Will I like Klipsch KG speakers?

[Marvel]

If what you heard in the mid '90s were original Heresy speakers, the crossovers may have needed to have the caps updated. Also, I have usually found the mids to be a bit hot, but that could be adjusted in the crossover as well.

As has been stated, the newest ones really are the best of the three versions.

Bruce

[thebes]

If they are in good conditionat $250 they are very fairly priced. If you don't like them you will have no trouble getting your money back..

[rongon]

If what you heard in the mid '90s were original Heresy speakers, the crossovers may have needed to have the caps updated. Also, I have usually found the mids to be a bit hot, but that could be adjusted in the crossover as well.

As has been stated, the newest ones really are the best of the three versions.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce. That does sound like what I heard. Very brash mids. Does the Heresy have user-accessible level controls for mids and highs? Or were you talking about crossover mods?

I see your system profile includes a 2A3 amp and that you used to use an ST70. I know how that goes...

Ron

[Marvel]

Not a lot of work.

Look at the following thread:

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/131401.aspx?PageIndex=1

Bruce

[Ironsave]

To add a less intrusive answer to your question;

I use my PCs sound card software to tame the mids by a few db.

My Onkyo receiver had a 5 band EQ for each channel that accomplished the same thing.

Again; the original Heresy I was designed as a center first.

[rongon]

I heard the KG4.5's last night. Unfortunately, the source system was the (analog) line out from a Mac computer running iTunes, into a very pretty mid-1970s Marantz receiver. I played CDs, not AAC or MP3 files.

The good part was that the speakers are in really good condition. Only little cosmetic blemishes, a couple of small white paint spots, probably from moving them. No dented corners, pushed in dust covers, etc.

How did I like them? I liked them. The good points are the wide dynamic range and sense of "they are here in the room." I played a small vocal group CD (Cassandra Wilson "Blue Moon Daughter") and I felt like I was in a small club, seated at a table, listening to the band. Cassandra's voice was floating there in between the speakers, spookily real sounding. I listened to Bill Evans "Waltz for Debby" (1962 recording) and the piano was clear and bell-like, very pure sounding. The bass was tight and quick, none of the bloat I hear from my Tannoys. Wes Montgomery "Full House" (another live 1962 recording) was positively jumpin', with Johnny Griffin's tenor sax especially well reproduced. Jimmy Cobb's unique ride cymbal beat jumped right out of the speakers, like he was actually playing. Very nice. On the RCA Living Stereo CD of "Das Lied von der Erde," the orchestral chimes were as good as real, and the voices were scaled down nicely to something like the size you would hear from a mid-orchestra seat (on the floor of the hall), with the much larger orchestra all around the singers. Very realistic sizing of the audible "images." Those were the good points.

The not-so-good points? Orchestral bowed strings had an unnatural "bite" with a metallic edge. Best described as an electronic "sizzle" riding over the top. That might have been the Mac computer sound. I played a fairly nice recording of Bach Violin Concertos, which sounded very engaging and fun, but not as "sweet" in the strings as real life. But that may have been the recording. However, the robust, smooth string tone on the RCA Living Stereo CD still came across with an electronic sheen, "harder" sounding than in real life. I hope that was the sound of the Mac computer and Marantz receiver, but I don't know...

I could easily hear the flatness and sizzly top end of AAC files played from iTunes compared to the sound from CD. (How can people happily listen to MP3'? I'm afraid I can't do it and enjoy myself.) So yes, the KG4.5's are revealing of the source material -- which is an excellent sign! Maybe the KG4.5's will sound better driven from my tube stuff.

I also heard a bit of discontinuity between the horn and the 10" woofer. It sounds like you are listening to the horn for most of the spectrum (which is probably a good thing), but the lower mids seem to be coming from a slightly different place on the baffle. I was in a small room, so it might be that you need 4 feet or so distance from the speakers for them to sound more like a single "point source." Incidentally, that's one of the strengths of the Tannoy coincident drivers. You can be right in front of them and the highs, mids and lows will always sound like they're coming from a single spot. They're great as nearfield monitors, which is how many recording engineers use them.

