Jump to content

Some Recommendations When Responding To Those Asking For Klipsch Speaker Models For Their Needs


Recommended Posts

I had followed the original thread and wanted to recommend the RF7 III to the OP for his musical taste, but did not do so because I knew that most would recommend a CW IV. Now he is disappointed, I can understand it.

 

But apart from that .... I think the entire HiFi High End industry lives only from making us believe that we constantly have to improve something on our equipment to hear the most real reproduction of the music. I can no longer bear it....read for over 20 years no more audio magazines that want to implement me that my equipment no longer meets the contemporary standards and I should therefore once again reach into my pocket to take this time even more $$$$$$$ in hand. The same happens at the moment with all the DA converters, first it was 192 KHz, 384 KHz now it is already 768 KHz converters. I had these days with a developer for converters spoken ... he told me " This is all nonsense and also for the human ear no longer comprehensible, but what should we do ,the market demands it. We have to build this, advertise it as ascustic progress and sell it because we are a company, we have to live from it and pay our people".    

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2021 at 5:39 PM, Chris A said:

I've found that any loudspeaker can be dialed-in over time to a room and listening positions, so getting equal time/effort in for each loudspeaker usually doesn't occur in these instances unless significant time with each is expended.

 

Chris

 

I guess I could confirm that.

If a person is persistent dialing-in to a room could be done with more or less success, as I have experienced. When I purchased one set of used speakers, I have auditioned them first in the room of the person selling them. They sounded very good there.

Then I brought the same speakers to my much smaller room, and speakers being fairly large for my smallish square space, did not sound so good. I did not want to part with them, so I spent a few years changing their positions, experimenting with absorption and dispersion on the walls, bracing the cabinets and even updating crossovers. But with all that experimentation I have found that experimenting with positioning is worth the effort. I may not have the soundstage I would like to, but at least the speakers are now much clearer in their presentation and do not change much with the change in volume.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In passing , note I had three things to dial-in my setup over those 12 years:

 

1) The exact position of the loudspeakers in the room corners (including the TH subwoofers co-located, using my ears and REW measurements),

2) Acoustic absorption, bass trapping, and diffusion treatments (using my ears and REW measurements), and

3) DSP crossover dial-in of crossover filters, channel delays, and EQ (using REW measurements and my ears).

 

The thing that took all the time I mentioned was really understanding what each part could influence/control, what choices there were in the resulting sound quality, and how to actually do each part, separately and in combination.  I've written about those experiences so that others don't have to start from scratch--like I did.  Doing it again for other locations/setups would take perhaps a day or two (not 12 years), assuming all the needed items were on hand.

 

All the available books and articles on the subject were not worth much, I found. Toole's book didn't provide any help except for understanding some of the effects of phase response.  Mostly, it was through first-hand experimentation that I learned about how to use each part.

 

I actually find it hard to believe that those people that do custom dial-ins as a business (along with selling the hardware to customers) don't really publish anything of much use in terms of what they're doing--as if it's some sort of trade secret.  I'm also not sure that those custom dial-ins are really getting anything close to the best performance, and certainly not with horn-loaded loudspeakers having DSP crossovers (since those doing the installs usually handle direct radiating loudspeakers, only).  There are apparently no schools to train those that do in-room dial-ins, and the variation in quality of those doing the tasks must be very great, indeed. 

 

Chris

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you do not like the better speaker does not mean it is not better...just that your ears are more accustomed to a speaker that is not as accurate IMO.

Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

In passing , note I had three things to dial-in my setup over those 12 years:

 

1) The exact position of the loudspeakers in the room corners (including the TH subwoofers co-located, using my ears and REW measurements),

2) Acoustic absorption, bass trapping, and diffusion treatments (using my ears and REW measurements), and

3) DSP crossover dial-in of crossover filters, channel delays, and EQ (using REW measurements and my ears).

 

The thing that took all the time I mentioned was really understanding what each part could influence/control, what choices there were in the resulting sound quality, and how to actually do each part, separately and in combination.  I've written about those experiences so that others don't have to start from scratch--like I did.  Doing it again for other locations/setups would take perhaps a day or two (not 12 years), assuming all the needed items were on hand.

 

All the available books and articles on the subject were not worth much, I found. Toole's book didn't provide any help except for understanding some of the effects of phase response.  Mostly, it was through first-hand experimentation that I learned about how to use each part.

