Guy Landau Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 3:10:22 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 1/25/2004 12:41:01 PM garymd wrote: Paul, I understand what you're saying and I agree with you much of the time but you also have to remember that Guy's speakers (altecs) are probably every bit as efficient as most klipsch heritage. I believe he used to own khorns also so he's a horn lover through and through. 1.5 watts would never be in my house but to some it does the trick and can sound very good. ---------------- Hi Gary, I wasn't meaning that the Altecs aren't efficient. Just wanted to point out that he doesn't even like Klipsch speakers. ---------------- You are not correct once again. I do not use Klipsch speakers in my system,but that is not related in any other way, to the fact that; I like the heritage speakers very much. Or the fact that I've owned my khorns for 5 years before I moved to the US, 8 months ago, Or the fact that this is the "2 channel forum" and not "update older speakers" one so nothing to do with using Klipsch speakers. Or the fact that I've owned/heared and have a lot of experience with tubes and tube equipment and unlike you, haven't bought my first tube amp, a little over a year ago. Or the fact that the majority of them were push-pull type but I can still enjoy and prefer SET's sound. Or the fact that I've been posting here almost over a year before you did and at that time, I had already owned and experienced the sound of more crossover options. (if I remeber correctly, your bud NOS440, didn't own klipsch speakers at that time either and knew nothing about tube equipment, but you weren't attacking him that often). Or the fact that I start repeating the "to the fact" thing like a parrot and becoming more and more similar to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Dean, The part of your post I was referring to was this: ***I have no problem believing organ can sound "real" with less than two watts on efficient speakers -- in fact, it can be done quite easily without clipping the amp.*** I have no problem with you *believing* it as much as you like. The fact is, on the other hand, it can't be done. Maybe you are using the word "real" very loosely. Does a mountain look "real" on TV? I guess it all depends on how you mean. It's certainly not a phony mountain when it is on TV, but it wouldn't be mistaken for a real mountain either, now would it? There's a lot more to reproducing a convincing organ sound than getting the tone right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Seems like only yesterday I had this exchange with you, Guy: Parrot: "Why would *you* care about PWK's signature? You don't even own Klipsch speakers." Guy: "You are right. You wont own them either, after you listen to mine." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 There's no relation. I do prefer my Altecs to the Khorns, but it doesn't need to be a black or white thing. I can prefer one and enjoy/like the other (almost like PP and SET's). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 In what seems like a lifetime ago, we used to do some late night Virgil Fox through the DQ-10's. Lights down low and a good joint. It sure sounded like organ to me, and we probably weren't breaking 85db. I've been in worship with organ and congregational singing, where the sound of the organ wasn't really all that "loud". You don't have to listen to that stuff at the highest levels to enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triceratops Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I hate to get into the middle of this discussion--for fear of winding up in the line of fire! In reading this post, I'm just wondering if maybe these various conflicting viewpoints could ALL be right. Here's a quick anecdote. When I went to the Valve State of the Art Conference (VSAC) in Washington last Fall, there were lots SET amps and the conference prohibited solid state amps in the listening rooms--it is a Valve (anglo for tube) conference, after all! But there was an important caveat--no solid state EXCEPT for powering subs. Much of the glorious low-wattage SET sound that I heard in the listening rooms had some power fortification. The mid horns (Orvis, Edgard, etc) were often powered by SET or modestly-powered tube gear, but the horn-loaded bass bins right under them often had big heat sinks hanging out the back, attached to big-power solid-state amps. I don't call flanking horn-loaded bass bins "sub-woofers"--I just call them "woofers." It seems that even the most ardent SET supporters see a place for higher powered amps, and even see a place for solid state--right in the middle of their state of the art systems. It really got me thinking that there is merit in the many different views espoused here. Hope I didn't step on any toes! Best in horns, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 5:39:06 PM DeanG wrote: and a good joint. ---------------- Case closed. Triceratops, You can't get much more reasonable than your post. I re-stuck the one name plate on the Belle, and it even inspired me to dig out the name plate for my center Belle. So now the speakers are clearly identified as Klipsch, in case anyone thought otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 SET bi amping is how I perceive this display TRI refers to. SET for the mid and tweet SS for the woofer This is biamping however you want t o cut it. THis is the only way you could use SET to reproduce the dynamic range a pipe organ uses. As a single SET 2A3 or 300 B amp it would