ODS123

I tend to believe that when one encounters an awesome sounding system, what they're really encountering are awesome speakers in a well treated room. All the other equipment matters far less. I recall being incredibly impressed when I heard Vandersteen 5A sigs when was shopping for speakers years ago. They were way out of my price range but since business was slow the dealer allowed me to listen for as long as I cared to. ..After about 20 mins, one of the sales people came and asked if he could take the big Mark Levinson amp that was being used into another listening room for another customer. Of course, I didn't mind at all - I was happy they allowed me to spend so much time listening to speakers I had no intention (or means) to buy. .So that I could continue listening, the salesperson quickly connected the speaker cables to an NAD 375Bee Integrated sitting on the next rack over. When I connected my iPod (yes, that long ago) to the 1/8" jack on the faceplate and continued listening, It sounded every bit as impressive as it did w/ the absurdly expensive Mark Levinson amps and (if memory serves) NAIM cd player. If uber expensive front end gear is so much better, shouldn't there have been an unmistakeable drop in sound quality?? Again, I would urge beginners reading this thread to consider that it's the speakers, and proper room acoustics that make the system. Modern day cd players are indistinguishable from one another and so too are amps so long as they engineered to be linear AND operated within their design limits.

looks spectacular!! congrats!!

That must have been so aggravating for them. ..And a shame too b/c B of M is awesome and they udoubtedly paid a lot for the tix. Thankfully my last three live shows - Hamilton in NYC, and Lucinda Williams and Richard Thompson in Philly were perfect. ..Loud enough to be exciting but well short of causing my ears to clip.

More than a few hundred. ...The CWIII's are $800 more per pair. ..Still, I listened to both extensively and preferred the CWIIIs. ..But I'm luck to have a large room that can accommodate them. If my room was considerably smaller I would have been quite happy with the Forte IIIs.

Very interesting point. ..I think you've explained why I had to eventually sell my vandersteen 3A sigs. Like the Martens Coltrane 3, they were a 1st Order Crossover design. .For modest listening levels they were wonderful. ..But not so when I wanted to crank them up; their max clean output was quickly and unenthusiastically reached.. Despite being impressively large and heavy they were not terribly dynamic. Again... I think it would be illuminating if we adopted an approach to listening to systems - at least upon first listen - from behind a visually concealing though sonically transparent screen. ..And told nothing of the systems cost, speaker size/design, etc. Too often, I think we're influenced by all the sexy cosmetics, including huge (and several) speaker cones, sculpted faceplates with heavy milled volume knobs, garden hose sized speaker cables, glowing tubes, etc.. Makes you wonder why, if it's audibly better, do these companies dedicate so much expense to all the gaudy visual elements.

The only problem with accounts such as yours about these ultra high-buck systems is that they look so damn impressive - with their ultra exotic looking speakers, amplifiers with 1/2" thick faceplates, outrageously large speaker posts, incredibly complex looking turntables, etc. - that it's hard not falling victim to a degree of expectation bias. It would be so interesting to know how different it sounds to you if the entire kit was kept behind a dark (but sonically transparent) screen and you had NO knowledge of it's cost or the type of speakers. And don't forget the impact of a properly treated, ideally sized room. That alone can make ANY system sound better.

Agreed, so long as warranty isn't jeopardize by repair being performed by someone other than a Klipsch approved technician. It would be kinda dickish of Klipsch to refuse future warranty coverage on this basis but they technically could.

Not to complicate matters but did you consider asking them to send a tech out to your home to do the repair?? Even at your own expense? Given the size of the La Scalla's it'll be a huge PIA for you to box it up and transport it. And every time you do this you run the risk of dinging or scratching them. My dealer offered to send someone out to replace the tweeter in my Cornwall when I noticed that it wasn't completely flush with the baffle (or motorboard as you folks here call it). I ended up asking to have the speakers replaced, which they accommodated.

