Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
PeteVoxx

LS II's - Not sounding as good as I thought

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, wvu80 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL!  Dean doubles down CORRECTLY that it is probably not the XO or its component parts.

 

Actually, quite a few people were right. 

 

PETE:  I didn't quote you but actually you were correct as well, I'm not sure why what you did, didn't work as the first thin you did IMMEDIATELY was reset Audyssey on the AVR.  It's just that Audyssey didn't do you any favors.  You certainly get props for not giving up on troubleshooting this very tough problem.

 

pvPhoto got it right, right away.  He's the Big Wiener.  :emotion-19:

 

I'd give a 2nd place tie to Dean and Scu, who were also very sure about it being a setup problem.

Could the steeper slopes in the LS II's be to "blame" and the reason two other sets of speakers utilizing the same output in the same room as well as location sounded better while configured by Audyssey and too, when using Pure Direct?  I feel like I am missing something... by that I mean that when using Pure Direct now it sounds OK - a bit flat, but OK overall and much better than before.  Is there some kind of preliminary EQ that is used even with Pure Direct?  The way I understood it, Pure Direct incorporated NO sound processing.  Another thing that is a bit baffling is that with Audyssey, 4, 8, and 16k were at +6db and those frequencies were severely lacking in output.  Now, I have set those same frequencies as 2,3 & 4db gains respectively and are completely open & dynamic.  Just doesn't add up.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All true - but most of us 2-channel listeners prefer discrete builds. The front end (preamp) is a big contributor to the sonic signature, and I for one am not a big fan of opamps.

 

*edit* response is to your post on the previous page.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deang said:

I think HT receivers, even supposedly good ones, sound pretty anemic when compared to a good 2-channel receiver/integrated or separates. My tube integrated stomps all over my Denon 3808ci. 

I had an Onkyo pre/pro that I loved for the HT setup but it lacked the HDMI switching.  I ended up giving it away.  It did sound very good for 2 channel.  No auto EQ functions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PeteVoxx said:

it seems that with many of today's moderately-priced HT receivers (integrated units specifically), that the manufacturer tries to pack it full of desirable features and unfortunately the quality of the amplification components suffers hence, sound suffers.  IMHO, buying an affordable, lower powered integrated amp with the features you want and using it as a pre/pro in conjunction with an older bad-*** amp is the way to go.  Once it's titled a pre/pro you're going to be paying more for it.  Just my two cents.  

Agree 100%.  Get a decent AVR with pre-outs to feed a high quality amp.  If it's setup properly, the pre-AVR should be transparent for 2-channel listening, and then you can layer on your features from there to your liking: EQ, room correction, distances, DSP modes etc etc etc.  The problem is AVRs are complex computers inside a box that processes sound, and they can be setup incorrectly, or, as Pete discovered, their firmware can go on the fritz requiring a factory reset.

 

One nice feature of your LS2's is they are so sensitive, you can feed your source directly to the Amp via a low-cost switch like the Schiit Sys.  This way, if you are not quite sure if your AVR is helping or hurting your sound, it's easy to rig up an A/B test to see what effect your pre-AVR is having on your sound.  About 9 months ago, I had an itch to upgrade my 15-year old middle-of-the-road Yamaha AVR being used as a PRE for a McIntosh amp.  Someone on this forum gave me the idea to test it with a Schiit Sys, and after about an hour of blind A/B 2-channel listening, neither my son or I could tell any difference in sound with the PRE in the mix.  I still may upgrade, but I'm in no rush and it will be for features and convenience reasons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you got this sorted.

 

Have you considered a stereo preamp with a built in home theater bypass function? Emotiva and Parasound are two that come to mind. Run your music sources to the stereo preamp and the sound for the mains from your processor to the preamp. When you want home theater the stereo preamp is on Home Theater Bypass mode. When you want music, just run the source through the stereo preamp. You'll need a separate amp to drive the front left/right speakers and a processor with front main preamp outputs. Marantz units have them, I'm sure others do as well. 

 

HTH,

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cincymat said:

Glad you got this sorted.

 

Have you considered a stereo preamp with a built in home theater bypass function? Emotiva and Parasound are two that come to mind. Run your music sources to the stereo preamp and the sound for the mains from your processor to the preamp. When you want home theater the stereo preamp is on Home Theater Bypass mode. When you want music, just run the source through the stereo preamp. You'll need a separate amp to drive the front left/right speakers and a processor with front main preamp outputs. Marantz units have them, I'm sure others do as well. 

 

HTH,

Mark

Thanks, I am VERY relieved this is resolved, too!  When I can, I am going to spend some quality time with the manual for my Pre/pro... The majority of my two channel listening is sourced from my Sonos Connect using Deezer to stream FLAC files.  I am pretty sure I can chose whether or not to use the on-board DAC as well as the EQ when I select the Sonos (I could be wrong).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd personally never use a A/V receiver for 2-channel listening but that's just me.  Yeah, there are some that do sound decent and have nice features but then you are loaded with all sorts of bells and whistles that can, and do, add noise.  Simple is better.  Then again, I don't do home theater anymore either.  I was in that industry for 25 years including being a Manufacturers Rep.  Just let me with a sense of "don't want any of that". But that's personal choice.

