Really impressed with the Heresy III

[mikebse2a3]

37 minutes ago, rjp said:

I didn't realize the speaker backs were screwed on. I didn't notice screws. 

Neither Heresy ll or lll have screwed on backs.  

 

Adding Lpads will screw with the crossover of a well designed system.

 

I would suggest a quality equalizer which if used intelligently will also help with less than ideal (ie: MOST) recordings.

 

Adding the EQ allows you to tweak to taste and still be able to have your original reference voicing of the loudspeaker as designed by bypassing the EQ when not needed if desired.

 

Also EQ want void your warranty unlike modifying a new speaker if that matters to you.

 

miketn

[Guest wdecho]

Adding L-pads are not going to effect the crossover frequencies. A little research on L-pads and how they work will explain why. The older Heresy's did have screws on back but that might have changed in the new models but there has to be a way to get into them. Removing the woofer would be one way for sure. There is no way I would add an equalizer to any of the more than 20 amplifiers I own with my speakers. When I found the correct x-over and attenuation with the many speakers I own all my amplifiers sound great without resorting to an equalizer.  I see 2a3 in your handle and I am going to guess SET 2A3 which is an outstanding simple circuit with few components in it's design which many consider superior to multiple stages of amplification with tons of feedback and too many components to count. I cannot understand why anyone would want to throw tons of op-amps into their system with an equalizer twisting and contorting the sound. The negatives far out-way any advantage in my opinion. But if that is what makes one happy I am happy for them. I would rather correct my speakers to my room over tons of components thrown into the sound of a nice simple amplifier such as you have. What good is a warranty with speakers you do not like. One could return them if they can or just install L-pads. There is not much to go wrong with a speaker other than a driver which considering the original cost of Heritage speakers is peanuts to replace. About the only way to destroy a speaker is burn them up but I have always fused every speaker I have ever owned and my original LaScala's are 33 years old. 

[rjp]

The music we are playing back has already passed through an awful lot of Op-amps and equalizers before we ever get it.

[MEH Synergy]

Haha absolutely true 

[Guest wdecho]

The ones used in the recording studio equipment are tailored for the sound engineer to produce the sound he deems best. Any and all circuits after the music is put on a format can and does effect the sound. Your logic does not hold water. The best amplification is a straight wire that will amplify to hear exactly what the engineer thought best but unfortunately more components are necessary. A perfect active device, tube-transistor, would not need any components other than a power supply to enable it to operate but again unfortunately it does not exist at the present time. Any and all components added to the active device are there to correct a deficiency of the active device. Any more than one active stage in an amplifier is a deterrent also. A two stage amplifier is rare in itself. Most amplifiers have many more stages adding distortion needing feedback to clean up the sound. What many components do is suck the life out of the music, the best way I know how to describe it. There are many others that can write many more adjectives and verbs to describe what you are missing if you use a equalizer full of op-amps. But if one cannot hear a difference my post are falling on deaf ears. 

 

But if one is happy with their system using an equalizer I am perfectly happy for them. Go for it but they have fallen out of favor in the audiophile world for a very good reason. Very few are being manufactured these days for the consumer market. Decades ago I remember when everyone thought they needed one but I never bought one myself.

[mikebse2a3]

3 hours ago, wdecho said:

Adding L-pads are not going to effect the crossover frequencies. A little research on L-pads and how they work will explain why

Any quality crossovers are designed with the variable impedances of the driver factored in as well as phase and polar response of the drivers and their physical locations relative to each other and the loudspeaker enclosure they are housed in and thus would rarely follow any text book calculated designs otherwise why would anechoic chambers and test equipment be necessary to optimize any given design. When you replace the drivers variable impedance with an L-pad it is very likely that you will not only change the attenuation of the driver's output but also alter the output shape of the frequency spectrum of the driver's output and possibly shift the crossover point itself.

 

Now you may like what you hear as a result but at least understand you very likely didn't just reduce the level of the drivers output.

 

I was fortunate to observe Roy working on the design of the new Klipschorn  crossover as he was working on integrating the new tweeter's output with the output of the midrange horn/driver of the system and the ability that the anechoic chamber and measurement system gave him to work at optimizing the crossover also demonstrated how easily that optimization could be lost with very slight changes to the crossover.