Love your integrated choice, by the way!! The Luxman L509X is beautiful and feature packed. There are way too few integrated amps with bass, treble, mono switch. ..And for no particularly good reason, I might add. ..Well, there is a reason often cited - that they deteriorate the signal - but this is nonsense in my view. I view them as essential features to make it possible to enjoy ALL recorded music, including songs that need slight tonal adjustment or Stereo mix defeated. I would have bought the very same amp had I not bought my MA600. ,..I'm sure I would have been just as happy.

Also, if these speakers are within the warranty period, wouldn't replacing the original tweeter with a non OEM part void the remaining warranty?? I can understand tinkering with different tweeters, etc.. in a 20 year old pair for which the OEM part is no longer available, but no way in a pair of speakers that are still in production. I would be skeptical of claims that replacing the original tweeter w/ an aftermarket part really improves the sound. I think that once someone has gone to the trouble of replacing it they will naturally be inclined to believe it sounds better even if it doesn't. I see big potential for placebo effect.

I would agree with those suggesting that you reach out to Klipsch. Though their warranty does not include coverage for damage arising from abuse (that it was unintended is beside the point), it would cost them next to nothing to keep happy a customer who bought their speakers new and from an authorized dealer. I'm betting they'll happily oblige. I would NOT recommend replacing the damaged tweeter with anything but the OEM part. I can't understand the thinking that some aftermarket vendor has come up with an improvement over what Klipsch has designed and engineered. Plus, if you need to sell them, I think it would hurt resale to modify them. Keep 'em stock - that's my $.02.

Never said that. ..There is no audible difference b/w amps that are engineered to be linear w/in their operating limits, is what I said. This excludes poorly engineered tube amps or any amp that is a poor match for it speakers in terms of efficiency and expected SPL's in a given listening environment. All credible evidence suggests that your hifi systems is pretty much all about your choice in speakers. ..And the OP made a good choice in that regard. http://ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

There is no reason to think that any modern day amplifier or integrated that has been engineered to be linear within it's power limits will sound better or worse than the next. Any AVR, Integrated Amplifier or Amp/Pre separates will sound indistinguishable from the other so long as not overdriven, which is unlikely given the efficiency of the Forte III'S. http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/ I think the setup you have is fine. Of course, if you're looking to simplify, I'd go with a integrated amplifier. In any case, think about features. Bass/ Treble controls? Mono Switch? Home Theater Pass thru? Integrateds can, in some circumstances, sound "better" in the sense that by having one less A/C cord and no interconnects joining preamp to amp, they can in some setups have less hum. If you pause your source (cd player for ex) then crank the volume, do you hear hum through your speakers? In fact, if you get an integrated with an onboard DAC (many have this) you can further de-clutter by ditching the DAC. Here again, you're not apt to hear any differences b/w modern day DACs. So why not get rid of more interconnects and another power cord? Congrats on the speakers. I listened to them at length and loved them

I can dig the idea of big speakers and loud music. ..Recreational use of devices meant to end lives? ..Not so much. Can't even fathom how one could be enthusiastic about such things.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I'm asking the question why would pro speakers sound better in a home setting than those built for that specific purpose. You mention headroom... My Cornwall III's, which are situated in my 18'-20' great-room, play at ear-bleeding levels with a mere 5 watts. ..And they are linear +/-3db from 34Hz - 20kHz. So what headroom am I missing from speakers that are meant to fill much large spaces? And to match the extension of the CWIII's I'd need a subwoofer. Am I incorrect about this?

I'm most certainly not disregarding them. If I should ever buy a home with a banquet hall sized family room where I'm situated 30 yards from the speakers rather than 13', they'll be the first speakers I consider. ..But then I'll have to get a subwoofer to fill that same sized space.

Just did. ..He's saying that ALL Klipsch speakers are engineered to be linear (true to input) within their frequency range and that playing louder doesn't mean less linear. ..But that's NOT what you are saying. You're saying that Pro speakers sound Better. ..So, why? ..If, as CBH states, all Klipsch speakers are designed to faithfully reproduce the input signal would their Pro speakers sound better at home where their tremendous SPL isn't needed?? Especially given that they don't extend nearly as low as, say, Cornwalls, which is essential to my music preferences?? ..My CW III's don't play as loud as their pro speakers but they also don't need a subwoofer. So why, if this is true, would I have preferred the MCM 1900's you insist are way better?

