Klipsch speakers x Classical Music

[LarryC]

Re the Jarvi Schumann No. 2 noted above, that is one of my favorite symphonies.  While I recommend listening to and watching at the same time, I could not find a Youtube of Jarvi conducting it, so I recommend watching this video recording instead, by a different orchestra and conductor:

 

 

[robert_kc]

IME all of the recordings that I listed above have excellent multi-channel audio quality when played with the right tube amp directly connected to an Oppo UDP-205 - with one clarification - IIRC, two of the Abbado Mahler recordings are older and are stereo vs. multi-channel.

 

BTW, this Blu-ray video of Abbado's Mahler 9 is excellent:

 

 

There's no striking basso profundo singing in Rachmaninoff's "All Night Vigil", and therefore the recording has little extreme low frequency content.  Bruffy's recording on SACD has excellent multi-channel audio quality.   Late at night when I can't sleep I listen to Bruffy's recording of Rachmaninoff's "All Night Vigil" - it is incredibly beautiful.

 

My approach to compensating for differences in recordings is not suitable for 99.9999% of consumers:  I own 24 tube amps (spread across 5 systems), and in 4 of my systems I can select an amp that sounds good with a particular recording.   For me its part of the fun of the hobby.  OTOH, for most people, I think simple bass and treble tone controls on an integrated tube amp are adequate to compensate for recordings that have high or low frequency imbalances (which is not uncommon).

[robert_kc]

On 6/4/2018 at 2:18 PM, LarryC said:

 

 

Klipsch reproduces brass, percussion and woodwinds very well, strings a little less so.

 

IME,  tube amps - particularly 6L6GC (and sometimes 7591) - driving RF-7II can deliver the natural timbre of string instruments - assuming a good quality recording.   IME, solid state amps can make Klipsch sound "dry" - i.e., the warmth of the stringed instruments is missing.

[robert_kc]

Klipsch excel at delivering the high frequency power of the operatic soprano voice.   On this Blu-ray, listen to Anna Netrebko belting out "Casta Diva".   

 

 

I've heard Anna perform live - she could fill the 3,563 seat Civic Opera House in Chicago with her voice - with no sound reinforcement (i.e., no PA system).   The RF-7II's horn can deliver this power, and sound gorgeous doing so - when driven by the right tube amp.

[robert_kc]

Youtube and streaming services (e.g., Spotify Premium) are good for exploring music, however IME modern high-quality high-resolution recordings of classical music deliver the best sound quality (e.g., SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz) FLAC, and DSD).   

 

In a large room where the main speakers must be far apart, multi-channel can be beneficial.  

 

Subwoofers can be a PITA, but when "dialed in" can help deliver the power of classical music - particularly when the crossover is in front of the main amp, thereby off-loading the main amp and speakers.   This past weekend, I heard excerpts from Wagner's Ring performed live - another example of music where large Klipsch - augmented via subwoofers - excel in delivering a "live concert" experience.  And, of course, subwoofers are essential if you want to experience the power of the pipe organ - e.g., in this 24bit/96kHz FLAC download:

 

 

[garyrc]

3 hours ago, Chris A said:

I demastered a Chandos CD some time ago (The Black Knight...Elgar). The final demastering EQ curve turned out to be pretty wild--the worst that I remember seeing in a classical recording.

 

3 hours ago, Chris A said:

  I suppose that the practice of introducing significant levels of mastering EQ to classical tracks must be culturally acceptable in that locale. 

 

I have had several overly bright, bass-shy Chandos CDs.  Virgin, also.

 

I haven't listened to any British speakers in a while, but I remember them as being a little distant.  When I was picking out the Khorns (1982), I A-Bd them with B & W 801Fs for hours.  They were both good, but ... the B&Ws seemed to have a little dip in the upper midrange, & lower treble, i.e., was distant, and less exciting.  Wharfedales of those days, at least the ones I heard, were also distant.  Could the CD companies be trying to compensate for this by boosting your 1K to 5 KHz range?  Of course, I heard these speakers long ago.  Their lines might sound completely different now. 

