Gluegun Posted May 11, 2002 Author Share Posted May 11, 2002 Oh, and I *VERY* strongly suggest you get a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz over the other sound cards you mentioned! Here's a review... http://www.epinions.com/content_55647309444 Here's the cheapest used place to get it: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/axion1/sotbsntcruzp.html Here's the cheapest new place to get it: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/newegg/29-118-101.html ------------------ "Feh." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iDunno Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Ok now its up to my ears to decide: I am either getting the: Klipsch and the Fortississmo OR The altecs and the santa cruz. Or mabie ill just get the klipsch and the santacruz since they are only 50 dollars more then the altecs and the santa cruz. Thanks for all the trouble i have caused in helping me find some good pair of speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluegun Posted May 11, 2002 Author Share Posted May 11, 2002 Altecs and Cruz are gonna give you waaaay higher sound quality, at a far cheaper price, than the Klipsch and Fortissimo... ------------------ "Feh." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajgb72 Posted May 12, 2002 Share Posted May 12, 2002 I dont mean to disrupt any conversation, but on the first post someone said something about bad imaging. What does imaging mean in speakers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajgb72 Posted May 12, 2002 Share Posted May 12, 2002 I dont want to disrupt any disscussion, but can anyone tell me what bad imaging is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluegun Posted May 12, 2002 Author Share Posted May 12, 2002 The Stereophile Glossary says... http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?50 'imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging." ' 'stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. See "soundstaging," "vagueness," "wander." ' 'soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it. ' 'Sidebar 5: About Soundstaging The ideal stereo soundstage for a large performing group will center the performers across an area of about 2/3 to 3/4 of the distance between the loudspeakers, and will audibly separate the front rows from the receding rows (layering). There will be an awareness of the reflective boundary walls of the acoustic space behind and to the sides of the performers, and the spatiality of the hall itself will extend a considerable distance beyond the distance between the loudspeakers. The ideal is achieved only from suitably miked recordings. Specific phantom images will often appear beyond the speakers when the performing group was wider than the axis lines of a coincident pair of microphones, or if the recording has been specifically encoded with recoverable ambient surround information. Such "beyond-the-speakers" imaging, however, is only audible from the sweet spot. Surround-encoded recordings, played on a properly implemented surround-sound system, can cause the hall ambience to "wrap around" to the rear, completely enveloping the listener as in an actual concert hall, and can even place instruments in any direction around the listener. So-called "derived-ambience" decoders can extract the ambient spatial information from unencoded recordings, but cannot place phantom images at the sides or rear. ' 'Soundstaging WIDTH: Good: beyond-the-speakers, floating, palpable, spacious Not Good: narrow, pinched, restricted CONTINUITY: Good: center fill, coherent, stereo spread Not Good: bunched, hole-in-the-middle DEPTH: Good: layering, perspective Not Good: distant, flat, forward, laid-back, polite, recessed, Row-A, Row-M ' Does that help? The promedias all commit a few soundstaging sins, most prominantly having far 'forward' soundstaging... but the promedias have better soundstaging if you place the speakers at ear level, and point them directly at your ears. Try it with some orchestral or jazz music and find out what I mean. Here's some old stuff that a friend of mine, named Roj, said about the v.4-200's and the 2.1's. His opinion has stayed the same throughout the entire line of promedias, all of which he has heard.. "A brute force approach to imaging Despite all the rhetoric Klipsch has been spouting for years, there is no horn-loaded speaker in existence that can accurately reproduce silky highs and a detailed and well-imaged soundstage. Horns, even the hybrid horns that Klipsch chose to use in their satellites, shoot sound at you with all the finesse of a rocket launcher. The all-encompassing feel of Stevie Ray Vaughans Rivera Paradise doesnt come across. Neither does the acoustic guitar magic in Toni Braxtons Spanish Guitar or the swirling magnificence of Strauss On The Beautiful Blue Danube. The drivers used in both the 2.400s and the 2.1s simply cant do the job properly because of their innate design the sound definitely reaches your ears but it lacks the subtle nuances so crucial to producing a truly good stereo image. The Monsoon hybrid flat panel / cone speaker design and the Boston Acoustics single all-purpose high frequency / midrange driver do a far better job of creating a detailed soundstage, although the Boston Acoustics were behind the Monsoons at the very high end, likely because of their lack of a dedicated tweeter. " By the way, he was referring to Boston Acoustics OLD speakers, and Monsoon's OLD speakers.... ------------------ "Feh." This message has been edited by Gluegun on 05-12-2002 at 05:36 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btrigg Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 Yo, gluegun, I'm fine with what your sayin, but