 

3 hours ago, wdecho said:

I see 2a3 in your handle and I am going to guess SET 2A3 which is an outstanding simple circuit with few components in it's design which many consider superior to multiple stages of amplification with tons of feedback and too many components to count. I cannot understand why anyone would want to throw tons of op-amps into their system with an equalizer twisting and contorting the sound.

I currently own SET 2A3 amplifiers as well as a Push/Pull 2A3 amplifier. I also use First Watt F3 amplifiers and have McIntosh and other amplifiers as well and I can assure you I have no regrets or doubts about using a quality DSP unit in my system and after experiencing what "intelligent"  use of such a unit brings to my system and it's ability to compensate for the large variation in recording and less than ideal recordings we all suffer with I can't imagine not having this ability to increase the enjoyment of these recordings.

 

As you have said to each his own path to enjoy this hobby but I have to say based on your choice of words in describing an equalizer and how it's use to "with an equalizer twisting and contorting the sound" indicates to me that you and I have a very different understanding and experience with Equalization.

 

And before you dismiss my experiences I used the very minimalist type systems you describe for well over a decade and while I understand the qualities and appeal of such a system I also understand it's weaknesses.

 

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

18 minutes ago, wdecho said:

But if one is happy with their system using an equalizer I am perfectly happy for them. Go for it but they have fallen out of favor in the audiophile world for a very good reason.

Following your logic so have Horn loaded loudspeakers....

 

By the way what exactly is and what qualifies one to be an "audiophile"...?

 

miketn

[Shakeydeal]

There is no all encompassing definition of an audiophile. However, as a general rule, they go the extra mile in ensuring the reproduction of music in the home is better than average. Some go farther, some less. But I think we can all agree that is why we are here. If not, we would be listening to music with free earbuds or through a sound bar.

 

Where this all diverges is in the accomplishment of said goal. I shy away from equalizers and all manner of digital processing. You don't cotton to fancy cables, footers, and other tweaks. In the end, we all want to hear that guitar riff, piano solo, kick drum, etc. the way WE like it. Some go to extremes, others do the best they can.

 

Bottom line is this. "Audiophile" doesn't have to be the four letter word it's perceived to be around here.

 

Shakey

[Guest wdecho]

7 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

7 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Any quality crossovers are designed with the variable impedances of the driver factored in as well as phase and polar response of the drivers and their physical locations relative to each other and the loudspeaker enclosure they are housed in and thus would rarely follow any text book calculated designs otherwise why would anechoic chambers and test equipment be necessary to optimize any given design. When you replace the drivers variable impedance with an L-pad it is very likely that you will not only change the attenuation of the driver's output but also alter the output shape of the frequency spectrum of the driver's output and possibly shift the crossover point itself.

 

Now you may like what you hear as a result but at least understand you very likely didn't just reduce the level of the drivers output.

 

 

Really, I guess me and Nelson Pass are wrong about L-pads. He designed a crossover for a pair of JBL L300 speakers he restored and used L-pads for attenuation. http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_l300.pdf    L-pads do not have any appreciable effect on the crossover. I generally build discrete L-pads myself but I have been known to use a rotary one as well. "Change the frequency spectrum of the drivers output and shift the crossover point,"  I have been down this road on the forum before. A L-pad uses resistance, which is the least offensive electronic component, and another resistor to maintain the correct impedance of the driver. A discrete L-pad uses just 2 resistors and you say it is going to  "Change the frequency spectrum of the drivers output and shift the crossover point,"  more than an equalizer full of components doing much worse than what you are describing from 2 resistors. 

 

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you. But what you are saying goes against the laws of electronics. I would never use an equalizer myself. PWK once said something to this effect "only 3% of the population hears what I hear." I will agree with you that an equalizer would probably fix the guys bright sound he is complaining about but I still say it is not the best solution to the problem. 

 

 

[Guest wdecho]

7 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

By the way what exactly is and what qualifies one to be an "audiophile"...?

Audiophile's listen to equipment, musicians listen to music. 😊

[Guest wdecho]

By the way Mike, it appears you have one fine amplifier in the PP 2A3 even though you did not name a brand. Also the F3 is a great amplifier as well. I have been listening with mine in SS for the last few days myself. It is one of the 7 complete Firstwatt amplifiers I have built that I thought worthy of keeping. It is very close in sound to a nice SET tube amplifier in SS. Nelson's favorite SE amplifier before the SIT-1 and SIT-2. 

