once you go klipsch, you never go back

[prodj101]

there is no such thing as a superior speaker, speakers are the type of product where opinion is the only deciding facter. Say I am buying a new saxophone, (I recently did) do you really think I would buy one because it plays all of the different notes a certain way? NO! you buy what you as an individual sounds the best. Judging a speaker is like judging an art painting or a song, everyone has there own opinion. one person might like Klipsch, another Infinity, and yet another Polk. It's all about opinion. And no, I don't get pissed because something is better than something else and has a huge price tag. We happen to own a BMW, so no problems there. Did it ever cross your mind that all people don't like exactly the same things? didn't think so. by the by, you need to learn some respect for other peoples audio equipment. have you ever stopped to think that someone in this forum might own one of your "lowliest subs" or speakers and just might be getting ready to kill you right now?

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

Tha System

Front- SF-2

Rear- SF-1

Center- SC-1

RSW-15 for the sub

Receiver- Cheap Pioneer

Amp for stereo Listening- Home-made tube amp 100 watt monoblocks

second to top of the line sony SACD- Technics Turntable, Pioneer Turntable, Gemini Turntable.

[TheEAR]

101,

"have you ever stopped to think that someone in this forum might own one of your "lowliest subs" or speakers and just might be getting ready to kill you right now?"

A lowly sub is a good thing,goes low.It was posted as a joke,not intended to hurt anyone.As I started with very non audiophile gear,and at the time was pround of my system.

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[prodj101]

I'm sure you meant it that way.

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

Tha System

Front- SF-2

Rear- SF-1

Center- SC-1

RSW-15 for the sub

Receiver- Cheap Pioneer

Amp for stereo Listening- Home-made tube amp 100 watt monoblocks

second to top of the line sony SACD- Technics Turntable, Pioneer Turntable, Gemini Turntable.

[skaloumbakas]

I agree with EAR about neutrality.

All speaker manufacturers in the world (at least the most respected ones...) try to design speakers as flat as possible or, in other words, try to make them as neutral as possible.

Neutrality is a subjective term and the outcome is neutral as well, if your listening room is right, and your speaker positioning is right(according to 3 - 4 models they are around like Cardas, WASP, Audio Physics etc.).

Coloration is an objective tierm, which means some people like this way some people like that way.

If you are extremely lucky, you can get a neutral result (flat result that is...) if your listening room is not perfect but PROPER for this kind (colored that is...) of speaker.

So, I guess, everybody in this post is right because everybody is listening in his own environment and with his own ears...

I am just saying that it is most probable that having a very good recording, neutral speakers will sound better in more rooms than colored ones, whatever colored means anyway...

Enjoy

Christos Skaloumbakas

President of the

Audiophile Club of Athens

__________________________

web address: http://aca.gr/

My System: http://aca.gr/pop_skal.htm

This message has been edited by skaloumbakas on 08-28-2002 at 02:15 AM

[Manuel Delaflor]

TheEars, first of all, I will try to stop bashing you. It is only that sometimes I really don't want to come to a forum and read some arrogant insulting others. But you don't always insult, so I wil try to remain at a non personal level. Now, first I noted is that you didn't read what I posted. Let's read again:

"The very notion about "neutrality" is absurd. To "reproduce what was intended by the enginner", to have "a flat frequency response" and other ways to try to determine what is "neutral" are nothing but poor concepts that isolate a few parameters of the sound and then focus on them as if they were the only worthy think to achieve."

Here Im saying that "neutrality" is a really complex subject, and that what is normally understood by it is to have a flat frequency response. My point is that a speaker can have that, and still sound incredible awful and certainly not realistic. Why? Because there are another several factors, which are as important as a flat frequency, that can make a speaker to sound more real. Transient Response, Impulse response, Decay, Impedance, Phase response, Dynamics and several more are involved and are commonly not taken in consideration when the normal "audiophile" looks in to the "neutrality" of a speaker.

Got my point now? Lets continue:

"So, if TheRears is happy thinking that his Contours are "more neutral speakers" it only shows one thing. How naive and credulous he is regarding the complexity of sound reproduction.

He bought what SOME PEOPLE thinks about the subject, nothing else, nothing more."

