angelaudio
-
Posts
75 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by angelaudio
-
-
13 minutes ago, joessportster said:
Certain speakers towed in BEAM like a laser into your brain can even be un-listenable if your hearing is sensitive enough. In those cases Toe out puts the listener off axis making listening more enjoyable. I have had both over the years. It is 100% listener dictated. IMHO
I suppose if I was hearing sensitive, I would just lower the volume. The reason I spent more money on better amps is to hear more details so the music is more enjoyable. I want to hear all the details in the music as clearly as possible. The impression of the music when I toe out is I'm defeating that. What baffles me is why pay for that and then position the speaker in such a manner that defeats it. Do others argue that the dynamics are actually better toe out or are they just not after dynamics? I'm a total novice.
-
1
-
-
Wow, I've never seen that paper. I'm gonna print that out, thanks for sharing. That's another thing I forgot to mention which is stereo imaging too which Paul K mentions in this paper. For me I just don't get the toe out thing. For me personally it's like a waste of the dynamics I paid a lot of money for unless I'm having a party with guests over I suppose. Certainly others are entitled to their opinions, but I just don't understand the advantage of the sound using toe out.
-
Certainly it's all subjective. What I'm trying to understand is do others feel the details of the music are better toe out than toe in? I just don't understand what the listener is striving for.
-
I noticed two of my audiophile friends listen to their music with the speakers toe out. One has a large listening area and his Heresy IV speakers which filled the entire room better than I thought. My other friend has another kind of speaker but also does toe out. Me on the other hand, I prefer toe in because I literally sit for many hours listening to my music in a chair and I want to hear all the dynamics and details as much as possible. So I ask myself....if an audiophile is striving after detail in their music, why are they using the toe out method? I can understand if it's just for general listening and walking around the room but it just seems so odd to spend all this money, time and work achieving the goals of sound and defeat it by using the toe out position. My other friend has an Elac Debut 2.0. To me, they are power hoggs and they have no dynamics. It reminds me of a horn with a sock stuffed in it, so I'm sitting in a chair listening to these things toe out and when I lean my ears far to one side to hear the speaker more directly, I can clearly hear more details! Well! there's all your details being pis............. away. So, what am I missing here?
-
Wow! you guys are pretty intense. Is it always like this? I usually just set up a set of speakers and listen to the differences and take notes. One thing I learned from listening to my setup is that I become familiar with the way it sounds and when something in the music train is changed, I can tell something is different. For example I used my .7 Maggies for three months before going back to the Heresy II and at first the Heresy took a bit of getting use to again, then I just fell in love with them again. I like them all but the Heresy are my favorite. They're tight, fast, open, airy, holographic as if the stage band is right in front of me live! The Maggies make the music seem more subdued, less real or live sounding, almost boring by comparison. I know there's a lot of discussion about the Cornwall which I've always been curious about in my room but the Heresy fill my room very nicely because it isn't that big. I have not heard a Cornwall in my room so I really can't comment. I think for me, from what I've gathered most from the reviews on youtube and online is the "context" of the subject. To me, that is the most important thing in my industry and I can tell when enthusiasts in my field get too carried away regarding new products. They all too often haven't fully exploited the capabilities of what they already have. Certainly new products are very important to drive the audio industry and keep it pressing ahead and I'm sure that some products really are an improvement. I'm just not one of the consumers so quick to jump on the newer is better bandwagon. How is it better? In what specific way that is applicable to my specific settings and will I exploit them? In my field I'm extremely specific about what does what and newer is definitely not always as better as some would have them think. Still, I'm new to this whole audio thing, so who knows.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, billybob said:
Back to the title of this topic then,
why compare two models from the same line with similar yet different sound signatures.
This versus one or the other or
what then. Sure if you have time in your schedule, have a go.
Just make certain that your test or experiment relies upon equal footing from the start, and ends
the same way with no deviation.
To what end or unbiased conclusion did it come to.
Did it meet the criteria that you
we're looking for. What did it prove to your reasons for doing this comparison.
To what good, and to what, or whose advantage is a result of any conclusion, if any. To what purpose did it serve, if any.
All I'm saying is that a lot of what we are told on youtube and the internet is parroted and just because a lot of enthusiasts repeat it, doesn't mean it's all true. Why compare them? Because that's what we all do, compare things. Why not? That's part of the fun, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it. Hey, I'm not an authority on this subject by any means and don't claim to be. I've only been listening to various equipment a couple of years. I am an authority on another subject different from audio and one thing I know for sure is that the individuals in my industry simply parrot a lot of BS, crap and misinformation they read from others who know less than they do.
