Is THX dead or soon to be?

[HornEd]

Well, Crash, it looks like you have chosen to live in ignorance and engage in grade school name calling. Laugh on if you like, but at least I know who the joke is on and I'm not the one who crashed... again.

I sure hope you know a lot more about horses than you profess to know about acoustics. At least the newbies can use the net to know how far off base you really are. Maybe you can follow their example and try again next year. Good luck. -HornED

[anarchist]

PS. The colt is doing quite well - two IV's, a plasma transfusion, 3 shots a day, a week of round the clock feedings, and a couple of tubes of antibiotics appear to have done the trick. Thanks for asking.

This post edited to remove any possibly objectionable 'pokes.'

This message has been edited by crash827 on 06-06-2002 at 08:02 AM

[HornEd]

Well, well, Crash, I'm glad to here your comments were meant to be a joke... and they were... just not my kind of humor.

I am glad to hear that the colt wasn't a joke and that he is doing better. I remember fondly a colt that belonged to a friend of mine who rode and raised cutting horses for a living and had a buckle to prove he was the best that he could be. We were doing a photo shoot on the colt... he was a charmer... cute as a button... a golden coat with a white blaze down to his nose... so full of life... and then one morning his cold carcass lay there in cold testimony that sometimes life just isn't fair.

It is too bad that we were not able to have a spirited but meaningful dialogue leading to camaraderie and new learning. Too bad it couldn't have been like others on this Forum that started out in an adversarial position and drifted into an area of mutual respect and growing friendship... instead of another cold testimony that life isn't always accommodating either. Good luck to your colt... and may your own health and disposition find better days in the Bluegrass State. -HornED

PS: I thought your snippet quotes to be a lot more meaningful when taken in context of the original text... and they reflect my frustration at what I surmised as a return to "rhetoric over reason" rather than the meaningful dialogue of which I believed you capable. At least you have not carried the "slap-dash acoustics expert" character into your posts into tubes... and that is good. May your audio systems grow as you hope and your knowledge grow as I hope. -H.E.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-05-2002 at 11:51 AM

[anarchist]

It seems every post must disparage any choice other than direct radiators for surrounds; even when you point out where they can be used you disparage them. This isn't helpful to anyone and paints a very slanted picture unnecessarily.

Secondly with an industry pretty much in agreement with the definitions of discrete and matrixed, you inject a whole other viewpoint which doesn't jibe.

This post edited to remove any possible objectionable 'pokes.'

This message has been edited by crash827 on 06-06-2002 at 08:00 AM

[T2K]

I have edited my post in an effort to keep my Klipsch buddy, Bloomis914, from following thru with his threat to leave this BB.

See related thread in General Questions Forum.

Keith

This message has been edited by talktoKeith on 06-05-2002 at 11:43 PM

[Mikekid]

Is it just me? Or does it seem like we are all losing it here?

This is a FRIENDLY BB for cryin' out loud!

I'm going to go mow the lawn now...have a nice day!

Take care

Mike (The Yamaha Underdog)

[HornEd]

No, Mikekid, I don't think it is just you.

I agree that this should be a friendly board where ideas can be exchanged and examined... and if differences occur, as they are sure to, and if such differences cannot be resolved through friendly dialogue, a friendly agreement to disagree should end the confrontation.

It seems there are those who prefer to haunt the Forum for posts contrary to their opinion, whether valid or not, and pounce, with vitriol, upon those whose opinion they have previously attacked.

Surely, the audio aspect of better living is one that is not tied to one format for all listening areas and the ears of every person. I do not think that presenting sound alternatives to a questioning newbie is grounds for opening a personalized attack. Of course, having someone present a view in the alternative is what democracy is all about.

To some degree, on this thread and others, out of duress I have responded more in kind than usual and it clearly has not been as beneficial to bringing mutual respect, enlightenment or worthiness to this Forum.

A little "good natured ribbing" should be a welcome part of the camaraderie that exists on this Forum but it should not progress to the point of a continuing onslaught of "rhetoric over reason" that have characterized many threads lately... even those to which I have not been a part.

It is sometimes difficult to withdraw from threads that sink below where they might have been... for often times comments are received on the thread, by private email or phone that the spirited dialogue created interest and investigation that brought new understanding to a goodly few Forum members... and that is some measure of good.

But, clearly, when generally accepted principles of acoustics and psychoacoustics within this industry are blithely tossed aside except as objects for further ridicule... something has to be done. For even if the proponents of the controversy know better, this is a public Forum and, as such, is monitored by others who may not understand and, thus, be dealt the disservice of being misinformed.

The singular issue that seems to rile some folks is that I often present the view of an alternative to using wide-dispersion speakers for HT and Music systems on this Klipsch Forum.

