Belle listening fatigue

[HDBRbuilder]

Keep in mind that specific design parameters enter into the picture when making speaker comparisons, ie.:

 

Design parameters for the Belle was for it to be a SUPPLEMENTARY speaker used as a CENTER CHANNEL FILL for a three-speaker stereo array with flanking K-horns as the mains, as a WAF-friendly replacement for the LaScala which PWK had as a center speaker in HIS OWN K-horn - dominated three-speaker stereo array at home.

 

The fact that so many Belles sold as pairs to be used as mains wasn't even part of the plan when it was designed.  PWK just wanted something that met the "golden mean" in outward appearance and used fine veneers to compliment the flanking K-horns (all. great WAF improvements!), but provided center-channel fill APPROACHING what a LaScala had been doing for a few years in that set-up at home

 

The Heresy was originally designed to do the same sort of thing as a supplemental speaker to a K-horn, as was the Cornwall. Neither of these two speakers were intended to actually be stand-alone, but became used PRIMARILY in that manner by customers for a variety of reasons.

 

The LaScala provided the same voicing as the K-horns because it used the same driver/lens combination in the mid-range and tweeter set-up.  And with the flanking K-horns ALREADY providing the low bottom-end extension needed for the array, the LaScala, (and soon thereafter the Belle) early roll-off at the lower bass frequencies was not an issue in the design parameters.  BUT, with the Belle's additional WAF approval factors (golden mean) entering the picture, there was another trade-off that led to a different mid-horn lens and crossover to go with it...which lost some of the identical voicing a LaScala had provided between the K-horns prior to the Belle. In addition to that, the Bass horn of the Belle was NOT EXACTLY the same performance as that of the LaScala, due to the SAME "golden mean" WAF of its appearance requiring a cabinet-dimensionally-necessary re-designed bass horn lens which only APPROACHED the performance of the bass bin of the LaScala, and which, in combination with the Bells' different mid-horn lens, also required different crossover networking changes.

 

It is what it is!

[dirtmudd]

On 9/8/2016 at 7:59 PM, hcnelly said:

Well, my klipsch belles are from 1979, and I've had them for over a year now, and they are my main speakers for two channel....i had Cornwall iiis before that, and while I loved them, they always sounded like a Heresy III speaker, in a bigger box, with better bass...they use the same midrange horn, and I always felt the cornwall III had an undersized midrange horn for such a large speaker, and it lacked detail, not only in movies, but in music on vinyl records as well...i honestly preferred my forte Is over the cornwall III in movies and music with that k53 horn....i feel the forte Is size is better suited and balanced for that particular midrange horn....needless to say, I sold my cornwalls iiis to get the belles and I kept the forte Is...i guess i was hoping it would be an upgrade for my listening tastes

 

The Belles are definitely a different speaker (seriously more detailed and up-front)....i used my scott 340a and 299b, and I've never experienced as much listening fatigue with the cornwall III or forte I's as I do with these belles....i listen to rock, heavy metal, blues, etc....I'm looking at building a tuba horn loaded sub for the belles to get some lower bass later down the road..i recently upgraded the crossovers to type AA with Jupiter Caps from aletheia audio...it certainly made the sound smoother and way more detailed (they're awesome), but I still experience listening fatigue....

 

I listen to a lot of vinyl with the Belles, at just over 85db, and I swap between two turntables....my main turntable is a rega rp3, fitted with a dynavector 10X5 MC cartridge...it sounded incredibly detailed and rocked with the cornwall iiis...with the belles and its new crossovers, it's still too bright, yet exceptionally detailed....with my second turntable, it's my dad's Bang &Olufsen Beogram 4002, which uses a MM cartridge....i really like it as I don't experience the listening fatigue or harshness as bad, but it's definitely not as detailed as the dynavector on my rp3....

I'm wondering if getting Dave's fastrac midrange horns for my Belles would fix the listening fatigue I experience with my dynavector 10 X 5...i would like to keep the detail intact with my belles without experiencing listening fatigue with my belles at louder volumes...

 

 

Did you find a solution to the fatigue?

[Travis In Austin]

On 9/17/2016 at 2:59 PM, HDBRbuilder said:

Keep in mind that specific design parameters enter into the picture when making speaker comparisons, ie.:

 

Design parameters for the Belle was for it to be a SUPPLEMENTARY speaker used as a CENTER CHANNEL FILL for a three-speaker stereo array with flanking K-horns as the mains, as a WAF-friendly replacement for the LaScala which PWK had as a center speaker in HIS OWN K-horn - dominated three-speaker stereo array at home.