I really don't know if my tube amp setup will tame the sizzle/edge I heard. I suspect the upgrade to titanium diaphragms would improve that. But I'd need to add another $50 to the price for that mod. Which brings me to a new, and possibly cheaper, development...

I found a pair of RF-3 for sale, for quite a bit less money. They're another 3dB more efficient, which would be useful, and they have the titanium diaphragm tweeters and copper-colored woofers (two 8-inchers!). So, please excuse me for drifting, but... Any thoughts on RF-3 vs. KG4.5? In their stock config (no upgrades), which would have a smoother, more violin-friendly top end? Do you think the RF-3's titanium diaphragms would make a huge difference there?

Thanks again everybody

[rongon]

Just a quick update -- I found a pair of RF-3 speakers for way cheap, so I picked them up too. Now I have two pair of Klipsch floorstanders I haven't listened to yet (KG4.5 and RF-3). I got to hear them both before buying them, and I have to say that they sounded completely different from each other. I don't know if this was because of the receivers driving them or if I was hearing something in the speakers themselves. They both sounded very good, with a lot of potential.

I heard the the RF-3's driven by a Rotel integrated amp. I only heard some singer-songwriter music, with a bit of drums and percussion along with guitars and female vocals. The RF-3's sound very clear and fast, but more zingy than the mellower-sounding KG4.5's. Unfortunately, I have to clear a lot of stuff out of my place before I can start playing with floorstanding speakers. I'm making some headway this week...

It should be very interesting to compare the two Klipsch models to each other and to my Tannoy T185's (10" concentric, black bextrene cones and butyl surrounds).

-=|=-

[rongon]

I finally hooked up the KG 4.5's to my system and got a listen. As is usual with speakers, it's going to take some time to get used to their "personality," but I hear a lot of potential.

What I hear that I like:

• The dynamics are EXCITING. These speakers are INTENSE.
• Rhythmic drive is GREAT. These speakers love to "breathe" with the drummer. Not sleepy in the slightest.
• Percussion is really good. Quick transients like rimshots sound almost like the real thing, just scaled down.
• The bass is nice and full, goes down low enough for me.
• The high-highs are very good, for my taste. Bells, harps, vibraphone, chimes, high notes on piano all sound percussive - "fast," like they should. "Clear as a bell." I like that a lot.
• Orchestral strings are bright, but very clear. When a soloist is spotlit, you hear it.
• They seem to change a lot with each different recording (within limits), which is a good sign (if each recording sounds different, the speakers should sound different playing them). Harsh sounding or distorted recordings sound harsh and/or distorted. These speakers do not smooth over rough edges.
• Depth and imaging (where a performer appears to be located in the mix, and the sound of the acoustic space in which the recording was made) seems to be good. Good enough for me. Not as good as my friend's EJ Jordan line array (4 small full range drivers per side with subwoofers added), but this pair of speakers is a heckuva lot cheaper and much more efficient.

What I hear that I don't like:

• When I first auditioned them, driven by a mid-1970s Marantz receiver, I noticed a sort of sizzle or "hash" riding on top of the highs, especially cymbals (most noticeable on jazz ride cymbal). I still hear it, and it sounds pretty much the same through the tube amp as it did through the Marantz. I wonder if this could be the sound of the polymer tweeter diaphragm? Perhaps an upgrade to the titanium diaphragm would help that?

Maybe the capacitors used in the crossover aren't the greatest? (Anybody know whether they are film or NP electrolytic?) I could change them to something better, maybe Axon polypropylene and foil (from Zalytron outside of NYC).

Maybe the tweeter needs to be padded down just a hair. Maybe -1.5dB or -2dB. Everything seems just a bit too bright, just a little.

The KG 4.5's are slightly more efficient than my Tannoy T185's. After adjusting for level, the T185's sound more polite in comparison, and not as bright. They sound "richer" and smoother, but not as exciting. It's like the old "West Coast" sound (JBL, Altec, etc.) versus the "British" sound (KEF, B&W). Tannoy is definitely British (Scottish, to be exact). The Klipsch "house sound" may be more brash. I remember that from the Heresy's I heard. I think this is a taste thing.