[Shakeydeal]

Another thought on the "music lover" vs "audiophile" conundrum.

 

Ask 10 people on the street if they consider themselves music lovers. I'll bet at least 8 or 9 of them say yes.

 

Ask the same 10 people if they have a system dedicated to reproducing music and/or whether or not they would sit for hours with their eyes closed listening to their favorite musicians.

 

Watch for the blank stares that ensue from all 10 of them........

 

Shakey

[rjp]

Sound bar

 

EDIT: With L-pads

[mikebse2a3]

10 hours ago, wdecho said:

Really, I guess me and Nelson Pass are wrong about L-pads. He designed a crossover for a pair of JBL L300 speakers he restored and used L-pads for attenuation. http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_l300.pdf    L-pads do not have any appreciable effect on the crossover. I generally build discrete L-pads myself but I have been known to use a rotary one as well. "Change the frequency spectrum of the drivers output and shift the crossover point,"  I have been down this road on the forum before. A L-pad uses resistance, which is the least offensive electronic component, and another resistor to maintain the correct impedance of the driver. A discrete L-pad uses just 2 resistors and you say it is going to  "Change the frequency spectrum of the drivers output and shift the crossover point,"  more than an equalizer full of components doing much worse than what you are describing from 2 resistors. 

OK after reading your response I have to wonder if you think I have a problem in general with using L-pads which I don't and if that is the case let me clarify my point by saying that L-pads as part of the original crossover design  consideration is fine assuming as in the Nelson Pass article you posted or as Klipsch might design in their networks because both electrical, acoustical and listening test are performed to optimize the performance of the system.

 

In the OP case to recommend altering a network optimized by Klipsch by adding an L-pad without any knowledge of the network's design (which I assume since I haven't seen anyone posting the design of the original network or testing of said recommended alterations using an L-pad) isn't something I would choose to do but that's just my honest opinion and of course others are free to use their own opinions and have fun I hope along the way.

 

 

11 hours ago, wdecho said:

I have been down this road on the forum before. A L-pad uses resistance, which is the least offensive electronic component, and another resistor to maintain the correct impedance of the driver. A discrete L-pad uses just 2 resistors and you say it is going to  "Change the frequency spectrum of the drivers output and shift the crossover point,"  more than an equalizer full of components doing much worse than what you are describing from 2 resistors. 

First you are twisting what I have said and taking it out of context as well.

 

I will again state that if you alter the frequency dependent impedance of the network from the original design (with the understanding it's component values were optimized with that impedance in mind also) then you very likely compromised the performance of the system.

 

To be very clear it's not about L-pads themselves but thinking you can simply throw an L-pad into an existing network without understanding how the network is designed and how it will affect the network is were my recommendation becomes be aware and cautious with this approach if your intent is to "improve" the loudspeaker system.

 

 

11 hours ago, wdecho said:

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you. But what you are saying goes against the laws of electronics

Agreed... I have no time for a pissing contest and what I am saying obeys ohms law I assure you..

 

miketn

[rjp]

For anyone on the fence about tone controls.

 

One thing I like about the Schiit Loki 4 band tone control is that is is completely transparent to my most critical listening. And I listen very critically. In general, I don't favor EQ or messing with the sound, but I have got to give some praise to this little device. It greatly exceeded my expectations. By "transparent" I mean that when it is in the circuit and all 4 knobs are at zero I hear absolutely no difference between a direct path and the path through the equalizer. I performed this test using an A/B switch box on the RCA lines to instantly bypass the unit. I can not hear any difference between the direct path and the path through the zeroed out Loki box. That is a good starting point. First do no harm! EQ later. 

 

For comparison, I did the same test with the miniDSP HD unit (also with all EQ functions defeated) and I could definitely hear a difference. When the miniDSP was in the circuit (even though it was set to no EQ) it degraded the signal quality slightly.  Very slightly, but I could hear it. I sent it back. The miniDSP HD is an amazingly powerful device, but I didn't really need the full blown room EQ, and didn't want any degradation whatsoever that I could hear.

 

When I begin to turn one of the knobs on the Loki away from flat I hear it smoothly and almost imperceptibly begin to effect the sound, and with a simple turn back to zero it is invisible again.  The Loki is fully analog. This makes a big difference. There is no added A/D - D/A stage to mess things up like some other EQ boxes. So if you are looking for just a little more bass at low volume or moving the mids a bit back in the mix when you get a recording that is not so well recorded, but are not sure you want to "mess up" the sound with tone controls I suggest giving the Loki a try. You may find it as sonically transparent as I did. It also has it's own built in bypass switch. I dare anyone to tell me you can hear when this thing is in the circuit.