 

To be fair, another poster, a few months ago, said that modern B & W speakers are slightly boosted at the top.  I presume he meant about 10K and above, not down at 1 to 5K. 

 

If it wasn't culturally acceptable,  I'd guess it wouldn't happen.  George Bernard Shaw said something like, "The English will always be free so long as propriety and public opinion allows."

[Chris A]

I got the Chandos Black Knight and Bavarian Highlands CD out and looked again at the first track.  Here is the "plot spectrum" (loudness cumulative PSD curve) from that track: 'Twas Pentecost:

 

 

Here is the first-cut demastering curve that I just reconstructed(!):

 

 

and the final "plot spectrum" plot after normalizing the track again:

 

 

That's as big of a demastering curve that I've used on any of my 400+ classical CDs--by a factor of two or three (on a dB scale).  That probably far exceeds any nuances of what you'd see impressed into the frequency response of a loudspeaker of the makes and models that you mentioned. 

 

The tracks are actually listenable now after demastering and are interesting...but not what I'd call "hi-fi".  (I couldn't listen to all the tracks in one sitting before demastering.  Listening fatigue would set in after a few minutes.) 

 

I wonder what kind of thinking it would take for that?  It must be a very strong organizational culture to produce that result.  I've found that EQ on the order of 2-3 dB maximum (not 24 dB) is plenty to achieve whatever shaping of the sound that the mastering "artists" (versus "engineers") want.  YMMV.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

Final demastering EQ for the first track of The Black Knight and Bavarian Highland Scenes (London Symphony, Richard Hickox), 'Twas Penticost:

 

 

Chris

[robert_kc]

I don’t have the Elgar CD titled “The Black Knight”, so I can’t comment on its audio quality.

 

Chris:  How did you arrive at the “demastering curve” for this CD?

 

The term “demastering” makes it sound (to me) like there is an electronic record (i.e., change log) of all adjustments that were made to the recording during mastering, and these adjustments can be “rolled back” or removed - i.e.,  the changes made during mastering can be precisely reversed.  Am I correct that this is not the case?   If not, then it seems to me that the term “demastering” may be misleading.  Are you removing the mastering engineers’ changes, or adding your changes on top of theirs?   

 

For classical music, if you are adjusting a recording’s tonal balance based on a graphical representation of the frequency distribution, how do you know what the “correct” frequency distribution of the live performance looks like?   Unless the same equipment was used at the live performance to record a frequency plot, how can you know what the frequency spectrum of the recording should look like?  Specifically, for the Elgar “The Black Knight” CD, how do you know that your “after” graph of the frequency distribution is more faithful to the live performance than the “before” graph?   If your adjustments were done by ear (which I think is OK), then what’s the point of the graphs?  (With all due respect.)

 

If the audio was compressed during mastering, how can you un-compress it?  

 

Or, do you have a graphical representation of a different group of musicians performing the same composition, and are you using that frequency distribution as a benchmark?   (In other words, you think your benchmark recording of the same composition has correct tonal balance.)   But – if you adjust all recordings of a composition to have similar frequency response, at what point are you correcting recording inaccuracies, and at what point are you changing the artists’ interpretation of the music?

 

As I said in a different thread, each consumer must define their goals for reproduction of music in their home.   Do you want to blast heavy metal music so loud that they it might cause hearing damage?  Do you want unobtrusive background music, in which case dynamic compression may be indicated?   (My opinion is that dynamic range compression should be handled by a parameter setting in the consumer electronics, as is the case with my Oppo universal players and Chromecast Audio.  I have mine set to “Off”.)   Do you like thumping bass?   Sizzling highs?   My goal is to recreate as close as possible the experience that I had in the symphony hall or opera house.  (Though there are limits to the dynamic range that almost any home hi-fi system can reproduce – except perhaps those of you who own Jubilee plus huge subwoofers.  I’m thinking about the difference (in a hi-res digital recording) between the opening of Movement 4 and Movement 5 in Mahler Symphony 2.)   And I want the inevitable deviations in recorded music to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant – to my ears. 

