ODS123

So why have faith in his cabinet design if you don't believe he (or his engineers) knew how to design a proper cross-over?

Curious to know, is there a way to buy new x-overs and horn diaphrams that are EXACT replicas of the original for that production run? If it were me, I'd try restoring the speakers to their EXACT original condition, then call it a day. ..If I didn't like their sound as they were intended to sound by PWK, then I would simply conclude they are not for me. It strikes me as strange how people at once elevate PWK to audio god status, then think they can greatly improve upon his design by endlessly switching out parts, etc.. Plus, if you want to maximize what you can sell them for, your best plan is to restore them to like new original condition. I watch a lot of gear sell on Audiogon and Ebay. The gear that fetches the most money is the gear that is NOT modified.

I've never known an amp alone to transform a speaker from "hate it" to "love it". ..Especially nowadays when audible differences b/w amps are minute if audible at all.

That is simply not true. Spring loaded terminal were used for years by many reputable mfgs inc., McIntosh. IMHO, A great deal of what we see in home audio - 1/4" faceplates, super thick speaker cables/ interconnects/ power-cords/ fancy banana-plugs, extravegant dampening-factor & low impedance claims, - and so on and so on, are all meant to confer "quality!" on gear but the fact remains that modern day amps that are operating w/ in their design limits (which is easy for LaScalas) sound pretty much the same. Bottomline: That is a perfectly fine piece of gear, despite it's humble speaker terminals. I would have no reservations having that in my house.

Anything I plug into an outlet in my home would have to be from a reputable mfg. ..Given the efficiency of your LaScalas you don't need a high-powered amp section. ..My Cornwalls begin shaking the walls when driven with more than 15-20 watts. And I think your speakers are even more efficient. If you're on a budget and want a receiver (am/fm reception), consider this... from Crutchfield for $150. A very reputable gear company and a very reputable seller. https://www.crutchfield.com/p_022RS202/Yamaha-R-S202.html

I agree with the others. Hum issues aside, I'd be afraid something so inexpensive (and from such an obscure company ) would present a fire risk. ..Is it UL listed at least?

I agree, I also want an audio system that is revealing and accurate. But I'm also pragmatic. ..If I sense I'd enjoy a song more by reducing the treble a tad, then I think its a good thing to be able to do so. Or sometimes it's because I've already been listening for hours and violins and trumpets are beginning to cause a bit of listening fatigue. Rather than turn all the music down, I will just reduce treble a bit. ..Some will say, "if your system ever causes fatigue, then change your system or room acoustics." ..But this is also nonsensical. REAL MUSIC can cause listening fatigue. I played clarinet for many years. Live trumpet, violins, sax, etc...played by the best musicians in the best of venues can become a bit grating after a while. As I've said in other posts, if your system NEVER causes fatigue, then it's not accurate. And as I've already stated I adamantly believe - and I think any electrical engineer would agree - that having tone controls in the signal path does NOT audibly damage the signal. So, with that myth debunked (in my opinion, anyway), I see no reason NOT to have them. ..I feel the same way about mono/stereo selector.

The point I was making is being missed here. What I'm say is: If it is true that Treble/ Bass/ Balance/ Mono are so harmful to a signal then how does a signal survive the hundreds of zero'd (or adjusted) sliders on a mixing board and come out sounding as wonderful as some of our audiophile-approved music sounds (I was using Night fly as an example.)? The fact that one happens during the recording process, and the other during the playback in our homes is totally irrelevant to my point. This serves to debunk the nonsensical notion that any true top-quality Pre-amp or Integrated should eschew these basic features. It's my contention that these basic tools make less-than-perfect music more enjoyable to the true music lover

Not how I see it at all. Yes, use room treatments, maybe room correction software, etc. to make your room as neutral as possible. ..Still, unless I listen only to audiophile-approved recordings, I eventually come across song (or album) that can be made more listenable with a small turn of bass or treble. ..As for Mono switch, I can't tell you how many old stereo recordings sound better in mono. Still, it's a personal choice whether Tone controls or a mono switch are necessary. What is not debatable, IMHO, is whether or not the presence of these basic tools are audibly harmful to the signal. ..I submit that they absolutely ARE NOT harmful when zeroed.

That is probably true. ..But it was hard enough getting my wife to allow these speakers into the room. ..If I pulled them further into the room - or try to relocate this built-in cabinet - I'd likely come home one day to find them gone (Not really... my wife is absolutely wonderful about my audio gear. ..but i don't want to push my luck!)

definitely toe-in, but not 45 degrees. To my ears, and in my particular room, they seem to sound best aimed so that they converge (meaning, a line extended straight out from each tweeter) somewhere around 3 feet behind me.

