Mallette Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Actually, I have always found it interesting that the Klipschorn, with all its flaws, manages to be completely transparent when fed source material that is worth of it. Amazing! But true. Ears do not lie. Instruments don't lie either...but that doesn't mean they are telling the truth. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) There's some good posts from both sides on the last couple of pages. I'm not sure about the "good sound", "good art" analogy. Most people seem to agree on what "sounds good". In our arena, it's just different levels of "good", and often, an "upgrade" is more like a lateral move. Right, I can't write about what I like without it sounding like an advertisement, it kind of goes with the territory I guess. Now, I do notice that some have signature blocks that are about a half page long, "advertising" all kinds of gear -- I guess that kind of advertising is okay, right? Tom, I really appreciate your honesty regarding your modifications on the Behringer unit, and your admission that it brought improvement. Look, that's all I was shooting for here. I have no issue with active units, my issue is with the parts quality in the pro units. I looked into this myself when I had the Jubilees, and I just couldn't swing it. I'm curious how you dealt with the gain structure issue and noise (if any). Don, first order electrical is not first order acoustical. I know you know this because I've read some really good posts by you about it. One post in particular deals with the question of the tweeter section hanging behind the primary capacitor, creating what someone else called, "a better three-way crossover", or something to that effect. I agree with Craig on a critical point. Start with a well behaved driver, and you don't need as much correction. Small aberrations in response really aren't that big of a deal. You guys should see what Bob C is doing for a network on the Jubilee -- I think some of you would have a seizure. Reports back to me from people who've heard it, tell me it sounds incredible. So Tom, are you going to teach me how to do those Behringer mods. :-) Edited August 5, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 OK.....!!! I'm going to try my best to ignore the silly rantings posted today.... I made my point on the 3rd page of this thread of why in my experience a high quality DSP unit with EQ and crossover capabilities can offer improvements to a system well beyond any negatives if used properly. This is based on real world personnel experience over several decades and yes this was after many years (15 easily) of owning a minimalist system with Klipschorns in dedicated and acoustically treated listening rooms. So it's not like I haven't been there and I definitely appreciate and understand that approach to sound reproduction. Less anyone thinks I don't understand op-amps and electrolytics and their potential drawbacks please know that I made my living for over 25 years servicing consumer electronics and have built and modified audio equipment for over 40 years which is where the real fun is... The only reason the DSP units I own stay in my system is because they bring my music reproduction closer to reality than any approach I've used before IMHO. My point is some form of EQ effects whether intentional or unintentional (this includes electrical, mechanical and acoustical forms) is present in practically every part of a reproduction system. EQ effects exist from the Recording Environment, the Recording Engineers Choices, the Recording Storage Medium, Source Components, Pre-amps, Amplifiers, Crossovers (active or passive), Loudspeakers and Listening Rooms. Many forms of EQ can prove very beneficial if applied properly throughout all aspects of a system and a high quality Modern Active EQ when applied properly can improve a system much more in comparison to any negative effects it might bring to the table in my experience and personnel opinion. Bottom line I respect anyone's choice to not use an active EQ unit in their system but I reject the suggestion by you or anyone else that those who choose to use a high quality active EQ in their system is somehow compromising the system versus not using one. Oh and by the way "fixing the problem at the source in the simplest possible way" is sometimes best accomplished by EQing as for examples again in the LP storage medium in combination with it's compensating EQ circuits or proper use of local and/or global negative feedback in an amplifier or in the case of loudspeaker systems the use of electrical EQ compensation (either through an active crossover or passive crossover/balancing networks) for the mechanical and acoustical properties of the components of the system that cause some of the errors of the system. As far as one of the worst offenders of good sound reproduction which is the poor recording standards and practices of that industry our only way to deal with that is to either listen to them warts and all, stop listening to some very good music that's recorded poorly, take some control available to us through high quality and effective tone controls systems as I mentioned before or as I do presently using a very good quality DSP active unit with my tone control simulation program of the Cello Palette. miketn The point I take from the above is you spent all those years and ended up a total failure. I'd be dispointed too but seriously doubt I'd resort to a digital processing unit...like I said in my first post I'd give up audio first....but then I'm pretty good at fixing and tuning things (eq'ing with a soldering iron) No...your good at copying other designers work and acting like you understand what your copying..... Want to keep playing little boy..