 

As I said in another thread, it seems to me that for some pop music – specifically if there never was a live performance (not even in the studio) - the issue of “high fidelity” reproduction is not as relevant.  (If the music was never performed in the real world, how is it meaningful to talk about hi-fidelity reproduction?   You can’t “faithfully reproduce” something that never existed in the real world.)   Apparently, for at least some pop music, the issue is what sounds “good”.   (Or, perhaps, what is a “winning formula” – i.e., for winning “ear-share”, and winning “wallet-share” by selling CDs and downloads.  For most consumers, what grabs their attention, and causes their head to start bobbing up and down?)   Moreover, what sounds “good” apparently differs on cheap earbuds vs. in the car (where there is high ambient noise) vs. on a good hi-fi system in the home.  (This is not something I’m concerned with, because I don’t often listen to pop music, and I don’t listen on earbuds or in the car.  With that said, I respect the fact that different people like different music, and different people listen to recorded music in different ways.)

 

On one hand I recognize that the recording process is undoubtedly more complicated than the average consumer (including me) might assume, on the other hand there are some 60 year-old analog recordings of classical music that sound natural, and are enjoyable to listen to.   For example, the liner notes for this SACD of a 1955 performance of Beethoven’s “Violin Concerto in D” states:  “In remastering these tapes, we kept the signal path as short as possible … The DSD program is essentially identical to the analog tape … No signal processing was necessary to “improve” these extraordinary tapes.”   

 

 

 

 

Clearly the 1950s era mics, tube preamps, and analog tape changed the sound somewhat.    However, DAWs (digital audio workstation) didn’t exist in 1955, and if a DAW (or other digital signal processor) wasn’t used to change the sound during re-mastering, then could this recording be “demastered”?   

 

Unfortunately, the average consumer (like me) usually has no way of knowing how much “mucking around” the recording and mastering engineers did via their DAWs on a particular recording.   And therefore, it seems to me that the consumer must rely on their ears, and their goals for their hi-fi system, to determine what adjustments they wish to make via their home audio system (e.g., via tone controls, graphical equalizer, PC based software, etc).

 

Bottom line, as a classical music lover, my criterion for assessing the quality of a recording is fairly simple:  Does the recording sound like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house (where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural).  I recognize that memory is fallible – nonetheless this is my criterion.   I attend live performances of classical music (large scale and small scale) and opera many times a year (full season subscription to the symphony and opera, plus several chamber performances) – in venues with good quality natural acoustics – and this forms the benchmark for how I assess the sound coming from my home hi-fi system.  

 

I don’t disagree that some recordings of classical music sound unnatural – i.e., don’t sound like what I typically hear in the symphony hall.

 

If a recording of classical music doesn’t sound like what you recall hearing in the symphony hall, and you need to boost the bass (or attenuate the treble), then why not simply perform the adjustment by ear and describe the process as “adjusting tonal balance”?    

 

I make adjustments in my home hi-fi system via component matching (certain amps sound better with certain speakers), tube rolling, and in some cases use of tone controls.   (OTOH, in some configurations, a power amp is directly connected to my Oppo UDP-205, and there are no tone controls.)  This methodology is by no means perfect, but I’m able to arrive at an enjoyable home listening experience that – based on my memory – is close to what I heard live.  (Assuming SOTA recording.)

 

Here’s my question about use of software-based graphs to “demaster” recordings:  Unless you have a graphical template of the frequency distribution for an “ideal performance” of every piece of music ever composed, I don’t understand how a graph of a recording provides a basis for making adjustments.   (And, of course, if such a library of templates did exist, then it seems to me that the risk is that art is being homogenized.)   If you don’t have a specific template for each composition, would you propose a generic template for each sub-genre of music?   Would you adjust the frequency distribution of a classical composition for acapella soprano voice to match the frequency distribution of an acapella performance that features basso profundo – or adjust to match the frequency distribution of a jazz group that features a string bass and kick drum – or adjust to match a Mahler symphony?    