 

The fact that so many Belles sold as pairs to be used as mains wasn't even part of the plan when it was designed.  PWK just wanted something that met the "golden mean" in outward appearance and used fine veneers to compliment the flanking K-horns (all. great WAF improvements!), but provided center-channel fill APPROACHING what a LaScala had been doing for a few years in that set-up at home

 

The Heresy was originally designed to do the same sort of thing as a supplemental speaker to a K-horn, as was the Cornwall. Neither of these two speakers were intended to actually be stand-alone, but became used PRIMARILY in that manner by customers for a variety of reasons.

 

The LaScala provided the same voicing as the K-horns because it used the same driver/lens combination in the mid-range and tweeter set-up.  And with the flanking K-horns ALREADY providing the low bottom-end extension needed for the array, the LaScala, (and soon thereafter the Belle) early roll-off at the lower bass frequencies was not an issue in the design parameters.  BUT, with the Belle's additional WAF approval factors (golden mean) entering the picture, there was another trade-off that led to a different mid-horn lens and crossover to go with it...which lost some of the identical voicing a LaScala had provided between the K-horns prior to the Belle. In addition to that, the Bass horn of the Belle was NOT EXACTLY the same performance as that of the LaScala, due to the SAME "golden mean" WAF of its appearance requiring a cabinet-dimensionally-necessary re-designed bass horn lens which only APPROACHED the performance of the bass bin of the LaScala, and which, in combination with the Bells' different mid-horn lens, also required different crossover networking changes.

 

It is what it is!

That answers the question definitively for me.

 

If someone doesn't like the sound of their Belles they have a few options.

 

1.  Get a new wife and get LaScallas.

 

2.  Sell one of of the Bells and buy 2 Khorns

 

3.  Sell the Bells and get Cornwalls

[hcnelly]

Well, I haven't adjusted the crossovers by attenuating the midrange, but I honestly don't feel I need to now.....i like to switch my components up every now and then...I noticed the brightness was gone once I hooked up my Scott 340a...i wasn't experiencing any listening fatigue....

 

I was getting most of my listening fatigue using my scott 299b...

 

I noticed that the 299b has 2 Mag Low phono inputs....i was noticing the brightness using the Mag Low 2 input....i switched to the Mag Low 1 input, and the brightness isn't nearly as bad...it depends on the recording of the album I'm listening to..

 

.there was a lot more gain with the Mag Low 2- I only needed to turn the volume to 3 or 4 to achieve the listening levels I like. It really puts the midrange up front and sounds great, but it's just too much after a while....

with the Mag Low 1 input, I have to turn the volume up to 5 or 6 to get to the same level- the midrange isn't as pronounced, but I can listen for much longer. I do feel that some of the midrange magic is lost though, using this input....

am I using the right phono input for my scott 299b? I feel like there's a tradeoff going from one input to the other...honestly, why are there two low inputs?

 

 

 

[dirtmudd]

9 hours ago, hcnelly said:

Well, I haven't adjusted the crossovers by attenuating the midrange, but I honestly don't feel I need to now.....i like to switch my components up every now and then...I noticed the brightness was gone once I hooked up my Scott 340a...i wasn't experiencing any listening fatigue....

 

I was getting most of my listening fatigue using my scott 299b...

 

I noticed that the 299b has 2 Mag Low phono inputs....i was noticing the brightness using the Mag Low 2 input....i switched to the Mag Low 1 input, and the brightness isn't nearly as bad...it depends on the recording of the album I'm listening to..

 

.there was a lot more gain with the Mag Low 2- I only needed to turn the volume to 3 or 4 to achieve the listening levels I like. It really puts the midrange up front and sounds great, but it's just too much after a while....

with the Mag Low 1 input, I have to turn the volume up to 5 or 6 to get to the same level- the midrange isn't as pronounced, but I can listen for much longer. I do feel that some of the midrange magic is lost though, using this input....

am I using the right phono input for my scott 299b? I feel like there's a tradeoff going from one input to the other...honestly, why are there two low inputs?

 

 

 

Cartridge compliance mc low mm/mi med to hi

[hcnelly]

I think the Mag Low 2 input has better detail and sounds better with my mc dynavector  10X5 cartridge...my 299b was recently restored...maybe it just needs some burn in time to take away some of the fatigue....also it doesn't say mag low 1 input on the back...i was mistaken...it just says mag 1 input....i don't have the manual for this Scott....i just want to make sure I'm using the right phono input....my scott 340a only has one low input, so that was a lot easier for me to figure out  this vintage audio is confusing to me sometimes

[dirtmudd]

1 hour ago, hcnelly said:

I think the Mag Low 2 input has better detail and sounds better with my mc dynavector  10X5 cartridge...my 299b was recently restored...maybe it just needs some burn in time to take away some of the fatigue....also it doesn't say mag low 1 input on the back...i was mistaken...it just says mag 1 input....i don't have the manual for this Scott....i just want to make sure I'm using the right phono input....my scott 340a only has one low input, so that was a lot easier for me to figure out  this vintage audio is confusing to me sometimes

 

 

 

http://akdatabase.com/AKview/thumbnails.php?album=89&page=2

 

Try this I hope this helps..