 

 

 

 

[mikebse2a3]

11 hours ago, wdecho said:

By the way Mike, it appears you have one fine amplifier in the PP 2A3 even though you did not name a brand. Also the F3 is a great amplifier as well. I have been listening with mine in SS for the last few days myself. It is one of the 7 complete Firstwatt amplifiers I have built that I thought worthy of keeping. It is very close in sound to a nice SET tube amplifier in SS. Nelson's favorite SE amplifier before the SIT-1 and SIT-2. 

Thanks wdecho 

 

My 2A3 amplifiers are the Cary Cad-2A3i push/pull amplifier and Cary Cad-2A3-SE single ended amplifiers all of which I have done some modifications. The Cary CAD-2A3i was modified with independent 2A3 bias controls and a choke in the pwr supply for improved performance on High Efficiency Horns and in the case of the CAD-2A3-SE I've modified the bias point of the 2A3 and pwr supply modification to enable any 2A3 tubes to be used since it was orginally used the higher output KR 2A3 tube.)

 

Sorry to the OP for the thread drift..!!!

 

miketn 

[rjp]

14 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

if you alter the frequency dependent impedance of the network from the original design (with the understanding it's component values were optimized with that impedance in mind also) then you very likely compromised the performance of the system.

 

Mike is right. The combination of the speaker's complex and frequency dependent impedance and the resistor's real and constant impedance will add to produce something different than what the crossover was designed for. I doubt anyone could hear any ill effects of the L-pad, but yes, it is definitely going to be a different load.

[Guest wdecho]

11 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

I will again state that if you alter the frequency dependent impedance of the network from the original design (with the understanding it's component values were optimized with that impedance in mind also) then you very likely compromised the performance of the system

For an example, if you have a driver with an impedance of 8 ohms and you determine you need 2.34 ohms of resistance to attenuate the driver 3db, you cannot just install a resistor of 2.4 ohms in series with the driver by itself because then you will be changing the driver to 10.34 ohms when the crossover is designed for an 8 ohm driver. You then need to use ohms law to get the resistance of a parallel resistor across the driver to make the driver still be 8 ohms. For this particular example the resistance needed would be 35.35 ohms. The crossover will still see a resistance of the driver as 8 ohms which is actually a nominal resistance because in the real world the resistance of the driver changes with the frequencies but it is the world we have to live in these boundaries. 

 

This being the laws of physics how would a l-pad compromise the performance of the system? 

[mikebse2a3]

11 minutes ago, rjp said:

For anyone on the fence about tone controls.

 

One thing I like about the Schiit Loki 4 band tone control is that is is completely transparent to my most critical listening. And I listen very critically. In general, I don't favor EQ or messing with the sound, but I have got to give some praise to this little device. It greatly exceeded my expectations. By "transparent" I mean that when it is in the circuit and all 4 knobs are at zero I hear absolutely no difference between a direct path and the path through the equalizer. I performed this test using an A/B switch box on the RCA lines to instantly bypass the unit. I can not hear any difference between the direct path and the path through the zeroed out Loki box. That is a good starting point. First do no harm! EQ later. 

Agreed

 

I just received one to place in my headphone system and for those concerned it has a true bypass switch (ie: a relay connects the input and output directly) if i's not needed.

 

I actually hope they expand on this design in the future with an 8 band version similar to some McIntosh designs and Cello Palette.

 

miketn

[Guest wdecho]

16 minutes ago, rjp said:

Mike is right. The combination of the speaker's complex and frequency dependent impedance and the resistor's real and constant impedance will add to produce something different than what the crossover was designed for. I doubt anyone could hear any ill effects of the L-pad, but yes, it is definitely going to be a different load.

Sorry, you are wrong with a properly designed L-pad. See my last post. A discrete one would be more accurate but guys it is not rocket science, just the first week in any electronic course. Let's not get too technical with figures that absolutely do not matter in a crossover network which uses any form of resistance to attenuate a driver. Minuscule variations from perfect are not going to be noticeable in the best of anyone's hearing. Resistance for attenuation is the least offensive form of attenuation.