 

Moreover, every time you load a recording into a software tool, and digitally edit it, don’t you risk introducing artifacts of the software, and additional distortions?

 

This may simply be ignorance on my part about the process that you’re employing, and I ask my questions with all due respect.   I’d appreciate the opportunity to read more about it.

 

Sorry if this discussion has veered off-topic.  

 

Back on topic.  OP:  My experience is that if you buy high-quality high-resolution recordings (i.e., SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz) FLAC, and DSD), and use a good quality player that has high-quality DACs (I use Oppo UDP-205), and use suitable tube amps (my favorite is usually 6L6GC), then large high-end Klipsch (I’m familiar with RF-7II and Palladium) can deliver excellent sound quality for classical music.   Garbage-in/garage-out – poor quality recordings, and low-resolution digital deliverables, can make music sound harsh, and massed strings are an “acid test”.   (I have an early CD that includes Barber’s “Adagio for Strings” that had me turning down the volume control, because it sounded harsh.  My modern hi-res download (newer performance that was captured in hi-res) of “Adagio for Strings” has no problem with harshness.)   As I said earlier, operatic soprano can also be difficult to reproduce without causing the listener to cringe.   (It’s unfortunate that recording technology wasn’t better during Maria Callas’ prime.)   The solution:  high quality recordings, tubes, and “big boy” Klipsch.   (Unfortunately I don’t have room for Klipschorn or Jubilee.  I need the narrower tower speakers:  RF-7II and Palladium.)     For the occasional recording that has tonal balance “out of whack”, then treble and bass controls can be useful.  That’s my 2.5 cents …

[Chris A]

17 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

Am I correct that this is not the case?

No.

[robert_kc]

I trust that you will elaborate.

[Chris A]

20 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

If the audio was compressed during mastering, how can you un-compress it?  

Compression is a fatal defect that really cannot be reversed effectively without audible artifacts.  Limiting (i.e., clipping) can largely be repaired, and the results can be surprisingly good. 

 

[Chris A]

Read the thread and try it on your stereo tracks first (CDs) .  I assume that you've already tried it since it's free. 

 

If you heard the difference, you clearly wouldn't be asking about its intrinsic value.  I don't know of another audio reproduction solution that can potentially improve the sound so dramatically--for free.  It's not my job to convince you to use it. That's the job of the person that is interested in using the technique for themselves. 

 

My job is to help accelerate the learning curve using the process. If you want a demonstration of the effectiveness of the technique, I can accommodate that request.  But first, I'll need evidence that you've made an attempt to dial in your setup for flat frequency response and controlled midbass reverberation time.  I personally recommend Room EQ Wizard (REW) and a calibrated microphone. 

 

I've mentioned above that music compression and other non-linear audio processing during mastering (e.g., Aphex Aural Exciter, etc.) isn't among the issues that the technique can effectively correct--but CDs can be bought based on "retained dynamic range" via consultation with the Dynamic Range Database. These are "diamonds in the rough".  Recordings that have retained their hi-fi heritage are the best candidates for demastering, and don't have significant nonlinear processing damage applied.  

 

(Apologies to the OP--who wanted to know about Klipsch loudspeakers and classical music.   I hope that you got your questions answered by now.)

 

Chris

 

 

[robert_kc]

Chris:  I’ve read your other thread, and your instructions.   I’ve downloaded Audacity 2.2.2

 

Am I correct that you’re using Audacity as a graphic equalizer?   Everyone’s situation is different, but based on what I’ve read thus far, I don’t feel enthused about using a graphic equalizer to manipulate my classical music files.   I can use a tube preamp with tone controls when I want, and 3 of my systems have subwoofers with remote controls.   Since I have 5 systems, presumably if I used Audacity I’d have to manipulate each music file for each system?   There’s no easy way to copy the SACD layer of SACDs, or Blu-ray, so editing those files apparently is out?