Getting back on topic, the IV is an amazing speaker and I strongly recommend it. I love Klipsch and I love horns and I'm glad Klipsch did the IV. I want Klipsch to succeed because IMO they make the best damn speakers I've heard for what I enjoy listening to but I try to avoid falling into the traps of these comments where enthusiasts don't put sh.......... into proper context. Anyway, I didn't mean to rain on the IV parade. I'm going to take the second response's advice and make an acoustic corner of some type using an artificial wall I can put in and out. Most importantly than anything, just enjoy listening to jazz. Thank you all for your thoughts and feedback, I know I have a lot to learn.
-
3
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, JohnA said:
Angelaudio,
I'm not convinced the larger tube amp returns better bass because of power. It has a different arcitecture. Low powered tube amps, typically SET, as yours appears, tend to vary frequency response by impedance and often roll off the low bass. If yours is doing that, it could explain your results.
I will take my H IVs over H1s or HIPs (with solder terminal -Vs in all of them) whenever possible. And did.
What I meant is that it appears to me that after comparing the II to the IV using my Bob Latino ST-70, that I need to drive the IV's higher in volume to get the woofers to drive them deeper before the bigger bass becomes more audible. Maybe what's happening is that because my H II are obviously more efficient than the IV that the little Decware amp has an easier time driving the bass on the II. I'm obviously by no means qualified to know that's what's really going on. I'm just going based on what I appear to hear when comparing them. For example when I played "Loves Theme" by Barry White, I dropped my jaw at the bass in the new IV when I pumped up the volume. It was chest pounding. With my H II, I hear it, but I don't feel it like I do in the IV at the higher volume levels . This may also have something to do with the acoustics of my room as one response explained but once again I find it rather odd that more experienced reviewers don't seem to address or explain things. Instead it's just.... the IV is better. Better in what ways specifically and why or why not? A friend once said we call it confirmation bias.
-
15 hours ago, billybob said:
Well, there are members on this thread that can save you time and money because they have done as much and more. SuperHeresy comes to mind. You might start a topic but, plenty in the archive.
No, I can tell you without hearing them that, as awesome as my Heresy is, the IV is awesomer still.
A whole new experience, I am certain. Why, because, review s and owners here say as much or more. Good enough!
Not saying the new IV doesn't have improvements and certainly everyone is entitled to opinions, but I'd like to share a little something here. I noticed that my Heresy II placement video only has 3 views and the Heresy IV video has 23. That to me indicates bias and that fewer care what the II has to offer in the video by comparison, granted you can't tell everything just by a video, but the efficiency difference is noticeable in the videos. My comments with regard to efficiency were entirely ignored. Klipsch claims the new IV is 99db efficient and I believe this is incorrect on Klipsch's part in fact somebody in Audiogon said that's because the box on the IV is bigger after seeing my video. The owner of the IV's who loaned them to me said the same thing. If you freeze the frame in each video between the IV and the II placement videos, you will see that the chicken head volume knob on the right side of the Aretha preamp is pointed in the exact same position. It's pointed at the upper left philips-head faceplate screw if you freeze the frame and zoom in. What bothers me about all the hype regarding the IV is enthusiasts are not addressing the efficiency either with regard to the type of amp being used with the speaker and also how volume can affect the bass. I'm often listening to my 2.3 watt per channel Decware Zen amp. It's quiet and holographic sounding which is beautiful with the Heresy II and jazz at medium music levels. It's easier for the Decware UFO Zen to drive a more efficient II. IMO, there's often just a lot of hype and marketing audio enthusiasts get caught up in. I realize Klipsch has definitely made some improvements to the bass with the IV, but once again I do feel that some aspects all to often get taken out of context.
As far as the break-in is concerned, I'm not saying Andrew's video here is the definitive review on the subject, BUT he does make mention with regard to what appears to be some sort of definitive scientific paper that was written on the subject and addresses each concern step by step.
-
5 hours ago, JohnJ said:
Don't give the fours back yet @angelaudio
4:00 in right now and I appreciate the fact that you are calmly and intelligently (almost)
presenting your argument against the speakers.
Got to tell you that I had IIs for thirty years before I replaced them. Then I missed them so much I got another pair, but what I got were Supers. Super Heresy if you look them up here had the port in the back years ago. I do get a little lower bass in them than the IIs put out.
I enjoyed the pressure of the bass from the sealed IIs that the ported supers don't offer, but lower bass is lower bass and that's what I was craving.
So my comparison is only going off of the sealed to ported difference not the IIs to the IVs. But there is a valid point here.
