picked them up. The Forte's went deeper (32hz), but the Chorus's have a wider, fuller overall sound. I am happy with them, but there are times when I miss the Forte's. There are several tracks by Jeff Beck (Declan and Suspension) that really gave me goose bumps thru the Forte's, when turned way up, that just isn't happening with the Chorus'. The floors of my house (wood floor over a raised foundation) would become extensions of the lowest notes, and it sounded and FELT so good, that it would take me briefly to a higher emotional plane, sending shivers thru my body... hard to explain, lol. Rather like a spiritual high. I somehow was thinking the Chorus II's would be able to duplicate that experience for me, since they are bigger, but sadly, it is not so. Has to do with my room too. The Forte's now at my buddy's crib are not able to duplicate the same experience for me, due to his room. It seemed odd to me that Klipsch came out with the later versions of the Forte, that did not dig as deep, and they knew it. The 12" rear passive was the secret sauce. They should've kept with the original design, with the 12" passive, and just upgraded the squawker and tweeter. Maybe the Forte V will go back to that?
I understand that emotional connection you get with a particular set of speakers or component. I have that same regard fo my Heresy II’s. I wanted to get the IV which are really a great speaker. If I didn't have my Rel T5i then I definitely would have considered the IV but I honestly prefer the highs, mids and greater efficiency of the II over the IV plus they don’t have box resonance like the newer Heresy IV does. I love my Heresy II’s so much that I wanted the Original Forte because it looks exactly like the Heresy II horns but with the added bass. I know they also sound different but still. When I heard the Forte III, I didn’t like them at all. They sounded very harsh to my ears. I’m really looking forward to the original Forte. I’ve heard them before and loved them!
Some of the new stuff is wonderful, but I don’t subscribe to the belief that newer is always better in fact when I heard a newer version of the Rel T5i was coming out I rushed to get the original version as soon as I could because companies far often try to find cheaper ways of making things. I know this for a fact because I use to work in a corporate environment. The meetings were always focused on how to get things done more cheaply. Look at Boeing for example. Also, If you look inside some of the original klipsch speakers they were built like tanks with so much mechanical integrity with nicer wood. I realize the pressed wood with veneer today is more solid with less resonance but it’s cheaper to manufacture! yet klipsch charges more for cheaper wood! The woofer baskets and mechanical integrity were more solid in the past as well, the magnets behind the tweeters and mid ranges were also much nicer and robust. Today, more plastics and cheaper materials are used. Today there’s much more focus on looks which is nice but like one review said, why doesn’t klipsch brag more about their internal crossovers more with the newer Forte? They don’t say anything about it.
-
2
-
-
You’d have to like them since you must have spent 7k on them. I’m sure those IV’s will be quite nice regardless.
-
Hi Max, now I have a better idea what you’re listening too, that makes this much easier. You and I are very similar. I listen to jazz and classical mostly at lower volume levels. I have compared tons of amps and gear. You can see my YouTube channel. I guarantee you none of the above mentioned amps will sound as good as the Alan Eaton 45 single or mono integrated amps for what you’re listening to. For example, I have the Yamaha AS-1200 demoed in a couple of my videos. There’s absolutely no need whatsoever to spend over $1300 for what you are doing. These will outperform just about anything regardless of cost with the speakers you have and what you’re listening to. I too use the Heresy.
The problem I have with these costly solid state amps is they do not produce the rich, sweet sound of the 45’s. When you hear horns, guitar, symbols and drums, the contrast of the instruments is absolutely second to none! At low volumes the sound is so beautiful to listen to. I am going to be posting some more videos on a few Pass First Watt amps and I still I say do the Alan Eaton’s. Sorry, but those big expensive solid state amps wouldn't hold a candle to the Alan Eaton 45’s. When I compared the AS-1200, it sounded veiled. Horns, symbols, guitar sound muffled by comparison. It’s as if someone put a towel over the speakers. Don’t get me wrong, Yamaha makes nice gear but there’s just too much marketing hype people get sucked into.
If if people knew more about Alan Eaton’s amps, they’d realize what they were missing. It’s sad people just haven’t heard them since they’re not well known. Just because a brand is popular doesn’t mean it’s better. You can check out more of my videos. I just get as many amps and gear as I can and compare them. That’s how you truly know. After I did this video, I later concluded that the Alan Eaton’s were the best and I keep matters in context. I have several videos including the monos as well.
-
4 hours ago, CoryGillmore said:
Easy: Cornwall
🤣
Thanks for that constructive review. I’ll let all my audio buddies know and maybe we could also get that published in Stereophile magazine.
-
The 20’s already have excessive bass so I couldn’t even imagine the 30’s.
-
Btw a year an a half wait for Decware! That’s stupidly absurd. He’s obviously bringing in enough business he should hire on a couple of more technicians. Why wait anyway when you can get Eaton’s.
Recent trashing of the VTA ST-70
in Talkin' Tubes
Posted