 

Definitely glad you got it figured out.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PeteVoxx said:

And the jackass award goes to... ME!  There were enough posts here to cause me to stay up WAY later than normal, rack my brain and second guess myself (thank GOD).  Ultimately, I did a factory reset of my AVR, skipped Audyssey and manually set the EQ for all channels.  They seem to sound more on-par with my 78's.  I don't get it because I've got those same frequencies Audyssey had set at +6Db no higher than 4Db and yet those frequencies are so much more present than before.  Also, I've never had a problem using Audyssey; not with any speakers I've had using all the same equipment in the same room.  Again, I thank ALL of you for your input, advice and patience.  Too late for a drink now.  Tomorrow we'll celebrate!!!  

Wow , I would certainly break my too late for a drink rule after finding this out!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely want to get 2, 2 channel tube amps along with 402 horns and Jub bass bins strictly for listening.

 

As for the "too late to drink" - I am still dragging ***.  My wife (and me because I am a light sleeper) get up at 4:45.  Just over four hours doesn't always cut it.  Especially the first two days back after a long break from work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Deang said:

I think HT receivers, even supposedly good ones, sound pretty anemic when compared to a good 2-channel receiver/integrated or separates.

I was coming here to post something similar, almost anything is better than a AVR . IMO

 

I was using one for pre-outs only and switched, BIG difference, will never connect to anything HT again for 2 ch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to come back, been thinking about all the trouble this has been, I have been reading from the beginning but didn't have a sure answer for you so I never said anything. First thought was something out of phase, even possible inside the speaker ? Next was possibly AVR setting, but these days that could be dozens of different things they can change so much now.

Just glad it's worked out, new toys suck when they don't do as expected or even close, now to fine tune.

 

Sure glad you didn't follow with some suggestions, it was getting a little wild.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dtel said:

I was coming here to post something similar, almost anything is better than a AVR . IMO

 

I was using one for pre-outs only and switched, BIG difference, will never connect to anything HT again for 2 ch.

Switched to, what?  Not sure what you're saying here.

 

You used the AVR for a pre-out and added an external amp?  Or used an AVR and switched to a receiver?  Or to tube stuff?

+++

I have had separates for all my adult life and switched to an AVR in 2014 for ease of use.  I like a single inexpensive HDMI cable replacing all those fancy RCA cables.  Even if the AVR isn't technically superior to my separates, I found I get used to the sound no matter what I use.  The only time I can hear a difference is in an A/B test in critical listening.

 

In casual or TV listening...meh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear the new La Scala II's don't suck, you had me worried. :unsure:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current manual EQ setting...  interesting compared to what Audyssey set it.

IMG_3248.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Schu said:

smiley face

:)

 

That EQ isn't boosted, it's a 0 and below, with minor exception on the highest frequency.  Interesting.

 

I know smiley face is considered the most preferred EQ, so I wonder why do I usually like EQ with a frowney face?  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wvu80 said:

Switched to, what?  Not sure what you're saying here.

 

You used the AVR for a pre-out and added an external amp?  Or used an AVR and switched to a receiver?  Or to tube stuff?

+++

I have had separates for all my adult life and switched to an AVR in 2014 for ease of use.  I like a single inexpensive HDMI cable replacing all those fancy RCA cables.  Even if the AVR isn't technically superior to my separates, I found I get used to the sound no matter what I use.  The only time I can hear a difference is in an A/B test in critical listening.

 

In casual or TV listening...meh.

I was using the AVR as a pre-amp, just the pre-outs. I wanted it separate from the Ht so I got a DAC with a volume control so it could act as a pre-amp without the cost of a real one, I'm cheap.

I ran across one someone was selling for $135 with a remote shipped and it still had over a year warranty that transferred.  It was mainly to separate the two systems, I didn't expect much of a change but was shocked at the difference. it sounded completely different, from the top to the bass, and a much better detail and cleaner sound overall, anyone could easily hear the difference. I never expected that much of a change, and to think I listened the other way for years.

 

I do not do much critical listening, well not in one spot but in the whole kitchen, living and dining room. It's a little bigger than 34'x24' and completely open and also where the computer is, so it's where I spend most of my time when inside.

 

Now my AVR is an older Yamaha, no HDMI or auto calibration, Rx V730, but it sounds good for movies with the Forte's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I know smiley face is considered the most preferred EQ, so I wonder why do I usually like EQ with a frowney face?  :(

Wonder if it's the kind of music you like, or your speakers, frowney face would be boosting the midrange I would think, listen to alot of vocal music ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PeteVoxx said:

I definitely want to get 2, 2 channel tube amps along with 402 horns and Jub bass bins strictly for listening....

 

On 12/28/2016 at 3:18 PM, PeteVoxx said:

...I am using a Marantz AV7005 Pre/Pro with an Emotiva XPA-5....

 

17 hours ago, Deang said:

I think HT receivers, even supposedly good ones, sound pretty anemic when compared to a good 2-channel receiver/integrated or separates. My tube integrated stomps all over my Denon 3808ci. 

 

 

I hate to even say this but I personally would not pick a SS pre-pro and an Emotiva amp for LaScalas. I don't want to step on too many toes but a nice tube amp is just what you need. I've been wanting to try a PrimaLuna integrated but I already have too much equipment laying around. I think the LaScalas are showing the sound signature of your gear. Often when buying new speakers it requires changes to your system as the weak links get exposed. This hobby is frustrating sometimes but working on getting better results is always worthwhile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...