Did you ever properly place either pair in your listening comparison? If they were a couple feet out like in your video, you're right you probably missed out on the bass response. Pull the manuals up online if you don't have them on hand. My experience with my IIs for decades before finding this place backed up what I've read here and elsewhere. You'll need walls or even better corners of the listening area to obtain the best response from those Heresy. Especially the ported ones, you even have to play with the placement a little to get them where you might need them for the sound in the room. Tube Amp? Wish I'd gone that route when I rebuilt my rig, did get to put them in the analog path. So if the amp offers different settings try that also.
My Supers with the high & mid drivers from the LS and KHorn angled and out at different heights do well in our den/kitchen big room for the tv or youtube music on the tv, they're spread as far as possible in corners.
Not trying to admonish, just enlighten you to a basic principle they you could have missed out on. You might give them another listen after setting them up better! Then you might need to change your online video!
Welcome to the forums!
First, I want to thank you for this very informative response . I agree 100% and I had completely forgotten to mention that I did in fact place each speaker in the exact same spot which kind of goes back about something I mentioned in the video regarding ear placement affecting the speakers somewhat equally. After I read your post though, I added two more video showing each speaker playing in the same position. Here's the IV
and here's the II
BUT, there's something you also said that I think deserves serious mention which I have been thinking about or the past several months and that is, that I don't have corners. My room is shaped like an A frame. My friend who's a recording engineer says the acoustics in my room are really excellent but I have always thought about placing a large board against the right and left sides of those slanted walls to generate more bass acoustics, so your point was well made. I think it's time to do that. Thank you again for your guidance and wisdom. I'm still a rookie.
-
3
-
-
Okay, so I finally compared my Heresy II to the new IV in my room but I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed in several aficionados on YouTube who IMO should know better about the way they are presenting the IV's. In other words, not putting the matters of bass into proper context with regard to how they are being driven or with what they are being driven with. I posted the comparison on video in just 5 minutes to get to the point across. For frame of reference, my Magnepan .7 has slightly more audible bass than both the II and IV, ONLY at moderate volume levels because they don't play as loudly as either of the Heresy's.
There's been a lot of chatter about the new high and mid drivers in the IV but IMO, the II's have an ever so slightly more holographic sound compared to the IV and if I'm being completely honest, I prefer the II's at the listening levels I listen to, so I'm not sure what all this hype is about the IV in fact I think many listeners would fail a blind test miserably at moderate listening levels. Video explains why. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Take it as you like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eyb7ZnFUQM
-
3
-
-
Does anyone have anything to share regarding the way voices and horn instruments compare between these two speakers? There's usually a great deal of emphasis regarding the bass impact. For example, on my Heresy II, I added two 8" REL subs, one for each channel. The first time I heard it, I was immediately blown away. It sounded extremely impactful but I honestly don't find that I need the subs for every genre of music and leave them off 50% of the time. If the cabinet is larger like the Cornwall, then certainly something in the higher vocals and horn type instruments are going to be affected yes? I find these instruments beautiful, tight and well controlled in the Heresy already, leaving little to be desired.
-
It would be really nice to hear some user reviews and videos on the new Heresy IV. Seems like the new improvements may be quite a nice alteration but it's so new at this point.
-
On 2/14/2006 at 9:20 AM, whtboy said:
I've had a pair of cornwalls in my living room for the last couple months and I'm thinking about picking up a local pair of heresys. I like them a lot overall but there are a few frequencies that really bug me.
There's something somewhere between 200 & 600Hz that makes Natalie Merchant sound terrible when she hits certain notes. It's very resonant and artificial, like a male voice singing in the shower, and it sounds like it's coming from the woofers. There are one or two other frequencies that come out of the mid that have a hard, resonant overtone that definitely isn't in the source.
I've got a 15 band eq coming in the mail tomorrow. I'm hoping that will be granular enough to deemphasize the resonant frequencies without affecting the rest of the spectrum too much. But even if I am able to get the SPL at that frequency turned down so it doesn't stand out by volume, it is still going to sound resonant and distorted.
-jacob
Very interesting post. I've always wondered if the extra size of the cabinet is what contributes to this compared to the Heresy.
-
I'm not saying I necessarily dislike titanium drivers. I'm merely pointing out that I don't necessarily see it as an improvement with regard to the Heresy III. The latest Klipschorn (which is their heirloom speaker) utilizes phenolic / polyimide tweeters, so does that mean the Klipschorn is somehow inferior? The point I'm making is that it would be nice if constructive comparisons were made instead of assuming somehow the HII is inferior to the HIII as the OP seems to imply. What I've gathered in these forums are a lot of assumptions. If the Heresy III is an improvement of the HII, it would be nice to hear some constructive comparisons from others as to why, rather than just some hype others keep parroting in the forums.