I say and maintain that you think the Countours are "more neutral" based on what SOMEONE ELSE thinks about the subject.

If you really want to know better about audiophile terminology, I suggest you do a search over the internet and dedicate sometime to think, instead of repeating what others have said in order to SELL what they make.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEAR:

If you feel Dynaudio Contour 3.3's dont clearly outclass the RF-7's(I own both mind you,do you?)you have nor compared them and this said you have nothing of value to say.

---

As you can see now, I never said the Contours are better speakers or not comparing them to the RF7's

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEAR:

There is NOT one audiophile or casual listener that was not very impressed by the quality of the Contour 3.3,NOT ONE.From young to old,all agree the Contour 3.3 bring more music and less coloration.

---

I can't care less about that. I think must of audiophiles are enthusiasts with little knowledge about the physics behind the concepts they use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEAR:

I like mt RF-7's alot,if I did not I would not have as many R series Klipsch speakers.And also I enjoy my Dynes,for more delicate music demanding more detail and finesse.

---

Precisely concepts like those. I asume that at least you realize that both are completly subjective?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEAR:

And pinnaple face Noriega who do you call naive?I see you take it personal,good.The room is the most important component of all,as the best speakers can soundplain bad in the wrong room and mere heapo speakers can sound quite ok in a room with great acoustics.

---

Who mentioned anything about the room here? who are you trying to impress?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEAR:

And BTW Noriega linear is boring how about the Sennheiser HD600 with a proper headpone amp.Do you call this linearity boring too?You did not make any valid points,just rubish smack talk.

---

Lol, again. I never said something about that

Edit:

A little more than a year ago, I challenged you and others about this matters:

old, old discussion

It is obvious that you are still at the same level.

This message has been edited by Manuel on 08-28-2002 at 11:43 AM

[Prana-Bindu]

I see at least two different uses of the word "neutral" here. One seems to refer to frequency response curves and the other to a speaker's addition or subtraction of color, or whatever quality you pick, to the recording. The first use is certainly more objective, as we can all look at the meter readings and listen and say whether we like a sound that better approaches flat frequency response. The second use, I believe, is erroneous, and I'll tell all y'all why: We can't repeat and reproduce for each other measurements of many perceived qualities of speaker performance (soundstage qualities, imaging, for example). Every speaker leaves its signature on the sound fed to it. There is no way to know what the original recording is supposed to sound like, because that knowledge involves the use of a particular pair of speakers. Perhaps the best approximation of this kind of neutrality is to compare your speakers' response to the response of the speakers used in the studio to mix the recording? Using the same electronics? In the same room? The original recording is a useless referent, as its examination requires a particular commitment to a certain set of electronics and a certain pair of speakers. In other words, you can't listen to the original recording without the listening session being stained by the equipment you use to listen. That kind of neutrality is a myth.

So the next question is: are speakers that better approach a flat frequency response better than those that don't, all else being equal? That would be a very difficult question to answer, as all else is never equal when you compare different speakers. However, I've noticed that my tastes place such flat speakers higher on the wish-list than other speakers. I suspect most of you would make similar judgments if asked to make the such a list. Then again, most of you are probably reading this because you enjoy that in-your-face sound of horns.

At the very least, don't go around carrying the original recording on your shoulders like a golden calf. It is a myth that can never be actualized.

Peace!

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[TBrennan]

Prana---Part of the neutrality problem is that even the search for objective standards still leads to subjective decisions.

We can have 2 speakers with flat response on axis but their off-axis behavior can be radiaclly different and this behavior effects the sound at the listening position a great deal.

Lets say one designer builds a 3-way with cone drivers and it has flat response on axis. But it's polar pattern will show 2 sets of narrowings and flarings, one at each crosover point, and then gradual narrowing as the tweeter goes higher. Such a speaker will have flat on-axis response but a rolled-off power response.

Then another designer chooses flat frequency response on axis AND flat power response, using a constant-directivity horn say. Such a speaker can show a pretty consistent polar pattern from top-to bottom but it will put alot more high frequency energy into the room than the first speaker with it's narrowing directivity. So both are flat on-axis and sound completely different.