Could definitely be a solution for someone wanting to add a mono switch to their system. One of the ageless arguments for NO tone/ Bal or Mono control is the idea that it shortens the signal path, reduces the number of breaks and keeps the signal purer. But this seems like total nonsense to me. Check out this pic of the mixing board Donald Fagen used in mixing "The Nightly" - an album roundly praised for its sound quality. If literally hundreds of sliders, switches, and pots didn't ruin the signal when recording this incredible sounding album in the studio then having tone/ balance/ mono controls on our integrated amps (or pre-amps) won't do an iota of damage to the signal in our home systems.

Looks to be a great choice (great build quality for the price!!) but unfortunately the MONO button is only for the tuner. ..I actually researched buying this for a bedroom system. From the manual: "Note: The Mono/St setting ONLY affects stereo FM broadcasts. It does NOT convert other types of stereo audio inputs on the TA-100 to monaural."

Well, not if the listener wants tone/balance/mono controls. That's my point. ..As far I'm aware nowadays only McIntosh, Luxman, Accuphase, and Anthem offer all of these and these brands are prohibitively expensive for most people. I miss the days when pretty much all integrateds had these features. I guess I miss the Golden Days of Audio My dad had this integrated.

Looking at Stereophiles latest "500 Recommended Components" I was struck by how few of the recommended Integrated Amplifiers have tone controls and next to none of them have a mono mode. ..And some don't even have a balance control. WTH? I much prefer integrated amps these days. ..Fewer cables means fewer connections; fewer connections means fewer opportunities for grounding and hum/buzz issues. There may have been a time that separates made sense but I think that day has passed. My most recent separates were a Bryston 3BSST amp and BP25 pre, and its noise floor and signal bleed (hearing one input on another) was higher than every integrated I've ever had. Plus, as much of my music is the product of rather imperfect recording techniques, I insist on having simple tone controls (bass/treble), mono switch and a balance control. The argument against these controls has been that they deteriorate the signal, but I believe this to be a myth. ..Usually, they're left at zero doing no harm, but when listening to an overly dull or bright album, or if my dishes are rattling in the cupboards, I find a slight tweaking of one or both to be enough to make the song more enjoyable. And Mono?? Absolutely indispensable when listening to old music that dates back to when Stereo mixing was misunderstood - like old Beatles music where the music comes out of one speaker and voices from the other. ..Listening to mono is way better than poorly mixed stereo. I think gear mfgs. want us to believe that eschewing these basic features keeps the signal "purer" but I think this is nonensense (ever see a mixing board used to make our some of our "audiophile approved" music? ..Literally hundreds of signal breaks). Fewer controls/ switches just means less engineering/ mfg. expense. ..Am I alone in thinking this?

True story: ..Wanting to impress a friend with how well my system images, I played Light My Fire by Patricia Barber. ..After a few minutes I said, "Doesn't it sound like she's right there (pointing), here in the room with us?" ..He said, "Sure does, now can we ask her to leave.?" ..I guess I should have picked some better music. ..Sometimes as audiophiles we become enamored with a particular artist/album/song for the wrong reasons. Once again, great music that images poorly is still great music, poor music that images great is still poor music.

Not to be argumentative, but if imaging is so all-important then why do I prefer my Cornwalls over other speakers I've had that image slightly better - such as my Vandersteen 3A Sigs?? Also, the music that images the best isn't always the best music. Diana Krall tracks image better than Tom Waits tracks, but for me they're no where near as moving. Finally, why doesn't imaging matter more to the musicians I've discussed hifi with?? When I tell them that good hifi allows you to tell exactly where each instrument is on the stage. ..The response is something like, "why is that so important?" In the end, I judge my rig by how it makes me feel rather than how precisely I can tell where each instrument is. Great music that images badly is still great music; poor music that images great is still poor music.