-
1
-
-
I'm actually glad others love the new Heritage series. I'm happy to see them back on the front lines and we need others to appreciate the new lines as well.
-
55 minutes ago, seti said:
After listening to the Forte Heresy and Cornwalls a few weeks ago in Hope I don't know what ya'll are talking about. They sound great. The Heritage line future has never sounded beter.
I think that's great that you are pleased with them. Let your ears decide.
-
In my opinion, the break in has little to do with it. It's common knowledge that phenolic tweeters generally have a smoother, warmer sound compared to titanium. I love Klipsch and I wouldn't want to discourage their success, but with all due respect, they have to market their heritage series so consumers like the OP are persuaded to buy them. It's human nature that unless some sort of changes are made, onlookers won't buy newer products. Even in this low res video of my Heresy II's here, you can still tell the bells ringing are crystal clear.
-
2 hours ago, Frzninvt said:
Not a fan of Ti either I find them sizzly and harsh compared to phenolic or silk or other hybrid type diaphrams.
That's what I don't understand about these later lineups and the direction it's all going. The tweeters on these newer lineups are too brittle sounding IMO. I have the Heresy II's and they're absolutely beautiful, silky smooth. I wouldn't trade them for the III's if you paid me. IMO, going from the II's to the III's is a downgrade, not an upgrade. Anyway, just my two cents.
-
Apparently the HII used phenolic tweeters and the HIII use titanium tweeters. There doesn't seem to be any emphasis on how the affects the sound characteristics.
-
On 9/22/2019 at 4:30 PM, glens said:
It doesn't make much sense when you state it that way. I guess I've consistently missed those remarks you suggest are "overwhelmingly" present, however.
Okay, what I meant is that many of the reviews and online videos I've seen describe the Cornwall III as pretty much having more of everything the Forte III has.
-
On 9/22/2019 at 4:20 PM, moray james said:
so far as I can tell the motor on a K76 tweeter and the motor on a K107 tweeter are the same the diaphragms are the same size but different materials K76 is phenolic the K107 is titanium. I own both, the horns are different the horn on the K76 is an exponential the horn on the K107 is a tractrix. So far as I can tell with mine which both have titanium diaphragms installed the difference I hear is in dispersion. You are looking at diaphragm material differences in the mid drivers as well and probably diaphragm size differences as well. The mid horns are radically different K700/701 is a very old design and it is a small exponential model the mid horn in the Forte 3 is a tractrix and is very much larger and had much better polar control and to lower frequencies and I will assume considerably wider range both down and up, distortion overall will be much improved with the newer horn.
I don't put much stock in reviews they really depend upon the reviewer I like to listen for myself but I do trust what Roy says.
I don't know a whole lot about the Forte 3 woofer it may be different from either Forte I assume that it is. I also assume it will be more similar than different. Further if the diaphragm of the Forte 3 mid driver is larger then it will have measurably lower distortion at all levels. Roy designed the Forte 2 Roy designed the Forte 3 I believe that the Forte 3 will be a much better loudspeaker than the Forte 2. Having owned Heresy built in the last couple of months prior to H2 and then having two sets of H3 I know what kind of a performance jump the H3 crossover brought to the Heresy 3 and would expect a similar jump in the Forte 3. These are my thoughts and opinions.
When you say you think the F3 sounds hollow and harsh compared to H2 I have no way to know what you are hearing there are so many variables. I will say that a H2 stock uses phenolic mid and tweeter diaphragms the F3 uses I believe a poly mid diaphragm (possibly Kapton ) and a titanium tweeter. I will say that some people (and this is a fairly small percentage) are bothered by the fundamental structural resonance of titanium diaphragms and they cannot listen to them for very long. It is entirely possible you belong to that group. Phenolic diaphragms are smooth soft and round sounding very relaxed and easy to listen to. There are a lot of reasons you like and dislike what you do but as I said the horns are not of poorer quality and aside for the comment that I made about some not being able to listen to titanium neither are the drivers. In the end it all comes down to what you like even it what you like is more distortion (which is something which has been studied) well that is what you like so what enjoy what you like search it out and enjoy it!