So I figure all a person can do is choose what he likes and that's that.

www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

[Prana-Bindu]

Listening for yourself indeed is the only reliable method of deciding what equipment to get. Nevertheless, I believe it is a noble goal to develop the vocabulary of this audio obsession. Those of us who live in the armpits of the country don't have access to much equipment at all, so we have to rely to a great extent on the expressed opinions of other audiophools. A well-honed vocabulary will go a long way to making purchasing decisions easier and to helping others make such decisions.

So if frequency response curves don't tell you much about the sound, perhaps we should avoid the term as an important measure of our tastes. Or perhaps the curves should play a less important role, such as something to be checked just to be sure the speakers aren't totally worthless....

I ask Mr. The Ears to correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect he was referring to a neutral sound, not a neutral measured response. If that is the case, I agree that a neutral-sounding speaker is more desirable than a colorful speaker, but that's only because a neutral sound better coheres with my current tastes in music. If I was listening to Jane's Addiction or other really dynamic music as much as I used to, or if I hadn't fallen so hard for a laid-back sound, I would have spent the money on a fully horn-loaded speaker and not on the Aerial Acoustics.

Some day, I hope to struggle with the decision of whether to listen to a particular piece of music on my neutral, laid-back, vanilla system or on the horny, SET-powered, lush rig at the other end of the castle. Ah, to be owned by such things I own....

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[Manuel Delaflor]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prana-Bindu:

I ask Mr. The Ears to correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect he was referring to a neutral sound, not a neutral measured response.

---

I think you already stated why "neutral sound" is at best, just a theoretical goal, and of course one hell of a myth: Quoting you:

"The second use, I believe, is erroneous, and I'll tell all y'all why: We can't repeat and reproduce for each other measurements of many perceived qualities of speaker performance (soundstage qualities, imaging, for example). Every speaker leaves its signature on the sound fed to it. There is no way to know what the original recording is supposed to sound like, because that knowledge involves the use of a particular pair of speakers. Perhaps the best approximation of this kind of neutrality is to compare your speakers' response to the response of the speakers used in the studio to mix the recording? Using the same electronics? In the same room? The original recording is a useless referent, as its examination requires a particular commitment to a certain set of electronics and a certain pair of speakers. In other words, you can't listen to the original recording without the listening session being stained by the equipment you use to listen. That kind of neutrality is a myth."

[TheEAR]

Neutrality of a speaker to me its the lack of colorations the speaker imposes on the reproduced signal.

Lets take the Klipsch RF-7's and the Dynaudio Contour 3.3.Lets place both speakers in the same room,angled at the listening position so both are measured on axis.

Play test tones first,it can be proven by measuring the Contour 3.3 is more linear.And colors less the sound,less box resonance.

Then take a few listeners with good hearing and let them listen to each pair of speakers on complex music with vocals.You will hear the less colored speakers right away.In fact I am sure all listeners would pick the nore neutral and the more colored 10 out of 10 times.

In no way this means the Contour 3.3's are more accurate,as dynamics play a big part in accuracy and the RF-7's best the 3.3's in this respect.

I experimented placing both pairs in our tiny 7*12 room(more of a store room now).This room has piss poor acoustics and any speakers are ruined,midrange and upper bass colorations are amplified and make almost all speakers sound just plain bad.Its my B0$e room!

This room is used to burn in speakers(more of a test room),I have a computer in this very room and the Klipsch Quintets I tried to use sounded so damn boomy and colored it hurt.Tried SB2's and same story,boomy has all hell!Then came the Paradigm Atoms...upper bass and midrange colorations from doom again!

Only the Totem Tabu and Contour 1.1's were less colored,the Contour 1.1 being the speakers with the least colorations of the bunch.Sounded quite good in this boom box acoustics twister of a room.

When I wrestled the RF-7's and played a few CD's I noticed again this very pronounced boomy signature(rooms acoustics adding this in a very large part),then Contour 3.3's,ah so much cleaner,almost no audible colorations!

In this case the room exposes,amplifies the speakers weak points.I now test all new speakers in this room,if speakers will sound half good in this room its a sure thing they sound only great in the two larger rooms.