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) Most people seem to agree on what "sounds good". Not that I can detect. Most here count "good sound" as DSP processed crossovers, digital sources, big SS amps, and CD horns and subwoofers. That wouldn't sound good to me, or any of the minimalists I know. We'd probably have an LP player, tube amp, and 2-way speakers without subwoofers. I suppose the essential difference would be that I can't extract "good sound" from a string of those kind of electronics. Not to mention I would never listen at the levels I hear most often mentioned here. So, probably I was being more general to the bigger audio community, and not simply talking about people with K-horns? Sorry Mark but honestly do you really have the experience necessary to make such a broad statement? There is good and bad examples in all things audio. The only thing I can take from your statement is that you have exhibited a closed mind full of predisposed ideas of what is or is not possible. Unfortunately many here are exhibiting the same attitude. Out of the whole thread the best post I've seen is when Dave said in a reply....." Friend, my ears and mind are wide open" miketn Edited August 5, 2014 by mikebse2a3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Now, I do notice that some have signature blocks that are about a half page long, "advertising" all kinds of gear -- I guess that kind of advertising is okay, right? I can empathize in how you find yourself in many 'damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't' situations. Maybe if gear is listed in the signature blocks that person should also make a "financial interests declaration" to let people know if they own stock in the company, have a credit card with the company, work for the company or have an immediate relative working for the company. Or, 'no affiliation' similar to the "alerts" forum postings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1UC Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 No...your good at copying other designers work and acting like you understand what your copying..... Want to keep playing little boy..? Well he must of copied the right stuff to make such an awesome unit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) '"...Not that I can detect. Most here count "good sound" as DSP processed crossovers, digital sources, big SS amps, and CD horns and subwoofers."' I've had systems like that in the past, and they sounded good for a time, but it just wasn't possible to sit back and relax while listening for any extended period of time. These systems didn't "sound bad", they just didn't have any staying power. I liked your use of the word "artificialized". Someone else around here often used the word "mechanical", which works for me too. I threw together a popular network last week using the cheapest caps I could buy from Parts Express, and just clipped everything together. While listening, I heard the sound I've heard a thousand times before, but could never figure out how to really describe it. When I went upstairs, Alexia was at the table, cutting up some paper, and when she put the scissors down, I picked them up and started working the blades against each other with the handles. I was like, "that's it, that's the sound." It's a high pitched rubbing kind of sound, and I would sure like to know what causes it, and why some of us notice it and some don't. Edited August 5, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 There have been advances in horn technology during the last 30 years or so. Constant directivity horns are a good example. They require equalization for proper performance because of their design. When implemented properly, CD horns have much less, or no, beaming of high frequencies. Just as in all of audio it's also true that not all CD horns are created equal and thus the superiority of the K402 and K510 as a couple of examples of that fact. Eliminating the diffraction slot of previous designs was one of the key advances seen in them. Another important fact is the required equalization is a result of the fact that they more accurately transfer all frequencies of their designed bandwidth with neutrality and thus more closely following what the driver itself is reproducing. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 "Sorry Mark but honestly do you really have the experience necessary to make such a broad statement?..." Good grief, are you being serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 No...your good at copying other designers work and acting like you understand what your copying..... Want to keep playing little boy..? Well he must of copied the right stuff to make such an awesome unit Yea .....he copied all but the integrity of the original designer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Some of you preach the high road while shouting from the ditch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 "Sorry Mark but honestly do you really have the experience necessary to make such a broad statement?..." Good grief, are you being serious? Absolutely..! I'm sick of these careless and broad generalized statements many here are using yet they have put no real effort or time in experiencing what they are talking about. Sorry Dean but you talk as if you have all this experience with active setups but except for the Crown XTIs and a few limited listening sessions in unfamiliar locations and systems please tell me of any others. To lump all active systems together and condemn something you've actually never heard is closed minded at a minimum yet you are basically telling me and others here that report improvement in sound as impossible. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Some of you preach the high road while shouting from the ditch. Have you looked in the mirror lately Dean.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 OK.....!!! I'm going to try my best to ignore the silly rantings posted today.... I made my point on the 3rd page of this thread of why in my experience a high quality DSP unit with EQ and crossover capabilities can offer improvements to a system well beyond any negatives if used properly. This is based on real world personnel experience over several decades and yes this was after many years (15 easily) of owning a minimalist system with Klipschorns in dedicated and acoustically treated listening rooms. So it's not like I haven't been there and I definitely appreciate and understand that approach to sound reproduction. Less anyone thinks I don't understand op-amps and electrolytics and their potential drawbacks please know that I made my living for over 25 years servicing consumer electronics and have built and modified audio equipment for over 40 years which is where the real fun is... The only reason the DSP units I own stay in my system is because they bring my music reproduction closer to reality than any approach I've used before IMHO. My point is some form of EQ effects whether intentional or unintentional (this includes electrical, mechanical and acoustical forms) is present in practically every part of a reproduction system. EQ effects exist from the Recording Environment, the Recording Engineers Choices, the Recording Storage Medium, Source Components, Pre-amps, Amplifiers, Crossovers (active or passive), Loudspeakers and Listening Rooms. Many forms of EQ can prove very beneficial if applied properly throughout all aspects of a system and a high quality Modern Active EQ when applied properly can improve a system much more in comparison to any negative effects it might bring to the table in my experience and personnel opinion. Bottom line I respect anyone's choice to not use an active EQ unit in their system but I reject the suggestion by you or anyone else that those who choose to use a high quality active EQ in their system is somehow compromising the system versus not using one. Oh and by the way "fixing the problem at the source in the simplest possible way" is sometimes best accomplished by EQing as for examples again in the LP storage medium in combination with it's compensating EQ circuits or proper use of local and/or global negative feedback in an amplifier or in the case of loudspeaker systems the use of electrical EQ compensation (either through an active crossover or passive crossover/balancing networks) for the mechanical and acoustical properties of the components of the system that cause some of the errors of the system. As far as one of the worst offenders of good sound reproduction which is the poor recording standards and practices of that industry our only way to deal with that is to either listen to them warts and all, stop listening to some very good music that's recorded poorly, take some control available to us through high quality and effective tone controls systems as I mentioned before or as I do presently using a very good quality DSP active unit with my tone control simulation program of the Cello Palette. miketn The point I take from the above is you spent all those years and ended up a total failure. I'd be dispointed too but seriously doubt I'd resort to a digital processing unit...like I said in my first post I'd give up audio first....but then I'm pretty good at fixing and tuning things (eq'ing with a soldering iron) No...your good at copying other designers work and acting like you understand what your copying..... Want to keep playing little boy..? Sure you want to play we can play all day. Your little childish comment aren't going to scuff up my armor...I've forgot more about the business I'm in than you would ever hope to know... but hey I understand people with little minds like you, when you can't beat someone down you resort to spouting off about things you have no idea what your talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) I think on the whole minimalists would use speakers more suitable to that style than K-horns, right? I mean the point for me would be to never have to run a signal through all that processing. So, any speaker that requires that, would probably fall into disfavor. In my own case I prefer near field monitors. The speaker that started the whole mini-monitor business (LS3/5A) has quite a bit of EQ built into it's passive crossover: "J. Gordon Holt indicates in Stereophile that most of the cost lay inside the case, having been spent on a complex equaliser and phase-corrected crossover.[14] However, Holt's colleague, John Atkinson, notes that the cabinet alone "costs the manufacturer the same as the retail price of a typical massmarket [sic] speaker".[5] Only specific speaker drivers manufactured to strict tolerances may be used. There were other measures to control diffraction and ensure tonal neutrality.