sound like the parking lot of the church; not even the back row. I tried my 3 favoite pipe organ CDs with LEOKs PWM amp. It just could not make it; bass gives out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 "Nope, not even close to attaining divine status. But I do hope I can get your tube prices lower for ya. Probably won't be able to though, as I haven't even begun trying to convince the Asian market of the errors of their ways." That's funny! Yeah! SET user's are Pinko Commies, dammit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Funny graphic. I don't know where you got the pinko commie stuff from, but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 "Mike, how did you liked the James OPTs?" Jeff, They have a nice silky smooth sound to them, as best as I can describe. They look really good too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 5:39:06 PM DeanG wrote: In what seems like a lifetime ago, we used to do some late night Virgil Fox through the DQ-10's. Lights down low and a good joint. It sure sounded like organ to me, and we probably weren't breaking 85db. I've been in worship with organ and congregational singing, where the sound of the organ wasn't really all that "loud". You don't have to listen to that stuff at the highest levels to enjoy it. ---------------- Dean I got into the DQ -10's in the late seventies, mirror imaging, bi-ampimg 2 gas ampzillas, remember those hhaaazzzzyyyy daze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 6:05:57 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 1/25/2004 5:39:06 PM DeanG wrote: and a good joint. ---------------- Case closed. Triceratops, You can't get much more reasonable than your post. I re-stuck the one name plate on the Belle, and it even inspired me to dig out the name plate for my center Belle. So now the speakers are clearly identified as Klipsch, in case anyone thought otherwise. ---------------- Yeah, those WERE the daze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 2:52:45 AM DeanG wrote: About once a week while I'm jamming I think about Kelly and SET, and I think to myself -- if that loon was here he'd be looking for a place to hide! ---------------- Why, too many db's?, I just can't relate Id like the khorns TOO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 9:05:03 AM 3dzapper wrote: SET is sweet sounding and has it's place for low level listening but, it's sure not for rocking the rafters even with Khorns. For that you need PP power. That's why even SETs biggest proponents have another amp for serious listening. smilin, you got that thing cranking yet? Turn it up I can't hear it! Rick ---------------- Cranking, huh I can't hear you, whddaya sayin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 10:18:59 AM DeanG wrote: Serious listening can be had two ways: 1) The music is translated with feeling, to the feelings. 2) You feel the music, and become one with it. ---------------- Serious listening is NOT jacking off to the music It's when it just sounds right to your own EARS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 10:39:08 AM 3dzapper wrote: Serious listening: LOUD ROCK & ROLL!!!!!!!!!!! YMMV! Rick ---------------- 90 Db, nahh, 100 Db nahh, 105 Db, now your starting to talk, well, maybe talk a little louder please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 11:48:57 AM paulparrot wrote: You simply are not noticing the compression and clipping. ---------------- Hey, what clipping, I have plent of headroom left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ---------------- On 1/13/2004 1:08:22 AM MarkBK wrote: Smilin' I think it needs more bass.... ---------------- Thats why I have the Darth Vader Of Subs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 ---------------- On 1/25/2004 4:49:54 PM DeanG wrote: "I believe you haven't heard low power SET, correct?, and yet you are convinced of some of its merits simply because of reading thousands of posts similar to ones in this thread. The fact that you're swallowing this stuff hook, line, and sinker just shows me I am going to have to double my efforts at getting out the word." Most things have merit Paul. If 3.5 watt DHT 2A3 is better than what I heard through my Apollos, then there would be merit a plenty. What would I be swallowing hook, line, and sinker? That it sounds great? I put that down more to common sense. There are thousands of SET listeners, and I figure there must be something good in the listening experience. Now, as to why it sounds good, and why they like it -- is a different kind of discussion than one related strictly to the power requirements for reproducing real life sound levels of Rock and Orchestra. I think I have read at least 20 posts now by Kelly and Jeff clearly stating that for the things we like to do, PP or higher powered SET is a necessity. I have also heard them say that for the ultimate in transparency at reasonable sound levels, SET is the way to go. Who are we to disagree? We have little if any experience with it. So, until such time that we gain the direct experience, first hand in our systems -- we should refrain from voicing any opinion in a dogmatic fashion. With that out of the way, I think common sense dictates that those, who like me, enjoy loading a room to the absolute maximum -- should probably seriously consider something with more than 10 watts. Now, can we let this die -- and start cultivating the relational aspects of our hobby? ---------------- set smeset if you like the music it must be good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.