Considering I spent $175 in 1984 dollars on a pair of B&W DM100's, and my Tannoy's would cost well over $500 to replace (if I could find another pair), and that I just spent $250 in 2011 dollars on these KG 4.5's, I'd have to say that these are a very good deal. They're fun and exciting to listen to, and easy for my weenie tube amp to drive. The only problem is that they can be a little harsh in the upper ranges.

All in all, I'd say this is a success. I'll live with them for a little while and then swap in the RF-3's (which were a lot less money). That should be interesting...

-=|=-

[rongon]

Well, this is getting interesting... I lugged my KG4.5's out and put in the RF-3's. The RF-3's are another step up in efficiency (they go really LOUD!), and the family resemblance is unmistakable (they're both EXCITING), but the RF-3's sound different. More "hi-fi", less "romantic" than the KG4.5's. They're still bright, maybe artificially bright, but very clear and fast, fast, fast. I like the RF-3 bass. It's quick and tight. BUT... I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with the RF-3's. The upper mids (~2kHz) sound somehow "mechanical" and artificial. It's hard to put my finger on it. There's a warmth about the KG4.5's that I miss in the RF-3's. -------------- I downloaded copies of the crossover schematics, thinking I might want to do some parts upgrading. I found that the HF on the KG4.5 has a 3rd order network, while the RF-3 HF has a 4th order network. As the networks get more complex, they get to be harder to drive by amplifiers with high-ish output resistance (like my triode amp with no negative feedback loop). That right there might be the difference in treble quality I hear between the KG4.5 and the RF-3. Incidentally, the more highly regarded RF-7 has a 3rd order HF network like the one in the KG4.5. I've always liked the sound of simpler crossovers (1st order sound the most relaxed to me), but I know you can't always use them. Anyway, I wonder if that's why I get a warm-and-fuzzy feeling from the KG4.5's and a cold shower from the RC-3's...

[chisoxpurdue]

I just stumbled across this discussion. I am glad you went ahead and bought two completely different pairs of Klipsch speakers. While reading, I predicted you would prefer the KGs to the RFs. Considering what you want to use and listen to, those who said K-horn and La Scala were correct. Later, those are what you would like to listen to the most in my opinion. If you want to take a step to the three way but cannot step up to the La Scalas, I recommend the Forte/Quartet/Chorus line. Quartets can be had for around heresy prices when you watch for them. You do not seem like the one to add a sub to heresys for listening to jazz, blues, and classical.

[Ironsave]

I just stumbled across this discussion. I am glad you went ahead and bought two completely different pairs of Klipsch speakers. While reading, I predicted you would prefer the KGs to the RFs. Considering what you want to use and listen to, those who said K-horn and La Scala were correct. Later, those are what you would like to listen to the most in my opinion. If you want to take a step to the three way but cannot step up to the La Scalas, I recommend the Forte/Quartet/Chorus line. Quartets can be had for around heresy prices when you watch for them. You do not seem like the one to add a sub to heresys for listening to jazz, blues, and classical.

OP, Chi Sox is pretty spot on.....

BUT......

I will tell you that Herresy Is with a sub equal (and possibly surpass) Fortes without one........

(Chorus speakers are more a long the lines of Cornwalls...... Next step up)

My .02......

[rongon]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies.

Yes, I remember hearing Khorns and being very impressed, and surprised because I thought I wouldn't like a horn speaker. I'm sure I'd really like La Scala, Cornwall, Forte...

The latest development is that this morning, before I went to work, I switched back from the RF-3's to the KG4.5's. I have a couple of CDs and SACDs that work well for auditioning speakers -- Waltz for Debby by the Bill Evans Trio (Analogue Productions SACD) and the standard CD of Blue Moon Daughter by Cassandra Wilson (vocals, percussion, deep bass, etc.). I also use an RCA Living Stereo SACD of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde for an orchestral example (nice bells in the opening theme and both male and female vocals). Anyhow...

I realize now that each speaker does something really good, while having drawbacks.