[NOSValves]

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 10:53 PM, hcnelly said:

 

am I using the right phono input for my scott 299b? I feel like there's a tradeoff going from one input to the other...honestly, why are there two low inputs?

 

 

 

 

 

What phono cartridge are you using and what is its output specification?

[NOSValves]

 If everything is working correctly the phono section performance should be the same with 299B and the 340A they are identical. They both have low and high mag inputs.

[NOSValves]

Okay I found you stated later on the thread you have a Dynavecter 10X5 which has 2.5mV of output. You should be using the Mag 2 Low input. What input do you use on the 340A?

 

Who rebuilt the 299B and the 340A?

[Max2]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 6:18 AM, Schu said:

You know when the speakers stop being klipsch speakers... as soon as I pay for them. Anytime after that, they are mine.

I think we have a thread winner here

[dirtmudd]

On 9/8/2016 at 7:59 PM, hcnelly said:

Well, my klipsch belles are from 1979, and I've had them for over a year now, and they are my main speakers for two channel....i had Cornwall iiis before that, and while I loved them, they always sounded like a Heresy III speaker, in a bigger box, with better bass...they use the same midrange horn, and I always felt the cornwall III had an undersized midrange horn for such a large speaker, and it lacked detail, not only in movies, but in music on vinyl records as well...i honestly preferred my forte Is over the cornwall III in movies and music with that k53 horn....i feel the forte Is size is better suited and balanced for that particular midrange horn....needless to say, I sold my cornwalls iiis to get the belles and I kept the forte Is...i guess i was hoping it would be an upgrade for my listening tastes

 

The Belles are definitely a different speaker (seriously more detailed and up-front)....i used my scott 340a and 299b, and I've never experienced as much listening fatigue with the cornwall III or forte I's as I do with these belles....i listen to rock, heavy metal, blues, etc....I'm looking at building a tuba horn loaded sub for the belles to get some lower bass later down the road..i recently upgraded the crossovers to type AA with Jupiter Caps from aletheia audio...it certainly made the sound smoother and way more detailed (they're awesome), but I still experience listening fatigue....

 

I listen to a lot of vinyl with the Belles, at just over 85db, and I swap between two turntables....my main turntable is a rega rp3, fitted with a dynavector 10X5 MC cartridge...it sounded incredibly detailed and rocked with the cornwall iiis...with the belles and its new crossovers, it's still too bright, yet exceptionally detailed....with my second turntable, it's my dad's Bang &Olufsen Beogram 4002, which uses a MM cartridge....i really like it as I don't experience the listening fatigue or harshness as bad, but it's definitely not as detailed as the dynavector on my rp3....

I'm wondering if getting Dave's fastrac midrange horns for my Belles would fix the listening fatigue I experience with my dynavector 10 X 5...i would like to keep the detail intact with my belles without experiencing listening fatigue with my belles at louder volumes...

 

 

Check this out for your beogram

 

http://www.sound-smith.com/lookup/bo-cartridges/136

[Audio Flynn]

5 hours ago, NOSValves said:

Okay I found you stated later on the thread you have a Dynavecter 10X5 which has 2.5mV of output. You should be using the Mag 2 Low input. What input do you use on the 340A?

 

Who rebuilt the 299B and the 340A?

In his profile it said NOS Valves rebuilt the 340A but was not definite for the 299B.

 

In the day of HH Scott I do not recall cart out put being as low as 2.5mv but I could be wrong.

 

I always used 4.0 mv carts when I owned a Scott LK-48.

[hcnelly]

6 hours ago, NOSValves said:

Okay I found you stated later on the thread you have a Dynavecter 10X5 which has 2.5mV of output. You should be using the Mag 2 Low input. What input do you use on the 340A?

 

Who rebuilt the 299B and the 340A?

Hey Craig, I've been meaning to call you on the phone....you rebuilt both of them and my 299c...i obviously appreciate your work  

 

I use the Mag Low on my 340a....I'll try and get a hold of you after work today 

[NOSValves]

16 hours ago, hcnelly said:

Hey Craig, I've been meaning to call you on the phone....you rebuilt both of them and my 299c...i obviously appreciate your work  

 

I use the Mag Low on my 340a....I'll try and get a hold of you after work today 

 

 

 I suspected I rebuilt the gear for you, this Chad right? Well I suspect something is amiss in the 299B phono section. The performance should be near identical to the 340A phono section wise. But the 340A and the 299B will sound a little different since they use different output tubes. The 340A and 299C should sound nearly identical. How many hours would you say you have on the 299B since June?