 

I actually find it hard to believe that [b]those people that do custom dial-ins as a business (along with selling the hardware to customers) don't really publish anything of much use in terms of what they're doing--as if it's some sort of trade secret.  I'm also not sure that those custom dial-ins are really getting anything close to the best performance[/b], and certainly not with horn-loaded loudspeakers having DSP crossovers (since those doing the installs usually handle direct radiating loudspeakers, only).  There are apparently no schools to train those that do in-room dial-ins, and the variation in quality of those doing the tasks must be very great, indeed. 

 

Chris

You say they don't get the best results? And you say it took you 12 years? Who could afford that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that the people doing it may or may not be well trained, since there are no apparent schools to train those guys (and it takes a while and some interest on the part of the observer to develop an ear, in my experience), the apprenticeship approach may be more of "the blind leading the blind" locally than having true expertise in getting the most out of the room and loudspeakers, etc.

 

I can say that having a more-than-entry-level understanding of the acoustics and the applicable physics/psychophysics has been more than a little help in understanding and identifying issues and solutions encountered in the process.  Hiring a young guy right out of high school (i.e., grade 12 in the US) typically doesn't result in that kind of understanding of the technical portions of the problem.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NBPK402 said:

...just that your ears are more accustomed to a speaker that is not as accurate IMO.

 

Exactly.  Being used to hearing the real thing (acoustically) typically results in more expensive loudspeakers and better rooms acoustically to reproduce the sound of the real performance, in my experience.  For example, I'm used to live classical music performance, especially classical organ and large ensembles (wind symphony and orchestral), so the price goes up to do a credible job reproducing this type of music, I've found.

 

The upside is that the setup optimized for acoustic music can then play anything quite well (in the case of horn-loaded loudspeaker setups), especially if you reduce the damage done to your CD music albums, i.e., fixing the extreme clipping and perhaps compression used to make CDs sound louder over the past 30 years (since 1991) and largely undoing the mastering EQ on CDs produced before then.

 

There are some apparent exceptions to this rule, i.e., large monetary outlays for your chosen music genres to reproduce well, but those are typically associated with large amounts of low bass and/or generally extreme SPL without audible modulation distortion, the latter types of which I don't recommend if maintaining whatever hearing acuity you still possess has any value for you.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the accompanying electronics.  while the heritage speakers (thinking specifically the cw iv) are efficient, the impedance does drop to low enough levels in the bass region that it can strain certain amps.  this makes them sound like they don't have any bass.

 

as we know, it's not about how many watts, it's about the ability to provide the amount of peak amps required at a particular moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jcn3 said:

as we know, it's not about how many watts, it's about the ability to provide the amount of peak amps required at a particular moment

 

You're right: it is amperes (current) that drives loudspeakers.  Microvolts and millivolts are usually all that's needed for most music most of the time (assuming horn loading) and perhaps a volt or two in extreme peaks.  Amplifiers nowadays usually can handle 2 ohms in local impedance (vs. frequency) dips without incident.  It's the quality of the microamperes and milliamperes and the resulting microvolts/millivolts that are most important out of amplifiers.

 

If you really are concerned about hearing bass out of your loudspeakers/room, I recommend bi-amping or tri-amping and a good DSP crossover, instead of trying to mono-amp using passive crossovers.  Then you can get direct coupling to the woofers and avoid the problems of back-EMF generated by moving mass and electromagnetic issues on the higher frequency drivers.  Multi-amping also avoids all the "padding" (added resistance and reactance) that occurs in passive crossovers in order to balance the driver outputs--which saps the amplifier's overhead capability.

 

I've found that it's the room acoustics and the loudspeakers themselves that almost exclusively determine sound quality--not electronics.  That's the focus of this thread.  It's actually a trap that many fall into to place too much money on electronics and far too little on loudspeakers and rooms.   If sound quality is your measure of merit (and not the "look" of the other gear), spend money in the preference order: room acoustics, loudspeakers, source music (recording) quality.  Lastly, electronics. 

 

Typically, audiophiles get that formula quite backwards.  Just look at the audio forum where the word "science" is in the name.  I've just described the most fundamental issue there.

 

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris A said:

If you really are concerned about hearing bass out of your loudspeakers/room, I recommend bi-amping or tri-amping and a good DSP crossover, instead of trying to mono-amp using passive crossovers.  Then you can get direct coupling to the woofers and avoid the problems of back-EMF generated by moving mass and electromagnetic issues on the higher frequency drivers.  Multi-amping also avoids all the "padding" (added resistance and reactance) that occurs in passive crossovers in order to balance the driver outputs--which saps the amplifier's overhead capability.