Yes, and I'm dying to read if he agrees with you that a commercial pro Klipsch speaker intended to be a PA speaker in an amusement park will sound appreciably better in a home environment than one intended for that purpose. ..I think he's helping make my point, not yours.

Ok, so then why should someone contemplating a Klipsch speaker for their great-room (let's say 18' by 25') expect that a speaker from Klipsch's pro series will sound better than something from their Heritage line? ..Because that is what is being claimed here

I would love to. ..And certainly would have loved to before buying my cornwalls. ..But that would have only answered the question: what sounds better to me?? And it would be near impossible finding a dealer who has these commercial speakers on hand and set up to compare with their audiophile intended speakers. ...So, lacking any opportunity to directly compare, we have to do a little critical thinking: Why would Klipsch dumb-down a speaker that is going to be listened to by a more discriminating listener who listens in a more predictable environment and does so without all the extraneous noise found in venues where their pro speakers are typically used. Again, I would think their Pro speakers are engineered more for brute SPL and durability than they are for wide F/R, linearity, and imaging.

So you're basically saying "I've heard 'em all and can tell you unequivocally that the XXX's sound better than the rest." Of course, it's not practical for someone choosing b/w MCM 1900's and K-horns to hear them in the same environment, same day, using the same music and - preferably - blinded. So they can either take your word for it or maybe give some thought to what your suggesting; that Klipsch speakers are engineered for huge spaces, and practically no boundary reflections are better sounding that those engineered specifically for the dimensions and volumes of a typical home environment. I have no expectations of changing your mind or that of anyone else who already owns these speakers. My goal is to inform the person, who has not yet purchased their speakers, to give serious thought to each side of this discussion and come to their own decision about which is more likely to be true.

Your premise strikes me as far fetched. You’re suggesting that for their most discriminating listeners whose environment is quiet and not terribly voluminous, Klipsch engineers/builds speakers that sound poorer than those that are engineered for commercial applications, where fidelity matters far less than durability, wide dispersion, and max SPL - eg., train stations, theaters, amusement parks, etc. I don’t by it at all. I think if your listening environment is the size of the aforementioned venues then perhaps their commercial gear is a better choice, but those behemoths - with their limited F/R and outrageously high max SPL - are NOT best suited to normal sized listening rooms.

Though it would be hard to find KI-396's to audition, I would strongly urge you to do so before choosing them over the Cornwalls. Though the CW III's aren't exactly full-range speakers, the KI-396's don't even come close. They are reasonably linear (+/- 3db) only to like 60 hz. They extend deeper than this but aren't very linear (to 35hz but +/- 10db). This is pretty good for a 2-way design. But for use with rock or jazz I would think they'd require a subwoofer. These speakers strike me as being intended more for PA and small theater applications than they are for audiophiles. The engineering priority was more about brute power and durability than refinement. So make sure this is your priority too. Keep in mind that unless your listening room is the size of a banquet hall and you plan on sitting 40 feet from your speakers, the CW's can also play loud enough, without distorting, to destroy your hearing w/ less than 10 watts. Also, note that the 396's have an MDF front baffle (motorboard). This wouldn't bother me at all but there are some here who think MDF is incompatible w/ quality speakers.

I own CW III's and love them. ..I couldn't fathom modifying them in any way. I haven't heard earlier versions of CW's in years and never in the same listening environment as my CW III's

This is such a gross generalization I don't know where to begin. You seem to have an ax to grind for successful companies. So you provide on example of a poorly run company and extrapolate from it that all companies run by CPA or MBA's are somehow out of touch with their customers and discount the importance of a quality product. ..I know several CPA's and MBA's and they are every bit as conscientious about these things as, say, an engineer or market analyst. If a Board of Directors approves a CPA or MBA as COO of a company and he or she does a terrible job then the Board chose the wrong person, that's all. Good lord, I would think the shareholders of MOST companies would want/ expect that a chief operation officer has an MBA. ..Probably half or more of successful large companies are run by someone with at least an MBA