 

I used Audacity to generate a frequency analysis for 4 different operatic sopranos performing 4 different arias, and I don’t see the point of the exercise – for me.   Here’s Magdalena Kožená singing “Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen” – which is beautifully recorded:

 

 

For me this graph serves no purpose.   I suppose I could do a frequency analysis of 2 different sopranos singing the same aria, but this doesn’t interest me either. 

 

Here’s what I think each hi-fi enthusiast who listens to classical music must decide for themselves:  For the classical CDs in your collection that have poor audio quality, is it worth experimenting with the Audacity software to adjust the tonal balance in an attempt to make the recording sound better?   My opinion:  If it’s an old poor-quality recording, then it’s unlikely you can “make a silk purse from a sow’s ear” – in other words, a poor-quality recording likely has more problems than tonal balance.   (As we’ve discussed earlier, some RCA Living Stereo recordings as early as the late 1950s have surprisingly good audio quality after they were professionally remastered from the original tapes (i.e., true remastering) and delivered on SACD – but these are the exception IME.)

 

I respect the fact that different people enjoy the hobby of hi-fi differently.    For people who enjoy tinkering around with hi-fi, there are many ways to enjoy the hobby (many sub-facets):

• Some people spend many hours focusing on LPs.  In some cases, a different turntable and cartridge for mono recordings.  Perhaps different cartridges for different music genres.  (Is a belt drive turntable better for classical music????  Is an idler-wheel turntable better for jazz????)
• Some enjoy cataloging and editing metadata for huge collections of digitized music, and seeking the most beautiful GUI interface, and building playlists, etc.
• Some are into digital networking, accessing all their music throughout their home by using their smartphone, and accessing their music from anywhere in the world.
• Some people (the cool kids) enjoy tube rolling.   😊   Some tube amps accept multiple types of output tubes, and multiple types of rectifier tubes, and multiple types of input tubes, yielding more than a hundred combinations of tubes, that to some people’s ears each sound different.
• Some people enjoy using calibrated mics to measure and plot the sound in their room, and use DSP based gizmos to adjust frequency and delay, and use separate amps for each driver.
• Some people like using graphic equalizers (sometimes vintage hardware, sometimes modern software) to adjust the sound to their liking.
• Some people like tinkering with room acoustics, installing foam panels on their walls.
• Some people collect 1970s era quadraphonic recordings and equipment
• There’s even a guy who collects 8 track tapes and players.  (Google:   Tracker Bob Hiemenz)
• Etc.

My opinion - based on what I know thus far - messing around with equalizer software isn’t my cup of tea.   My solution to a poor quality classical recording is to buy a newer performance that was captured via a high-quality recording (preferably 24bit/192kHz, or hi-res DSD) and delivered in a hi-res format (i.e., SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz or 24bit/96kHz) FLAC, and DSD).  I’m not a music scholar, so I’m not extremely persnickety about the performance.  I enjoy many modern conductors and orchestras.   OTOH, I can’t tolerate poor audio quality – particularly when the sound is harsh and causes listener fatigue.

 

My opinion is that if the recording was made and mastered at 24bit/192kHz or 24bit/96kHz, why not buy it as 24bit/192kHz or 24bit/96kHz (e.g., FLAC download or Blu-ray or Pure Audio Blu-ray), vs. buying a version that was down-sampled to the 30+ year-old Red Book CD standard (i.e., 16bit/44.1kHz).  Similarly, if a recording was made as hi-res DSD, why not buy it as an SACD or hi-res DSD download, vs. buying a version that was transcoded to PCM and down-sampled to CD. 

 

In rare cases where a performance was captured in high quality analog (e.g., magnetic tape or 35mm film), then remastering from the original analog tape can deliver good results.