As for who decides what is accurate or not is the buyer.In the end the speakers will serve the buyer.

"So I figure all a person can do is choose what he likes and that's that." Yes sir I have to agree here(even if it pains me)

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[prodj101]

true. but, why do you think so many people like the brightness klipsch speakers offer and continue to buy them when they could affoard dynaudios and comperables?

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

Tha System

Front- SF-2

Rear- SF-1

Center- SC-1

RSW-15 for the sub

Receiver- Cheap Pioneer

Amp for stereo Listening- Home-made tube amp 100 watt monoblocks

second to top of the line sony SACD- Technics Turntable, Pioneer Turntable, Gemini Turntable.

[maxg]

"In this case the room exposes,amplifies the speakers weak points.I now test all new speakers in this room,if speakers will sound half good in this room its a sure thing they sound only great in the two larger rooms"

This strikes me as a somewhat strange way to test out a speaker but if it works for you...

My take would be to try to eliminate the effect of the room acoustics when attempting to qualify a speaker - to see how it sounds in the ideal situation.

To put this into reality I would be more inclined to install one of those digital room correction pre-amps, like the TACT into the small room thereby as far as possible eliminating the room's poor acoustics and test my speakers that way.

Once you have found the speaker that sounds the best then the only remaining job is to make it sound good in your own listening room either again using the TACT or using more regular room treatments.

Out of pure luck my own living room (my listening room) has excellent acoustics and so I have not felt the need to do either of the above but friends with less ideal listening environments swear by the TACT.

[Prana-Bindu]

Manuel: thank you for the correction. It appears I was attempting to establish a third use of the word "neutral". This would be neither in reference to the original recording (that's right, a myth) nor in reference to frequency response curves. Rather, it would refer to the minimization of the effects that speaker design must have on the sound. For examples, what people refer to as boxiness, or when people say that the speakers disappear (could this just be phase tricks?), or the various effects of speaker cabinet vibration, or reflections within the speaker, or the placement of the soundstage (Klipsch in-your-face vs. laid-back equipment, British gear, e.g.).

What I've read about the precision involved in setting up a system with TACT is very impressive. It appears that it can address all the major room issues quite well and can be accurately fine-tuned. All the measurements and resettings involved in setting up with TACT kind of scare me about my Perpetual Technologies P-1A, because it doesn't seem to be designed for so much presicion: a few measurements before you get your algorithm installed and no subsequent algorithms installed based on the measurements of the first algorithm. Sounds like a jip to me....

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

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[TheEAR]

"why do you think so many people like the brightness klipsch speakers offer and continue to buy them when they could affoard dynaudios and comperables?"

The problem is most cannot spend as much and opt for less expensive speakers.Do you think most here would have RF-3's if they could have the K-Horns or RF-7's for a similar price? Dont think so,cost is the main limiting factor.

Dynaudio Contour speakers are many times more expensive to similar size Klipsch speakers.The price scares many away,and with reason.

And its also true some will prefer Klipsch qualities to speakers costing many many times more.And this I can understand as I have only had very good experience with Klipsch speakers(besides the cheapo Klipsch "real wood" paper thin finish).

maxg,

"This strikes me as a somewhat strange way to test out a speaker but if it works for you..."

And as strange as it may sound or be it works and works so well I use this method to eliminate speakers.

A speakers with gross deformations across **** bandwith is dumped.Klipsch fare quite well here,only the Quintets taste the mat.The port contributes a good 90-95% to the sound colorations here!

For ported speakers the Dynes behave just too damn well,surpass even speakers costing way more!The most exemplary(exemplary lack of coloration...by the speakers)I tested Thiel 3.6's,simply amazing.So clean even in this doom room of audio mediocrity exposition. But then again I dont like the Thiel way to reach the Everest of audio quality.

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[JasN00b]

ear... i'm filled with the desire to smack you so hard your face falls off.

i have been to many live concerts of orchestras.

many different conductors.

many different musicians.

many different concert halls.

not ONE sounds the same. the conductors tweak the music... color it if you will...

the musicians change it... color it if you will...

the concert halls acoustics will mod the sound... or shall i say color it.

many people prefer the different sounds of different preformances.

my point is... if they all sounded "neutral," without different accents or emphasis... it'd be rather boring now wouldn't it?

i want a speaker that will do for me what a good conductor will. put life into the music. make it sound special and throw in his own flavor to it. not just "reproduce it"

whats the fun in that?