[hcnelly]

3 hours ago, NOSValves said:

 

 

 I suspected I rebuilt the gear for you, this Chad right? Well I suspect something is amiss in the 299B phono section. The performance should be near identical to the 340A phono section wise. But the 340A and the 299B will sound a little different since they use different output tubes. The 340A and 299C should sound nearly identical. How many hours would you say you have on the 299B since June?

Yeah that's me....I'm guessing it's had around 20 hours....after the last two days, I definitely  think there's something amiss with either the phono preamp or one of the preamp tubes..it just started doing this..i just started getting a lot of distortion or rumbling sounds through my speaker, shortly after I turn on the scott...i think it might just be the left speaker where i hear it...it doesn't really matter where the volume is at, it'll start to get louder, and I have to turn the volume down completely....i lightly tapped the leftmost preamp tube, and it definitely affects the sound of the distortion through the speakers....I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the tube or not....it just started doing this,  and caught me by surprise- it scared the shit out of me lol....i hear most of the rumble through the left speaker, and it only does this on the phono section...I'm done playing with the scott until I can get a hold of you...

 

.i couldn't call yesterday because I work late somedays....i think I'll be able to get off work earlier today, and I'll try this afternoon to contact you

[NOSValves]

swap the two far left 12AX7 tubes for each other. The left tube is left channel phono section the right is right channel phono section. Also work the pickup switch back and forth. You may just have a intermittent connection. In the end you need to get more than 20 hours on the amplifier also. 

 

 How anal were you about the setup of the 10X5 on the VPI turntable? Did you fine tune things like the VTA using the 340A receiver?   

[garyrc]

A dealer once told me that PWK "toned down" the Belle sometime after its release.  I don't know when, but it was in the early days of the Belle. This dealer was one whom PWK visited, and PWK once held a sort of seminar in his store.

 

My Belle (c. 2004; used as a center channel between Khorns) does not produce listening fatigue and sounds sweet and mellow.   According to Audyssey, it actually needs a little boost above about 4K, which Audyssey gives it, and it is still sweet and mellow.  The human voice sounds beautiful through it.

[dirtmudd]

On 9/9/2016 at 5:58 PM, hcnelly said:

Wow, thanks for the replies! I don't plan on purchasing anything really until we get our basement remodeled...my listening area is certainly an issue right now...it's clustered....we're knocking out a wall to open up the basement, which will give my speakers room to breathe and some much needed space... Right now my speakers are almost 7 ft apart horn to horn, theyre both facing straight ahead...i don't have the room to toe them in much...I'm about 12 ft away listening....one good corner...Thats probably one of the main issues right now....i have a subwoofer in the way of my listening area and a recliner as well...my basement will get thicker carpeting on the floors after the remodel...i can't afford much more for soundproofing...ceilings are 8 1/2 feet tall

 

I will try replacing the washers on the midrange drivers, and make sure the screws and everything are tight and secure with the horns....As far as the drivers, maybe they're in need of replacing? I see Bob crites is selling a new driver A-55g that looks interesting...what kind of changes to to the sound of my speakers would i get upgrading to these drivers? Would it take some of the harshness out? changing to Dean's crossovers from the original ones was a night and day difference...it was an essential upgrade, and money well spent

 

I have to keep the tweeter horn or midrange horn inside the cabinets because I have cats that hang out on the tops to perch....I will get a hold of you Dean....i can certainly try to adust the crossovers if it's something I can do myself with guidance.......right now, it might be best to dial down the midrange for louder sessions, it's worth a shot....when my wife and I have our baby in January, I'll be listening at lower volumes, so I'll need to be able to bring the midrange back to the way it was originally ...I'm wondering if the fastrac horns would make lower listening sessions less enjoyable....

 

Marvel and Chris, I'm confused about the digital crossover? Is this difficult to setup, I think this would be too complicated for me....I'd like to keep the Belles looking the same, keeping any horns or upgrades in the cabinets...

 

 

I'm not sure how you made out . But I revisited this thread.. Your to far out of the sweet spot..measure from the center of your speakers.to speaker. What ever that is than use your measurement from the back wall.. Between the Belle's to your seated position. That's where it should sound best.. You can tow them in like the picture that I've posted. . The you can toe them in or like..

 

Base on your listening taste I recommend this on CD

Marrillion fugazi it's been rerelesed on vinyl

Its a mix of peter Gabriel's genesis meets iron maiden

 

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=j-XPNZxA7Mk

[Woofers and Tweeters]

On 9/18/2016 at 10:53 PM, hcnelly said:

 

 

I was getting most of my listening fatigue using my scott 299b...

 

 

 

 

 

Oh my. After all the rioting, arrests, selling off stock, divorces and threats of war - you solve it with a different amp?