 

In addition to superior audio quality, modern recordings of classical music often feature video, which IMO can be an enjoyable way to experience a classical concert, and of course is particularly important for ballet and opera.   As discussed earlier, for large listening rooms, 5.1 surround sound can be beneficial IME. 

 

FWIW, my favorite deliverable for classical music is currently Blu-ray video, followed by multi-channel SACD and Pure Audio Blu-ray, followed by hi-res downloads.    (Ultra HD Blu-ray classical recordings are very slowly becoming available.) 

 

Bottom line:  To each their own. 

 

OP:  My suggestion is to try some modern hi-res recordings.  IMO –a great way to start is the following Blu-ray box set that I showed in an earlier post in this thread:

 

Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos Danish NSO

• Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1–9
• Joaquín Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez
• Hector Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique, Op. 14
• Richard Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie (An Alpine Symphony), Op. 64, TrV 233

This Blu-ray box set is currently available on Amazon for $40.32 US, which I think is a tremendous value considering the amount of music (12 major compositions) being delivered in high-quality hi-res audio and video.

 

If you’re using an AVR to drive you Klipsch, and you’re satisfied with the sound quality – great.  OTOH, if you think the sound is “dry” – or not musically engaging – perhaps try vacuum tube amplifiers.  My opinion is that classical music, hi-res recordings, tubes, and Klipsch can be a great match in terms of audio quality.   If you buy collectible vintage tube amps and you decide they’re not your cup of tea, you can always get your money back by selling them.   IMO, buying a vintage Scott or Fisher tube amp is like buying a vintage Omega mechanical watch.  Buying a vintage McIntosh tube amp is like buying a vintage Rolex.   Either you like this kind of stuff, or you don’t. 

 

OP:  We haven’t heard from you in a while.   What do you think?

[Fstein02]

Had Klipsch cornwall 2's, went to Parnham 4Pi's. Listen to classical music. Short of Klipschorns/Belle/LaScala/Palladians, what would be a real step up in a modern klipsch speaker?

[garyrc]

 

 

Maybe  Klipsch Jubilees, with the best bi-amping configuration ...

 

Or ... the model used in commercial cinemas for extremely high SPL (in huge rooms):

 

[PrestonTom]

I listen to quite a bit of classical music on my Jubilees. They do an outstanding job!

[mr clean]

I don't listen to classical as much as some other forms but at night a few nights a week like right now to wind down at the end of the day is nice. Im far from a expert but I really like yo-yo ma. Sounds great using the rp280f's

[MVC]

I listen exclusively to classical music on LaScalas II, which I am still relatively new to (I was using two pairs of KG 4.2 before) and have been working with them on placement and room treatments and can highly recommend them for that genre.  I listen to a broad range from voices, piano solos, string quartets, symphonic to opera.  But they were tricky with placement and room dynamics and in the wrong setup I had resonances that were unpleasant.  The two most effective changes for me were not having them close to walls/corners, which means they are only 6ft apart, and on carpeting.  I experimented with having them in a room which had a lot of windows, even though the glass was covered with shades (granted not velvet), it was not optimal, whereas interestingly enough, the older KG 4.2 have no problem with that.  I have not had a better symphonic sound than I do now, I am very happy with the detail and soundstage, and unlike the KG 4.2, the volume sound of peak crescendos remains balanced.  I think string quartets sound amazing.  One of the downsides of listening to classical music is that a lot of recordings I have are recordings produced in the 50's & 60s or even earlier, e.g. the famous 1950 Beethoven String Quartets by the Budapest Quartet which however have been beautifully remastered, so I don't always get the most out of the source material, and of course, the speakers cannot make them sound better, and the amount of coughing from the audience in live performances in those days was horrible 🙁.  But I also like the streaming services from Berlin Digital Concert Hall for example for current performances and the sound quality is excellent, at SACD level, just coming through my wifi.

[Panelhead]

 I use a similar setup. The LzS ii manage the dynamic range well.