The RF-3 throws an impossibly solid 3D image for a sub-$1000 (when new) speaker. When you get the placement right, the singer is practically there in the room with you. Details like the glasses clinking and audience talking in Waltz for Debby are clear as a bell, almost like you can listen in on the background chatter in the club and hear what they're talking about at the tables. I've heard very few speakers that have that kind of low-level resolution. I'm tellin' ya, these things have some potential. The problem is, as I said before, that they get fatiguing after awhile. There's a coarseness to the highs. I'm really hoping it's the fault of cheap capacitors or maybe there are some cabinet or horn resonances that need to be tamed. The RC-3 is so much fun, but its brashness begins to wear on me. I'm thinking that it's a good candidate for some mellow sounding paper-in-oil capacitors, or possibly smoother/better caps with just a little attenuation of the tweeter.

On the other hand, the KG4.5 is generally smoother and more laid back, but still suffers from a tendency toward sibilance, only in a more relaxed sort of way than the RC-3. When listening to the KG4.5, I miss the bold imaging of the RC-3, but I'm more able to just relax and listen to the music instead of bracing myself for the next sonic fusilade. While I feel the RC-3 needs to have its treble enthusiasm toned down, the KG4.5 could be a little faster sounding and needs to be cleaned up a bit, like it needs faster-sounding capacitors or something (polypropylene film and foil, perhaps).

When I switched back to the Tannoy's, I remembered what I like about them (they're extremely smooth, relaxed and refined in the mids and highs), and what I find wanting (they're not all that dynamic, they have loose bass response and they fall off above 12kHz or so in the high end).

I think my next move will be to brighten up and clean up the KG4.5's, because I like them enough to try it as a learning experience. I asked Bob Crite about the titanium diaphragms for the tweeters, but he's out of stock (again). So I'll put in better capacitors (Sonicaps? Axon film-and-foil?), put a layer of Duct Seal on the the tweeter horn frame (inside the cabinet, to tame any resonances) and on the frame of the woofer (ditto). I also want to brace the cabinet somehow, as it does sound like it resonates, which is likely muddying up the mids and lows.

Sounds like fun?

PS -- Can anyone tell me how much of an improvement can be had by replacing the inductors with better quality ones? I'm looking for smoothness, less brashness, less sibilance in the highs. And trust me, it's not the amplifier doing that.

-=|=-

[Ironsave]

Not sure about the inductors; but the Sonicaps will make a nice difference.

My Heresy A-B test proved the difference to me.......

Good Luck!

[t-man]

I really like this thread. I've owned KG 2.2, 3.2 and 5.5. I had the 5.5s for almost 10 years and loved them. Your observations of your 4.5 are similar to mine. My dad has the RF3 system and i agree with your observations on those as well! If you like the 4.5, the 5.5 is similar with more bass - lot's of bass!

I recently sold my 5.5s in favor of Quartets. I am very happy with the Quartets and prefer them to the 5.5s. Simply put, i think they work better in my room b/c one of my 5.5s was really close to a couch and obstructed most of the speaker. I have the Quartets on stands and can solve this problem now. I have heard the crossovers are crap in the KG line and you will probably find some improvement with new caps and the Titanium tweets, but I haven't tried that myself. I'm considering doing this with my Quartets, but I love them so much the way they are (:

Cheers!

[Ironsave]

I really like this thread. I've owned KG 2.2, 3.2 and 5.5. I had the 5.5s for almost 10 years and loved them. Your observations of your 4.5 are similar to mine. My dad has the RF3 system and i agree with your observations on those as well! If you like the 4.5, the 5.5 is similar with more bass - lot's of bass!

I recently sold my 5.5s in favor of Quartets. I am very happy with the Quartets and prefer them to the 5.5s. Simply put, i think they work better in my room b/c one of my 5.5s was really close to a couch and obstructed most of the speaker. I have the Quartets on stands and can solve this problem now. I have heard the crossovers are crap in the KG line and you will probably find some improvement with new caps and the Titanium tweets, but I haven't tried that myself. I'm considering doing this with my Quartets, but I love them so much the way they are (:

Cheers!

Sonicaps on Quartets will produce similar improvements as my Heresy Is.

I think they cost ~$40 and 1.5 hours time (including sealing the Heresy backs).

Do it! You will be glad you did. [H]

[rongon]

Hey t-man, thanks for the corroboration on the KG sound vs RF sound. Nice to know someone else has heard what I think I hear... Hopefully I'm on the right track.