[2][4] The circuitry provides equalisation in both high and low frequency sections.[4][3] The 13-element crossover includes an inductor for the treble section with seven positions that allows adjustment to match level of mid to treble sensitivities.[2][4][3] The design also specifies high quality screened air-gap inductors and film capacitors.[5][3] David Prakel in Hi-Fi Answers suggests it was a costlier speaker to build than imagined because tight specifications meant a high failure rate in production – the BBC had specified "the finest, most expensive ingredients and representing an investment of hours of skilled labour".[2] Edited August 6, 2014 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 thankfully I have nothing to do with digital processing units, EQ's or active crossovers....so please tell me how my business benifits directly from this BS....I don't get it! By denigrating what has become industry standard components and methods for dealing with performance anomalies, and insisting on adherence to "the path" of simplicity as the only way to go, you hope to steer business to yourself. You have insisted that the simplest "path" gives the best results in all cases (such as with tube equipment), with no proof at all of what you state as true. Perhaps that is because there is no such proof. There have been advances in horn technology during the last 30 years or so. Constant directivity horns are a good example. They require equalization for proper performance because of their design. When implemented properly, CD horns have much less, or no, beaming of high frequencies. Folded bass horns have traditionally caused time alignment problems because of differences in the acoustic path length between them and the other drivers in the horn. With the Khorn that difference is about 4 feet. It is impossible to correct this in a practical manner other than to do it electronically. You say the solution is to redesign the speaker. That's not practical. It is much easier to correct the time alignment with a processor. After that alignment was done on my Khorns they sounded much closer to what I hear when I hear live music. And recordings I thought were "bad" suddenly sounded "better" with no other changes to my equipment. Ummmm here are more exaggerations..... where have I ever stated that my path is the only path? You boys sure are insecure in your choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNRET Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Getting a little personal here guys, what say we chill a bit? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I haven't resorted to name calling or hurling insults, so I don't know what you're talking about. You went after Mark for his inexperience, which is laughable. I had the Behringer unit, twice. Had the mic too. Yeah I know, hard to believe isn't it. Had some Lexicon units too, they were nice. I know what processed sound, sounds like. Arkansas May not have been the ideal setting, but it was apples to apples. Uh, so what's wrong with the Crowns, not up to your standards or something? Damn that's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I haven't resorted to name calling or hurling insults, so I don't know what you're talking about. You went after Mark for his inexperience, which is laughable. I had the Behringer unit, twice. Had the mic too. Yeah I know, hard to believe isn't it. Had some Lexicon units too, they were nice. I know what processed sound, sounds like. Arkansas May not have been the ideal setting, but it was apples to apples. Uh, so what's wrong with the Crowns, not up to your standards or something? Damn that's funny. Dean first I didn't go after Mark like you insinuate.....what I did do was ask him a question about his experiences with what he is condemning with such a broad brush. Dean you can act innocent but I believe you really no better..! Your list above made my point that you are condemning with a broad brush based on very little real experience. It might have been apples to apples but there were those there that picked the active over the passive also or have you forgotten? The Crown remark is just stupid Dean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Most people seem to agree on what "sounds good". Not that I can detect. Most here count "good sound" as DSP processed crossovers, digital sources, big SS amps, and CD horns and subwoofers. That wouldn't sound good to me, or any of the minimalists I know. We'd probably have an LP player, tube amp, and 2-way speakers without subwoofers. I suppose the essential difference would be that I can't extract "good sound" from a string of those kind of electronics. Not to mention I would never listen at the levels I hear most often mentioned here. So, probably I was being more general to the bigger audio community, and not simply talking about people with K-horns? Sorry Mark but honestly do you really have the experience necessary to make such a broad statement? There is good and bad examples in all things audio. The only thing I can take from your statement is that you have exhibited a closed mind full of predisposed ideas of what is or is not possible. Unfortunately many here are exhibiting the same attitude. Out of the whole thread the best post I've seen is when Dave said in a reply....." Friend, my ears and mind are wide open" miketn Funny thing is I suspect he did not mean what you think he meant.... 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.