ODS123
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by ODS123
-
-
12 hours ago, kink56 said:
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).
....
And there is MORE to a system than PLAYING LOUD.
Since I'm the one in this thread with Cornwalls and a McIntosh amp, I'm compelled to reply.
Yes, I understand there is more to a system than playing loud. I have excellent measured hearing and I have a keen sense of musical nuance that has been honed from years of playing and listening to recorded AND live music, including acoustic unamplified performances. I have thousands of LP's, CD's and digital music albums. Bottomline: I'm a lifelong music obsessive who cares as much about recreating the "live" music experience at home as anyone here.
And it is because of my love for this hobby that I bemoan how so few of it's participants give a rip about making sure the differences they hear b/w pieces of gear (or an interconnect, speaker cable, power conditioner, etc...) are REAL rather than the consequence of biases.
I am resigned to not changing the minds of any of those who are convinced that gear selection is much like wine tasting, but I DO hope to give food for thought to the beginner who comes to this forum in the hopes of learning about the hobby so as to make a better, more informed decision before buying a piece of gear or a whole system. And to them I say, your system is mostly about speaker selection and listening environment. That is where you should spend the bulk of your time and money.
-
2
-
-
I would avoid any integrated that doesn't have at least a balance control. You mention the Peachtree. ..I had a Nova a while back and liked how it looked and felt to operate. However, when I turned the volume wayyy down when listening early am, one channel would attenuate more quickly than the other. Without a balance control there was no way to adjust this. I sent it back for adjustment and it was improved only slightly I consider that to be an egineering "fail".
I've had Rotel and NAD gear and loved both. Have never owned but I know Yamaha and Onkyo have great offerings as well. As for vintage.. while I do love the look of vintage gear, I can't help but worry about having an old appliance plugged in all the time.
You might find you get more for your money if you go with either an A/V receiver or even an AM/FM receiver. ..Even if you don't need multi-channel or AM/FM
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Chris A said:
I can think of no other inventions of any complexity that I can identify still in use, not that those loudspeakers can't be improved upon today, but they are remarkable nevertheless. I wish that my own inventions were similarly successful, ubiquitously found, and in-use.
I agree. ..And though I don't romanticize analog the way some do, I will say it absolutely astonishing how good a chip of gem stone dragged around a disc of plastic can sound. Absolutely incredible. It's limitations notwithstanding, it was an amazing invention. ..And to think how far it came. I have my great grandparents Victrola in my living room. ..The music played on it was barely audible above all the surface noise.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Deang said:
An iPod. Seriously?
So, you thought you were listening to the amplifier's output stage when you plugged into the headphone jack of the preamplifier section?
When did Mark Levinson put a 1/8" headphone jack on anything?
I was listening to cd's when listening through the Levinson amp. ..Don't remember the pre-amp, it was probably a Levinson pre-amp as well. ..CD's played through a NAIM cd player.
After removing the Levinson amp he connected the Vandersteen 5A sigs to the NAD 375bee which is an INTEGRATED amp,. ..All the music I had on the CD's (Makaha Sons of Ni'ihau, various Steely Dan, etc..). I also had as lossless (not that that entirely matters - but hat's a whole other area of audiophile nonsense which I'll skip for now) files.
Again, I did not hear one IOTA of drop in quality from the Levinson to the NAD. And I played it as loud as they would allow through both setups.
-
On 11/29/2018 at 1:21 PM, Chris A said:
Those caveats on upstream phonograph setups and power amplifiers are noted above, but notably are "in the weeds" as far as A-B testing.
I certainly agree with you on Phonographs. ..My previous TT's - both belt-drives - had very audible flutter and inaccurate speed. ..Piano notes on, just for example, George Winston December, would warble audible on all of my previous TT's. ..Thankfully, not so on my brand new Technics SL-12010GR. But there is so much surface noise on LP's that it becomes the limiting factor for total enjoyment. ..I tend to be someone who believes that analog - even the very best rigs - doesn't come close to the sound quality of well recorded CD's and other digital forms.