_______________________________________________________________

OK, so I gather that the KG4.5 will benefit from better capacitors. Sonicaps are much liked on this forum. I think they are metallized polypropylene, which is fine, but I have liked polypropylene film and tin foil capacitors in the past, so would probably go with those if I can.

At any rate, it's pretty obvious what to do with the KG4.5's, as they need a little more clarity and speed. Better quality capacitors, some internal dampening on the driver frames and cabinet walls, and additional cabinet bracing should deliver all that.

The question remains what to do about the RF-3's excessive brightness. Has anyone worked on these speakers? Upgraded capacitors? Reduce the output from the tweeters a little? There's a 2 ohm series resistor in the HF circuit which could possibly be increased in value to bring down the tweeter output a little.

-=|=-

[t-man]

Sell the RF-3 - OR - use them with a fancy new AVR that has Audyssey. That seems to help - they are pretty much an HT type of loudspeaker anyway.

[rongon]

Sell the RF-3 - OR - use them with a fancy new AVR that has Audyssey.  That seems to help - they are pretty much an HT type of loudspeaker anyway.

"Audyssey"? I don't understand the logic of making speakers with built in EQ (the crossover) that require an electronic EQ to make them sound acceptable. But OK, maybe you have a point there... maybe I should give up on them. It's just that these RF-3's throw out such a convincing image, and all that detail... If I can only tone down that treble harshness, just a little...

--

I performed my first tweak on the KG4.5's. I took out the tweeters and covered the back of the horn with a layer of Duct Seal (heavy putty that never dries and is the consistency of modeling clay). I have to say I was a bit surprised by the apparent cheapness of the driver. Coming from earlier experiences with B&W and Tannoy and being pleasantly surprised at the high quality of their drivers (cast frames, large magnets, etc.), I was underwhelmed by the KG4.5 tweeter. It's surprisingly small, and the plastic horn is decidedly lightweight. The horn also rang like a bell when I gave it a good tap. The Duct Seal helped reduce that ring quite a bit (the "bong" sound became a dull "thwack"). I put the tweeters back in and there's a noticeable improvement in midrange clarity. The first tweak is an immediate success.

I'll try this on the RF-3 tweeters soon, and report back. I suspect the RF-3 woofers will also need Duct Seal on their frames. This will tame any midrange resonances coming from the frames, especially likely if they're made of stamped metal.

PS - Don't get me wrong, I do realize that the KG series was designed to be a budget line, and they do sound really good for the money. Being able to get a high level of performnce from inexpensive materials is a sign of some very good, clever engineering. It's also encouraging that the speakers responded so well to a simple tweak. I think there's more potential for improvement in there...

-=|=-

[Ironsave]

PS - Don't get me wrong, I do realize that the KG series was designed to be a budget line, and they do sound really good for the money. Being able to get a high level of performnce from inexpensive materials is a sign of some very good, clever engineering. It's also encouraging that the speakers responded so well to a simple tweak. I think there's more potential for improvement in there...

-=|=-

Sounds like a good easy improvement.

Can't wait to see what else you try......

[rongon]

Was looking at the price of Sonicaps and Axon Film&Foil. It will cost something like $70 to replace the 2.5uF and 3uF caps in both speakers. That seems like a lot to pay for an experiment that might not even work out. ------------------------ I don't quite trust the Sonicaps because of the advertising/description. It doesn't say anywhere what the construction is. If they're metallized polypropylene, then I don't want to pay that much for them. I'd get film&foil for that kind of money. Anybody know what type construction is used to make Sonicaps (metallized polypropylene or polypro film and foil)? ------------------------------- Have you tried WIMA MKP metallized polypropylene? Those are the red 'box' capacitors that were really popular in the 1990s. I have some WIMA MPK10 in 2.2uF 250V and some of the same in ERO (Roederstein). I also have some really good sounding film&foil 0.22uF 400V ERO that I could parallel with the 2.2uF to make 2.5uF (nominally 2.42uF, but that should be close enough, no?). That would leave only a pair of 0.82uF caps to buy to parallel with the 2.2uF to make 3.0uF, and the non-inductive wirewound resistors (which are expensive enough at $4 a pop).