And, in reading the biography and many papers authored by the late Paul W. Klipsch, I have find no reference that he advocated the use of wide-dispersion speakers... or brought them into his house for he and Miss Vickie to enjoy.

The longstanding dialogue I have had with Avman or SteveP, both users of Klipsch wide-dispersion approaches with good reason, have always been friendly and mutually productive. They understand, as do many Forum members and staff, that since the advent of 5.1 with five (or more) discrete, full-range, channels plus LFE, new and better technology is on the horizon. But, they have also chosen the gear that suits their unique listening area and their own ears in consideration of the existing program material available to them. And, that is good.

In the main... and in good conscience... I try to recommend Klipsch solutions whenever practical... given the economic and performance constraints expressed in a given thread. For what ever reasons, I prefer horns, and the more horns on a Klipsch speaker, the better I like them. It is a matter of taste brought about by decades of enjoying live performances.

I can also enjoy the accuracy, range and SPL's put out by the Ref7 addition to the Klipsch line. I can even appreciate the reflected envelopment created by WDST speakers over "THX Approved" dipoles for those who find such timbre altering techniques necessary. I mean, let's face it, if good sound were the primary criteria in the world's living environments... Bose would not be the world's best seller.

Yet, to advocate an array of Klipsch monopoles as a better solution for those with adequate resources, room size and interest in audio fidelity has been the source for constant harassment and has led to "taste" issues, by all concerned, that are less than ideal for this Forum.

Therefore, despite my imperfections, I shall endeavor to advance my honest and considered opinions, answer questions that I deem sincere, and attempt to keep within the bounds of good natured camaraderie... and post an orderly disengagement from dialogues that appear beyond socially or educationally redeeming value. -HornED

PS: This theme is amplified on the "General" thread referred to by talk-to-Keith. -H.E.

PPS: It seems that Crash827 has back-edited many of his posts to get in "poke free" sync with the "BLOOMIS thread"... which is probably a good thing. Hopefully this thread will slip into "post oblivion" soon enough without my reviewing and re-editing its content. What is important is that Forum members and lurkers alike understand that difference in speaker choices and sound concepts are not necessarily bad or good based on the opinions of a few. -H.E.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-06-2002 at 09:53 AM

[T2K]

ED said:

"It seems there are those who prefer to haunt the Forum for posts contrary to their opinion, whether valid or not, and pounce, with vitriol, upon those whose opinion they have previously attacked.

Surely, the audio aspect of better living is one that is not tied to one format for all listening areas and the ears of every person. I do not think that presenting sound alternatives to a questioning newbie is grounds for opening a personalized attack. Of course, having someone present a view in the alternative is what democracy is all about.

To some degree, on this thread and others, out of duress I have responded more in kind than usual and it clearly has not been as beneficial to bringing mutual respect, enlightenment or worthiness to this Forum.

A little "good natured ribbing" should be a welcome part of the camaraderie that exists on this Forum but it should not progress to the point of a continuing onslaught of "rhetoric over reason" that have characterized many threads lately... even those to which I have not been a part."

You go far beyond "good natured ribbing" ED. In fact the above quote from you is a very good description of your responses to my,and others, posts. You seem to be unable to state your opinion without personally attacking the opinions of others that differ from yours and the vitrol contained in your posts referencing others opinions is what causes the continuation of same. In fact,I expect a response to this post from you that will perfectly describe what I am trying to state here. If a person of average intelligence were to reread the unedited threads I'm referencing I sure they will,and have,understand what I'm saying.

It is a simple matter to add one's opinion to a thread without denigrating the opinion of the previous poster.

Keith

[T2K]

"PPS: It seems that Crash827 has back-edited many of his posts to get in "poke free" sync with the "BLOOMIS thread"... which is probably a good thing. Hopefully this thread will slip into "post oblivion" soon enough without my reviewing and re-editing its content. What is important is that Forum members and lurkers alike understand that difference in speaker choices and sound concepts are not necessarily bad or good based on the opinions of a few. -H.E.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-06-2002 at 09:53 AM"

[HornEd]

Apparently, Keith, "It is a simple matter to add one's opinion to a thread without denigrating the opinion of the previous poster." has not been your practice either.

I can understand your frustration at not believing what a previous poster has said and your noble intent to set the record straight. I, too, have such yearnings and act upon them... frequently. And, perhaps, that is our duty... but in the spirit of fair play... denigrating the concept is one thing... slamming the author quite another... no matter the indentities of the "slammers" or "slammees"!

The flawed aspects of personal "retaliation justification" are as old as human conflict... and are more painfully alive in this era. This Forum deserves to be an island of discovery free from the pollution that "retaliatory posts" tend to breed.

I now realize that some of my "tongue-in-cheek" endeavors to stay within-the-line should have been handled either more directly or omitted altogether. As cluless once opined... it doesn't taste very good.