 

I'll add that the large inductor needed in the woofer-to-everything-else crossover adds significant resistance, which in turn raises the Q of the woofer and changes the bass alignment. Your amplifier may have a damping factor of 1000, but after adding an Ohm or so of resistance between the amp and the woofer, your effective damping factor is reduced to something on the order of 10.

 

Add to that the fact that you can apply lots of Watts where they're needed (bass) and fewer Watts where they aren't (treble), and you have something closer to the ideal.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chris A said:

 

You're right: it is amperes (current) that drives loudspeakers.  Microvolts and millivolts are usually all that's needed for most music most of the time (assuming horn loading) and perhaps a volt or two in extreme peaks.  Amplifiers nowadays usually can handle 2 ohms in local impedance (vs. frequency) dips without incident.  It's the quality of the microamperes and milliamperes and the resulting microvolts/millivolts that are most important out of amplifiers.

 

If you really are concerned about hearing bass out of your loudspeakers/room, I recommend bi-amping or tri-amping and a good DSP crossover, instead of trying to mono-amp using passive crossovers.  Then you can get direct coupling to the woofers and avoid the problems of back-EMF generated by moving mass and electromagnetic issues on the higher frequency drivers.  Multi-amping also avoids all the "padding" (added resistance and reactance) that occurs in passive crossovers in order to balance the driver outputs--which saps the amplifier's overhead capability.

 

I've found that it's the room acoustics and the loudspeakers themselves that almost exclusively determine sound quality--not electronics.  That's the focus of this thread.  It's actually a trap that many fall into to place too much money on electronics and far too little on loudspeakers and rooms.   If sound quality is your measure of merit (and not the "look" of the other gear), spend money in the preference order: room acoustics, loudspeakers, source music (recording) quality.  Lastly, electronics. 

 

Typically, audiophiles get that formula quite backwards.  Just look at the audio forum where the word "science" is in the name.  I've just described the most fundamental issue there.

 

Chris

 

chris -- as an example, when i was looking at cw iv, i tried them with a jadis orchestra black.  the treble and mids were magic, but the bass was completely anemic.  then plugged in a pl evo 400 -- the treble and mids were good, but the bass was much better.  my jc-5 took the bass to another level and the treble/mids were as good as the evo 400, just not the magic of the orchestra black treble/mids . . . 

 

i'm with you fully that room set-up is key -- i've transformed how my system sounds by better placement, absorbing first reflections and putting in a bit of bass trapping.  even inexpensive speakers can sound really good under the proper conditions!

 

ultimately synergy with room and system is required for best sound, room alone won't do it.

Edited by jcn3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully well agree with Chris and others room acoustics so very important to the sound and very often overlooked or addressed at all for casual listeners.

 

Also agree set up can take some time to dial in, it seems every week I reset my speakers, then start nudging them around depending on how I hear that day.  Could be earwax, though.

 

I hear the secret word this week is bass traps, look for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 11:50 AM, jcn3 said:

 

chris -- as an example, when i was looking at cw iv, i tried them with a jadis orchestra black.  the treble and mids were magic, but the bass was completely anemic.  then plugged in a pl evo 400 -- the treble and mids were good, but the bass was much better.  my jc-5 took the bass to another level and the treble/mids were as good as the evo 400, just not the magic of the orchestra black treble/mids . . . 

 

i'm with you fully that room set-up is key -- i've transformed how my system sounds by better placement, absorbing first reflections and putting in a bit of bass trapping.  even inexpensive speakers can sound really good under the proper conditions!

 

ultimately synergy with room and system is required for best sound, room alone won't do it.

I bet that JC-5 sounds glorious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few more questions to add to the original post are: “How do you you listen?”  Is the system for background music or do you listen intently? Do you listen at low, moderate or loud volume? What is your “musical” experience; are you a concert attendee, a musician or casual listener? How important is bass prominence when listening? These and several more qualifying questions will allow for a recommendation that may suit the customer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just chipping in having read this thread, and the thread referenced.

 

This dude had both the RF7 III and Cornwall IV for a decent amount of time and ultimately decided to go with the Cornwall?  Now he is expressing dissatisfaction with that decision and saying he made the choice due to comments/advice on here?

 

If I’ve understood this correctly, what’s the problem?  I could understand if it was someone making a blind buying decision between the two, but if you’ve got them both in front of you the decision is yours and yours alone.

 

I think as a general rule, speak about your own experiences and provide advice on things to listen for based on what an OP has offered up, which is exactly what I see in this forum.  Lovely people with great knowledge and experience wanting to help, to share, and encourage.  
 

Kia kaha 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...