ba louder than logitech w/o distortion? I'm going to have to see a few websites say that before I believe that, where did you get that info? For the record, mark said the 4.1 sub was a bit tighter than the logitech at low to moderate volumes, I havent heard the logitech, so I dont know if it sounds better, as in more detail. Also, Justin, the logitech are NOT true rms, they are BSed just like Klipsch, just Klipsch admits it, and logitech probably BS's more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTL Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 There's no reasoning with these guys (Roj). They hear one Horn speaker and they feel qualified to grossly generalize on all horn speakers. And frankly Gluegun with your constant quoting are encouraging more ignorant and inflammatory remarks. I guarantee an audition with some properly setup Avantgarde horns will be an enlightening experience at the very least. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btrigg Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 OLT, imo they are very biased compared to most, but it is true that horn speakers seem to flaten the sound stage and imaging since they are compacting the sound. I like my promedias, but I will say the transparecy is not there, although they make it sound like the pros sound like ish because of that, when this is not the case. They play all the same sounds, just don't place them with any accuracy. This is not notciable till you hear a set without horns, but the difference is there. They just put a lot of importance on that difference. The Klipsch sound is in your face, which doesn't sound as good as more neutral speakers imo. This is for music only though, movies and games, the Klipsch rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluegun Posted May 13, 2002 Author Share Posted May 13, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Btrigg: OLT, imo they are very biased compared to most, but it is true that horn speakers seem to flaten the sound stage and imaging since they are compacting the sound. I like my promedias, but I will say the transparecy is not there, although they make it sound like the pros sound like ish because of that, when this is not the case. They play all the same sounds, just don't place them with any accuracy. This is not notciable till you hear a set without horns, but the difference is there. They just put a lot of importance on that difference. The Klipsch sound is in your face, which doesn't sound as good as more neutral speakers imo. This is for music only though, movies and games, the Klipsch rule. I agree very strongly with this statement... another part of my case is that it is very inexpensive to get an incredibly detailed, awesome for imaging, very accurate and tight sounding 5.1 system for about $140.... If we didn't have an option that was such an incredible contrast to the Promedia 5.1's at such an inexpensive price, we might not be so zealous. By the way, i'm talking about 5.1 systems.... with 4.1 systems, and the price that the promedia 4.1's are... I believe that the 4.1's aren't a good value... I would definitely consider the 5.1's if ever I wanted a 5.1 system, though! ------------------ "Feh." This message has been edited by Gluegun on 05-13-2002 at 08:20 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTL Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 If you read the quotes carefully he (Roj) is attacking horn speakers in general. This I find particularly offensive considering his (admitted) lack of experience with said speakers. That's what I'm taking issue with here. Some people expect way too much of crap box plastic $200 computer speakers with 120-200'ish crossovers. If I wanted audiophile sound on my PC I'd spend $2500-$3000 and do it right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluegun Posted May 13, 2002 Author Share Posted May 13, 2002 A friend of mine doesn't like horns... I'll quote a one of his better and more, ahh, interesting arguments... "Other people in the High End insist on resurrecting old technology and promoting it as new technology. In speakers, this means above all, HORNS. Bruce Edgar builds a $20,000 horn, that French outfit a $65,000 horn. Horns?? With phenolic drivers? Many milliseconds of delay? The megaphone effect (reflections within the horn throat that make everybody sound like Rudy Vallee)? Yes, the efficiency is amazing, as is the sound pressure. Yes its impactful and sounds better with those 5 Watt single-ended triode power amps. Yes the overall sound quality is marginal to dreadful. No, theres nothing you can do about it: change the driver, change the horn throat, equalize, use better materials. Nothing really helps. Dont listen to horns, theyre bad for your aural health." Oh, by the way, Roj heard some Horns, and he LIKED the high end Klipsches (hell, I'm sure *I WILL TOO*, as soon as I hear them with music that needs a good amount of impact!), but they *do* have a signature sound that makes them more suited to some types of music over others! Think that Rudy Valee argument (not by Roj) that i posted.. A signature sound like that reduces versatility, which, IMO, is a bad thing. I like my systems to be versatile... cause that means I don't have to buy a bunch of different systems for different types of sound! I have been doing that, you know--with headphones. Those are cheap enough that you can buy four different high end models from four different brands, so you can switch depending on your current music. Speakers, which are a bit more expensive, means you probably can't do this. Therefore, accuracy and versatility are very important to me. IMHO, any signature sound that is further than necessary from 'accuracy' is