...The beauty of the analog era is that advancing to the next song was such a PIA that people had little choice but to hear a whole album side thus getting a sense of the connectedness b/w the songs and the theme of the album. Today, digital streaming has allowed everyone to develop musical ADD. ..People listen only the most accessible song(s) on an album, then move on. ..Plus, all the included content of LPs - posters, lyric sheets, rolling papers
- is gone. That's were all the romance with analog comes from, imho.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
looks spectacular!! congrats!!
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, garyrc said:
It's amazing how many mixers don't seem to be aware of when the sound is distorted. An example: my wife and daughter are quite used to loud sound in our music room/ home theater. They went to the Pantages theater in Hollywood to see The Book of Mormon. They said it was excruciatingly loud and distorted. For them to react that way, it must have been horrible.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Westcoastdrums said:
#1 definitely. For a few hundred more, consider the Cornwall IIIs if you have the space.
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.
-
3 hours ago, garyrc said:
@Tarheel TJ, did your friend play it loud? I'm wondering about the dynamics of a speaker with sensitivity of 88, and power handling of 350 watts. In a 4,500 cu.ft. room at about 13 feet, to produce the 115 dB PWK thought should be available for extremely brief "blood stirring" peaks, we would need about 1,700 watts -- for just that moment -- and about 350 watts, the upper limit, for 109 dB broad peaks like those found in Fanfare for the Common Man, or The Great Gate of Kiev, or the finale of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony. For a Klipschorn, the two figures would be about 120 watts for the momentary 115 dB peak, and about 30 watts for the 109 dB broad peaks.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Schu said:
Just pull it out... it's a simple screw proceedure unless your VERY me mechanically challenged.
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.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, JFHSQT said:
. I just spoke with the service department at Audiotronics here in Roanoke (where I bought the speakers) and he thinks Klipsch will send a new diaphragm under warranty with no issues, in just a few days from AR. It sounds like I'll just be able to bring the doghouse into the service dept and they can swap the diaphragm there, so this may not be as long-term an issue as I had feared.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, Westcoastdrums said:
Sorry. Why bother to have a hifI system if you feel there is no difference between anything?
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.
-
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
-
14 hours ago, Dave A said:
Klipsch the best music your neighbors will ever hear
My nearest neighbor is about an 1/8 of a mile away through the woods. He shoots lots of guns and I shoot guns and play big speakers and we all get along just fine.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:
So before you categorically decide that pro speakers are lacking the attributes of a home system, go listen to one. And now I really hope you get it....
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?
-
1 minute ago, Westcoastdrums said:
The main point is, I wouldn't automatically disregard the klipsch Pro line just because one assumes they they are designed with completely different goals in mind than the home environment. Cheif bonehead already chimed in and stated that is not the case.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Better go re-read what he stated.
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?
-
3 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Ah, you are aware that Bonehead is the chief speaker designer for Klipsch the company aren't you?
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.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Chief bonehead said:
I had to log on to answer this. You can think that about Klipsch pro speakers but you are thinking wrong. Every speaker that is designed, is designed for ALL of Paul’s goals. As he once told me, it should not matter if you plug in a turntable or a live band, it has to sound very good and true to the input. The fact that it has to provide higher max spls is an added spec; not to replace the other specs.
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
My nearest neighbor is about an 1/8 of a mile away through the woods. He shoots lots of guns and I shoot guns and play big speakers and we all get along just fine.
Eye Opening Experience
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
No one is saying that. Differences b/w speakers are audible. Differences b/w amplifiers, cd players, DAC's, cables, etc... not so much. As I've said before, just how big and significant can differences b/w such components be if there is ANY debate at all about their existence??? Beginners should dwell on that and remember it when they read someone claiming that X amp totally blew away Y amp.