I dunno. The music I love the most is quite old, it dates back way before sensible stereo processing was understood. For example, old Beatles records would sometimes have the vocals coming from one channel and the instruments from the other. The imaging in such cases is totally nonexistent. Its almost so gimmicky that it detracts from the music. That is why I insist on having a mono switch on my amplifier - I listen to almost all Beatles music in mono. And it’s not just the Beatles. Nat King Cole, Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald, Nina Simone, Fairport convention, Nick Drake, etc. ..None of this music has great imaging. Yet it’s the music I love the most. Even present day music that I love like Jack white does not have the greatest stereo imaging. Yet the music is very compelling. In the end, sharp Imaging is pretty cool but for me it doesn’t really add that much to the visceral impact of music. But it’s great to play when you’re showing off your system - and there is certainly nothing wrong with that :-)

The notion of break-in, whether it pertains to speakers, cd players, amplifiers, cables, etc., is a tool that some less-scrupulous manufacturers, retailers, and on-line sellers use to head off rampant product returns. When someone buys a pricey amplifier, DAC, cable, etc... and doesn't immediately notice the big improvement in sound that they were expecting, the seller tells them, "give it time to break-in, maybe a few dozen hours at least. ..Then you'll hear it!"

no, there isn''t. It happens faster than you can notice. Seconds to a few minutes. I didn't do this w/ my new Cornwalls (purchased in Dec. '17) but with my previous two new speakers - Paradigm S8's and Vandersteen 3A Sigs - I played just one speaker for 24 hours. I then connected the other, set it right next to the first and compared the two using my balance control and Mono recording. I did not hear one iota of difference. Nothing, zilch. Nor did anyone in my family. Sadly, speaker break-in is another one of those Audio myths that could be ended, yet persists.

not exactly sure what you're asking for but I'll nonetheless add my brief assessment of audio mags. ..They ALL suffer from the same distain for honesty and bias controls. Their refusal to employ even the most basic forms of blinded observation tells me they really don't want to get to the truth of whether or not audible differences b/w amplifiers, cd players, cables, interconnects, etc.. are real or imagined.

What is your basis for believing this? I've played a role in product development for nearly 20 years and have never known this to be some sort of absolute. You're saying its axiomatic that product performance peaks early on in it's lifecycle, then from there it's all about cost cutting. ..I'm sorry but that has simply not been my experience. There is as much incentive today for Klipsch to optimize the sound of their Cornwalls and Heresy's as there was when they were first released. After all, their performance is still being compared to other like-priced speakers on the market by those contemplating a sizable purchase. And as an aside, cheaper materials and off-shore manufacturing does not necessarily equate with diminished performance whether your talking about speakers, automobiles, or toasters. There are good reasons for seeking domestic sourcing, but its not always b/c of better quality. As for the Heresy's sounding like they have a sock over the tweeter, that hasn't been my experience either. ..I listened to Heresy's, Forte's and Cornwalls before buying my Cornwall III's and I would not characterize any of these speakers as sounding muffled. ..But that is of course a matter of opinion.

Pricing sensitivity is omnipresent; it didn't suddenly become a consideration just after someone's "best" version was developed. It was ALWAYS there. Does not explain how Klipsch could make a speaker that 99% of people hate. ..A crazy claim.

Beautiful setup! A great choice in integrateds! While I'm not a big believer in the audible differences b/w amplifiers (ie., some call this "voicing") there are some REAL primo features offered by Mac amps that are becoming harder and harder to find, thus making it a perfect choice. Specifically, tone controls and mono mode. Tone controls are great b/c they allow you to soften those imperfect recordings and Mono b/c recordings from the early days of stereo were often marred by bad engineering. A perfect example is some of the early Beatles songs where the voices came out of one channel and music out of the other. ..Hitting the mono switch (or, in your case, using the Function knob and scrolling to mono mode) makes these songs much much better (IMHO). Also, you'll find your amp to be incredibly quiet. ..Very little or no hiss audible from the speakers when no music is playing and volume almost turned all the way up. ..Evidence of great engineering. If your amp was available when I bought my MA6600, I would have opted for the MA5300. 100 w/channel is WAYYYYYY more than enough. You'll see You'll be hard pressed to get those meters beyond 10-15 watts before your walls begin shaking. ..And you'll love the sound even more when you get those babies spread out. Nice! Here's a pic of mine.

Tried working my way through this thread but stopped at the claim that 99% of people seem to hate the CWIII and HIII. ..How could someone possibly know this? I absolutely love my CW III's and so too has everyone who has heard them in my room. Not to be too harsh here, but it seems inevitable that there will always be some people who think that a given brands engineering excellence (Klipsch, in the present case) ended w/ whatever model they own. They'll argue that whatever followed their beloved iteration was diminished by craven cost-cutting efforts or dim-witted engineers. Also, and I mean this sincerely, how can one capacitor sound warmer than another?