a bad thing! I found a good webpage talking about signature sounds, and such... it's a good read if you want to figure out a good way to compare and contrast speakers... http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm In relateds stuff.. the fact that horns direct sound the way they do caused Klipsch to have to make a few compromises with the Promedias. Horns are made for big rooms--the KHorns, of course, sound best in corner loading-- so that means that they AREN'T well suited to near-field multimedia. Klipsch knows this, and designed the Promedia tweeter to have a wider dispersal... lessee, compromised horn in a compromised location with a compromised design. No wonder I don't really like the Promedia highs. Yes, I have heard them... ------------------ "Feh." This message has been edited by Gluegun on 05-13-2002 at 10:48 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTL Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 quote: OLT, imo they are very biased compared to most, but it is true that horn speakers seem to flaten the sound stage and imaging since they are compacting the sound What PC speaker doesn't? You guys need to lighten up and realize severe sonic compromises have to be made with these types of systems. The fact that you sit a few feet away makes a transparent soundstage impossible. Don't write off all horn speakers based on low end psuedo horn loaded garbage like the Promedia's. Well designed horns (and the Avantgardes are a shining example of this) are capable of awesome soundstaging. They'll eat Maggies or Martin Logans for lunch. Properly setup there is no trace of stereotypical bright or nasal horn sound. That's the last I'm going to say on this. Give some of the upper end a fair shake or your opinion is invalidated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluegun Posted May 13, 2002 Author Share Posted May 13, 2002 quote: Originally posted by OTL: What PC speaker doesn't? You guys need to lighten up and realize severe sonic compromises have to be made with these types of systems. The fact that you sit a few feet away makes a transparent soundstage impossible. There are plenty of PC speakers that don't. In the low end, try the Monsoon MH-502's. $75 online. in 5.1 systems, try the Monsoon MH-505, for $140. In high end 2.0 system, try the Swan M-200 for $200. Those have a better soundstage (much more depth, gotta love that silk dome tweeter!) than the B&W DM303's... I did a direct comparison... BTW, the Avantgardes are those $65,000 french ones, with the built in sub, right? Or is that something else...? *looks at there website* Oh yea, those are the $45,000 ones. Okay. I've been to this website before--I wasn't all that impressed.. they need a sub, and they didn't really explain the details they said they would explain about why their speakers really WERE better. I want some cold, hard facts in my salespeak, lol... ------------------ "Feh." This message has been edited by Gluegun on 05-13-2002 at 11:13 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 he is refering to Avantegarde horn speakers. These are so so beautiful. I have seen them get pretty darn expensive on eBay. ------------------ -justin SoundWise Support A technical help site created by me and my fellow Klipschers I am an amateur, if it is professional; ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5 Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluegun Posted May 13, 2002 Author Share Posted May 13, 2002 Anyway, yea, I've seen that Avantegarde website... I still wouldn't want their speakers over some very specific, cheaper options from other companies that do not use horns, even if I had a room in which they a.) would not look out of place and b.) could sound optimum due to room acoustics... ------------------ "Feh." This message has been edited by Gluegun on 05-13-2002 at 11:17 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roj Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 "There's no reasoning with these guys (Roj). They hear one Horn speaker and they feel qualified to grossly generalize on all horn speakers." I'd be careful of taking potshots at people - you never know who might be listening. As it is, let me caution you to NOT put words in my mouth. While I certainly am no fan at all of the Pro Media horn implementation (if you can call it that), I'll give the Klipsch home line credit. I'll also say that in the face of Martin Logan and even ProAc, Klipsch's home line doesn't fare too well when drawing a detailed jazz soundstage. As an example, go listen to a set of RB-5 IIs playing Miles Davis or Boney James and then listen to the same track on one of the ProAc Tablette series - the difference in placement is unmistakable. I'll maintain that while horns are good for many things, that kind of detailed music is where they tend to fall down in comparison to either a dome tweeter or flat panel implementation (in this particular example Martin Logan and ProAc). Now getting back to the Pro Media lineup and PC multimedia, those horns really display lesser spatial placement capabilities when compared to companies like Monsoon and (I'm told since I haven't experienced them first hand) VideoLogic or Swan. Anyone saying otherwise is either deaf or in denial: it's rather obvious to anyone auditioning. If you listen to Miles Davis (I'd recommend any selection from "******* Brew") and can't hear the difference then I submit that a set of tin cans and string would do as well for you. Whether you *like* the difference is another matter and completely irrelevant to the discussion - the fact that a difference exists *is*. Now, the PM line does very well for stuff like alternative, metal, dance and the like - in fact any