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

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

I. Love. MUSIC!

[prodj101]

Exactly!!!

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

New music system:

2.1 using SF-2's (soon to be RF-7's), and an RSW-15. for amplification Mcintosh MC02105, Sony SACD player. pioneer turntable.

[maxg]

Jas,

In defense of Ears - not that he needs it, but anyway - there is a fine distinction between the variations of performance in live events and their reproduction.

When reproducing the live event it is important (for some audiophiles) that the reproduction match as closely as possible the original performance. If you like - we are diferentiating between the values of production and reproduction.

In other words we are defining neutral as the ability to play back the original performance (with all of its flavour and colour) exactly as it was - with no added gain or loss due to the reproduction.

To Ears (and others) this is a very important aspect of their music enjoyment. For me, however, it is less important. I regard my own system as euphonic and a joy to listen to - but I have little or no idea how well it matches the original performance/recording.

That is of little import to me - I differentiate between home listening and a live event on many levels not just the sound. I enjoy both but do not regard one as a substitute for the other.

As it happens most venues in Greece (other than classical concerts) have such appalling acoustics that I prefer the music from my system. Still they have other things - ambience, emotion, the esprit de corps of the crowd and parking problems (lol).

[mobile homeless]

Well, to defend ole Earsy's take on the matter a bit, there is something to be said for a speaker that at least attempts to get out of the way and let the material on the recording come through without inducing colorations ALREADY even before the room interaction is taken into account. I believe this goal of neutrality is what EarZ is trying to decribe ...or obtain in the hopes of revealing what is on the recording in an unfettered manner.

The trouble is, this rarely if ever exists and a more neutral speaker does not always obtain more mucical involvement, hence the Catch-22.

kh

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

Phono Linn Sondek LP-12 Valhalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point

CD Player Rega Planet

Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified

Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks

Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect

Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover

Links system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s>

[skaloumbakas]

quote:

---

...if they all sounded 'neutral', without different accents or emphasis... it'd be rather boring now wouldn't it?...

---

JasN00b you are completely wrong.

Colored is a system, which has its own flavor, always present in different recordings, always putting an emphasis in this or that (that's what color is all about...). SO, THIS IS BORING!!!

Neutral is a system which is disappearing (so to speak) and leaves the colors of the recording (different from one another) to be heard and felt AND KEEPS YOU LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT RECORDINGS (and not for new wires or valves or...).

That's why colored systems, although you like them for some time (because this is your favorite color), after a while you get used to it, they get boring and ... this is why we try to change this and that and after sometimes again we want to change this and that and on and on in the never ending quest for better (I would say different) kind of sound.

We are doing this because the combination of system and room to be able to produce a neutral acoustical result is almost impossible. So, we always have some kind of color in the music output, created by either our speakers, or the room, or the source or, in a lesser degree, from our amplification and the wiring.

I would say this as my definition:

Colored is a system, which you would recognize with a blind test.

Neutral is a system that is difficult to identify but you realize all right the feeling and the atmosphere of the recording and the recording environment. In my opinion, this is what we should keep looking for... not one color associated and always present with our system but many colors, emotions and feelings associated with out beloved records...

_____________________

Christos Skaloumbakas

My System: http://aca.gr/pop_skal.htm

This message has been edited by skaloumbakas on 08-30-2002 at 05:31 AM

[maxg]

I like this topic because there is demonstrably no correct answer here.

As everyone is now backing Ears I will switch sides again:

Christos said: "Colored is a system, which has its own flavor, always present in different recordings, always putting an emphasis in this or that (that's what color is all about...). SO, THIS IS BORING!!!"

Nope - can't let you have that either. If the flavouring is euphonic - as in merely softens, sweetens or otherwise improves the sound <i>in the individual listener's ears</i> then this is not boring.

Lets face it guys - boring and colour (or lack thereof) are 2 unrelated aspects of music playback.

Of course if anyone has further opinions I will happily change sides again...