I like and appreciate your constructive response here. Perhaps it's the phenolic vs titanium that's the issue? Sometimes it's difficult to find the words to describe the sounds we hear to help others interpret what's trying to be conveyed. I mostly listen to jazz like Bill Evan's, Louise Armstrong, Chet Baker and many more. I just find that the Heresy has very sincere sound characteristics that work nicely with the kind of music I enjoy. They're extremely pleasant to listen to and combined with my pair of 8" REL t5i subs which I don't always use, the deeper bass with sound tracks is quite astonishing . Out of curiosity since you mentioned phenolic tweeters, do you have an opinion as to why they use phenolic tweeters in the newer Klipschorn's? I just find it interesting that Klipsch uses titanium in the HIII and FIII and use phenolic in the Khorn's.
-
I was referring to the Heresy II in my post. That would be the K-76 tweeter and a K-53 mid yes? That's okay though because I'm assuming you'll say that's even more inferior to the K-107 anyway. So, let's just have a look at the Heresy III since that's what you're referring to. According to Klipsch, the Heresy III and Cornwall III each use the same K-107 tweeter and K-53 midrange, yes? So, from what I gather from all the reviews, it's pretty much an overwhelming vote that the Cornwall III, which uses the same tweeter and mid as a Heresy III is practically superior in just about every regard to the Forte III and yet the Heresy with the same high and mid driver as the Cornwall is somehow inferior to the Forte III. How does this make any sense? So, perhaps it's the design and size of the cabinet influencing these decisions or maybe too many individuals who conduct these reviews have placebo.
Personally, I think the newer Forte III sounds hallow and harsh compared to the older Heresy II and Forte II. I'm not in the camp that so many are led to believe that horns are harsh, so don't get me wrong. I absolutely love horn speakers. I run a Dynaco ST-70 Bob Latino tube amp with 36 watts a channel and a Decware SE84UFO 2 watt Zen with my Heresy II. I have a Dynaco PAS II and Aretha preamp. These all sound absolutely spectacular with the Heresy II! Beautiful and silky smooth with each amp, not harsh. There's something odd about these Forte III's so many rave about though and I'm a bit dubious if these are really improvements. I'm really not all that much into specs since they don't always tell the truth about how something sounds. IMO, that has a lot to do with the acoustics of your room, where the speakers are placed and from where the listener is sitting.
In my actual profession, people often think newer is better. I don't always subscribe to that camp like so many others do. I've seen countless cases where newer is often worse, not better. Kind of reminds me of movie sequels. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks the newer drivers on the Forte III are a bit on the bright side.
-
On 8/24/2019 at 11:01 AM, CECAA850 said:
Have you heard the Forte 3s?
I should have mentioned I was referring to the Forte III. I personally love Klipsch speakers in general and I really love horns. I get that much of what others talk about when comparing the Heresy and Forte is bass extension. I agree, the Heresy's do not go as deep. The issue I get myself is the larger box acoustics or perhaps, wider opening of the high and midrange driver on the Forte III is what doesn't seem to be getting addressed and how it affects the sound of voices and brass instruments for the highs and mids. Where I tend to have an issue is in the highs and mids of the Forte III compared to the Heresy II's I have. I'm not a specialist on box acoustics, however, the sound I get from the Forte III is that the voices and brass instruments almost have a hallow like, resonance to them. It's like putting a larger horn on the front of a trumpet and it loses that tight, controlled sound a trumpet has. I mainly listen to jazz, classical and vocals. I've attached some notes from a similar forum to explain the box size issue I was having while comparing a pair of B&W speaker.
For example, I compared the B&W 601 S3 to the 602 S3. The 602 is a bigger cabinet and slightly larger bass driver. When I played Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald, the trumpet and voices clearly sounded cleaner, tighter and more controlled in the smaller 601 speaker. In the 602, the trumpet and voice were less coherent and less controlled. They sounded loose and less coherent. It was only while playing large classical orchestra where more bass extension took place where the larger 602 gave a larger overall impact or effect on the sound.
That was when I completely lost interest in the Forte series altogether and decided it wasn't going to be an improvement over my Heresy's. I genuinely think the Heresy's sound nicer than the Forte III's despite what many others say. They just sound smoother, silkier, tighter and more controlled than the Forte III to me. I had a sub which I really disliked because of the way I had to connect it to the inputs and outputs, then I discovered the REL t5i's. I added one to each channel and said OMFG! The sound combined with the Heresy's I have is unlike anything I've heard in my life in any room. I have a couple of different tube amps and preamps and it just rips! I couldn't be more pleased and the way the little 8" REL's connect is the most ideal way in my opinion for stereo. It doesn't matter what I play, the Heresy's sound amazing!
-
IMO, the Heresy has smoother, more refined highs and mids than the Forte. Voices and horn instruments sound tighter, controlled and more coherent.
presenting your argument against the speakers.
toe in vs toe out ?
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
I think I see what you are saying. It may sound a little overwhelming.