kind of music where subtlety, detail and spatial imaging aren't a prerequisite. You wanna rock Nine Inch Nails? Get a set of PM4.1s (or rather *don't* - the Logitechs have far better value). You wanna watch the Matrix? A set of PM 5.1s is a very credible option. You wanna blast The Crystal Method or Marilyn Manson? Buy Klipsch. You wanna listen to Boney James, Enya, Sade, Mary J. or Erykah Badu? Go Elsewhere. Your uses dictate your purchase and in fact I have a joint article with Audio-guru to that effect on Hardware Avenue: http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/multimedia1.shtml This should clarify things. ------------------ "Faith manages." jms This message has been edited by Roj on 05-14-2002 at 04:39 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roj Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 "The fact that you sit a few feet away makes a transparent soundstage impossible." In a word: Nonsense! It doesn't appear that you've experienced too many multimedia systems then. How can I say this? Because I own one of the proofs that what you're saying isn't at all the case (the Monsoon MH-505s). Go out and actually properly audition some of the other alternatives and you'll have some first hand experience to work with. Yes there are compromises made - however other vendors have managed to achieve a very great deal of what you're claiming isn't possible. ------------------ "Faith manages." jms This message has been edited by Roj on 05-14-2002 at 04:34 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTL Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 quote: I'd be careful of taking potshots at people - you never know who might be listening. As it is, let me caution you to NOT put words in my mouth. I'm not putting words in anyones mouth. Instead I'm trying to shed some light on these fruitless comments and expose you for the biased fraud you are. You did type the following tidbit didn't you? quote: there is no horn-loaded speaker in existence that can accurately reproduce silky highs and a detailed and well-imaged soundstage. Horns, even the hybrid horns that Klipsch chose to use in their satellites, shoot sound at you with all the finesse of a rocket launcher If that wasn't an outright condemnation of horns in general I don't know what is. Apparently your sole basis for this argument is merely auditions limited to the horn loaded Promedia's and reference series, and internet propaganda. As they say in the audio world if you haven't heard it your opinion don't mean **** . quote: in the face of Martin Logan and even ProAc, Klipsch's home line doesn't fare too well when drawing a detailed jazz soundstage. As an example, go listen to a set of RB-5 IIs playing Miles Davis or Boney James and then listen to the same track on one of the ProAc Tablette series - the difference in placement is unmistakable. Lets try to keep a level playing field. You're making comparisons to much more upscale products. Taken for what they are the RB5's image very well. quote: It doesn't appear that you've experienced too many multimedia systems then. How can I say this? Because I own one of the proofs that what you're saying isn't at all the case (the Monsoon MH-505s). Go out and actually properly audition some of the other alternatives and you'll have some first hand experience to work with. As I'll reiterate for the final time (because apparently yourself and Gluegun are suffering from a bout of amnesia), I've heard most of the Monsoon line (505, 702, 1000, 2000) under conditions as ideal as they're going to get in a department store, and was less than thrilled with the final result. The crossover isn't smooth. I was able to localize lower midrange and upper/midbass from the sub. This wasn't so obvious when keeping everything on the same shelf, but the loss of bass imaging was. When the subwoofer was placed on the floor the changeover was disparaging. The sats sounded spaced out and thin, lending an exaggerated image to everything. The 702, 1000, and 2000's midrange was dreadful - sharp and wiry. Even some of those pricy Martin Logans have trouble integrating the cone box woofers with their electrostatic transducers! I have nothing personally against Monsoon, I'm only describing what I hear. Frankly I'm not impressed with the musical performance of any PC speaker I've heard (note this doesn't include Videologic's or Swans). To incessantly rag on the Klipsch's flaws and turn a blind eye to the others is narrow minded and immature. quote: "The fact that you sit a few feet away makes a transparent soundstage impossible." In a word: Nonsense! You're living in a bubble if you think you'll get realistic imaging in a desktop environment. First off the speakers are too close to the wall, decreasing soundstage depth. Second the close proximity of the speakers to each other diminishes soundstage width. Ideal placement is at least 6 feet apart - try doing that on your computer desk. Then you literally sit on top of the damn things cheating yourself of holographic imaging that floats beyond the speakers and into the room itself. This message has been edited by OTL on 05-16-2002 at 11:14 AM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted May 16, 2002 Share Posted May 16, 2002 i pretty much agree with everything except the depth part. have you tried out a movie with coner loaded cornwalls or heresy's? infact, the klipsch horns were make to be in corners, that is pretty darn close the to walls ------------------ -justin SoundWise Support A technical help site created by me and my fellow Klipschers I am an amateur, if it is professional; ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5 Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.