That doesn't change my opinion that:

1. DTS ES 6.1 has six discrete channels plus LFE... as would Dolby EX.... and that all six channels have been "matrixed" along the line... or,

2. It is possible to have identical monopoles outperform a "mix and match" of wide-dispersion and monopole speakers in most listening environments... or,

3. It is the nature of 180° wide-dispersion speakers to strike more objects and create more near field reflections than the conventional monopole dispersion patterns... or,

4. A front center speaker nearest the timbre range of the left and right mains is superior... or,

5. Sweeps between the front and rear array are tone & timbre challenged by wide-dispersion speakers... or,

6. Future mixing trends will continue to make more use of full-range 5.1 (or above) channels by more astutely mixing for ambience and localization in ALL discrete channels as required... or,

7. Adequate bass from a subwoofer can free up full-range woofers to be better in the high bass/mid range area creating a net gain in sound benefits.

That being said, I can understand why you enjoy your KSP rig and applaud your continued experimentation and often helpful posts to your fellow Forum members... including yours truly. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-06-2002 at 04:17 PM

[skonopa]

HornED, as somewhat a newbie to high-end audio (although I am not to audio in general), your suggestions have been a great help when I was initially selecting my new gear to upgrade my old system (which, BTW, was all monopole all the way around). Given what knowledge I had, I honostly thought that using di/bi-poles for the surrounds was the way to go and my original gear was going to use 4 SS-1s as the surrounds.

After your suggestions, I went and did some more research on my own, including reading material from the dolby site as well as the THX site and the DTS site. I also some of those papers that Dr. Toole has written (did not get the chance to read all of them). I do agree that the future is moving towards having all identical full-range monopoles on all descrete channels.

However, due to budget and space constraints, I just simply cannot do that right now. There is no way that I could fit 6 full size RF-7s into my little 14x14 foot room. As a result, I ended up compromising by using RC-7s and RS-7s along with my RF-7s in the front as listed in my sig block. For the size of my room and the material that I normally watch and listen to, this turned out to be more the adequate for my needs.

In the future, I may try to put together a little two-channel "music only" system with a pair of fully horn-loaded heritage class speakers and good amp. I am kinda keeping an eye out for a pair of used LaScalas in my general area. I have heard a pair of LaScalas and I really like the sound of them - plus I like that "no nonsence" look to them. Also they would be a better fit for the listening area where I plan on putting them (a very small library I have here in my house - guestimating 10x12 feet). I am also going to re-setup my old system down in the game room in the basement where I have a little 20 inch Zenith and couple vintage video game systems hooked up (Atari 2600 or Coleco Vision anyone? Or how about the original Nintendo NES!).

I am writting this to let you, HornED, know that your suggestions are not falling on deaf ears in this forum and that somebody has took them to heart in an effort to improve his audio system. That does not mean that I also completely disagree with others on here.

When you think about it, this is audio systems that is being argued over, not exactly a high priority within the scope of my life. To me the world is not going to end if I end up with WDST speakers instead of Monopoles in my system! Ultimatly, it does indeed come down to budget, space, and material listened to, not the least of just how does it sound to you, the listener.

Thanks for everybody's help when I needed. I hope that I can return in kind.

------------------

Steven Konopa

Fredericksburg, VA

Denon AVR3802 (Receiver)

RF-7 (Fronts)

RC-7 (Center)

RC-7 (Rear)

RS-7 (A Surrounds)

Infinity RS2000.5 (B Surrounds - recycled)

REL Storm III (Subwoofer 1)

Yamaha YST-SW40 (Subwoofer 2 - Recycled)

JVC XV-S65GD (DVD)

Sharp DX-200 (CD - ancient)

RCA DWD490RE (DirecTV/Ultimate TV receiver)

Sharp 32 inch (TV)

[boa12]

good points s. so ed quit making me feel like a sap for not having a big center (due to space constraints) & i'll lay off the necessity of having an adjustable crossover in the processor.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[HornEd]

Thanks, skonopa, your example is exactly the kind of intelligent adaptation of current technology to current acoustics space that I have been trying to get across.

Just because some folks stop at one place or another along their personal journey down the audio upgrade highway... doesn't mean they are bad people... there is more than one former "Bosephile" that has kicked the habit on this Forum.

But, to try to catch "audio-time" in a bottle and say there is only one way to audio bliss is an act of religious fervor... and not a cool assessment of progressive psychoacoustics technology and acoustics space available.

An open mind, a little research, and a sense of the future make the audio upgrade path more fun... with a whole lot less $pent on "horn-clinkers" and "cone-clunkers" along the way.

You have my admiration and gratitude, skonopa, particularly in our shared regard for other people's opinions. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 06-06-2002 at 01:44 PM

[kenratboy]

This thread is smoking!

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!