edwinr Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 ---------------- On 8/3/2004 4:59:33 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: Now please! anyone doing modifications "I'm not saying that its not better or not an improvement" it could well be!(But in a well treated/designed room stock Khorns are (Among) The GREATEST Speakers Avaible).I do believe that there are other things happening because when you change these drivers/horns your also playing the room differently and this could also be where some perceptions of improvements are coming from. mike ---------------- I agree with your comment. The room/speaker interaction is not something I fully understand. I know PWK spent most of his life coming to terms with the compromises he had to make to market a commercially viable Klipschorn. In saying that I've no problems in tweaking and tinkering, and I wouldn't think PWK would either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 edwinr said: I agree with your comment. The room/speaker interaction is not something I fully understand. I know PWK spent most of his life coming to terms with the compromises he had to make to market a commercially viable Klipschorn. In saying that I've no problems in tweaking and tinkering, and I wouldn't think PWK would either ----------------------------------- Hi edwinr: I get the impressions from reading PWK's works that he was always open to a real improvement. I agree with you also. I love to tweak and tinker with speakers, amps, isolation devices and all things audio but to me the room is the ultimate place to tweak because anything we do still has to go through the rooms paths to our ears and nowadays the equipment is so good its even more important than ever that we give the room the attention it deserves and must have if we are to really advance. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Sorry- I just couldnt resist playing the devil's advocate here... But what is the point of having a system that is so totally "revealing" that it relegates your favorite music to the dregs of the unlistenable? Sounds counter-productive to me. Less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 ---------------- On 8/3/2004 8:14:52 PM cluless wrote: Sorry- I just couldnt resist playing the devil's advocate here... But what is the point of having a system that is so totally "revealing" that it relegates your favorite music to the dregs of the unlistenable? Sounds counter-productive to me. Less ---------------- and what's the point of having the best room on earth and use some mediocre equipment ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Guy- I'm sure that your post was directed at other than me since I have the most mediocre equipment in the most sonically challenged environment ever.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 ---------------- On 8/3/2004 8:58:00 PM cluless wrote: Guy- I'm sure that your post was directed at other than me since I have the most mediocre equipment in the most sonically challenged environment ever.... ---------------- Just showing that there are 2 sides to each coin and it is mostly a subjective decision of which option to choose first- better room or better equipment. There's no absolute formula which is more important, they both are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 ---------------- On 8/3/2004 8:58:00 PM cluless wrote: Guy- I'm sure that your post was directed at other than me since I have the most mediocre equipment in the most sonically challenged environment ever.... ---------------- I think I have the most sonically challenge enviroment all rapped up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 ---------------- On 8/3/2004 7:30:12 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: edwinr said: I agree with your comment. The room/speaker interaction is not something I fully understand. I know PWK spent most of his life coming to terms with the compromises he had to make to market a commercially viable Klipschorn. In saying that I've no problems in tweaking and tinkering, and I wouldn't think PWK would either ----------------------------------- Hi edwinr: I get the impressions from reading PWK's works that he was always open to a real improvement. I agree with you also. I love to tweak and tinker with speakers, amps, isolation devices and all things audio but to me the room is the ultimate place to tweak because anything we do still has to go through the rooms paths to our ears and nowadays the equipment is so good its even more important than ever that we give the room the attention it deserves and must have if we are to really advance. mike ---------------- Mike, PWK wouldn't even put an "L" pad on his creations becuase he didn't trust us cretins(my word not his) to change the sound of them without his instruments. At least that is what I got out of the Dope From Hope Papers. Poor Ole PWK is probably spinning what with people putting JBL311's in his beautiful Klipschorns. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 ---------------- On 8/3/2004 8:14:52 PM cluless wrote: Sorry- I just couldnt resist playing the devil's advocate here... But what is the point of having a system that is so totally "revealing" that it relegates your favorite music to the dregs of the unlistenable? Sounds counter-productive to me. Less ---------------- Because I (or anyone) can easily add whatever distortions we want to a known, clean, accurate reproduction system to make any particular recording sound more 'pleasant', impressive, or whatever. If the distortions (both equipment and acoustical) are there in the first place, it's not so easy, if not impossible, to get rid of them and get the best out of the best recorded material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 4, 2004 Author Share Posted August 4, 2004 Well I was going to save the concept presented by clueless for another thread, but I guess we can discuss it here... In the studio, I would never question having the most revealing system in the world...however, the purpose of listening at home is for enjoyment, which may imply owning concieling speakers. Artto makes a good point in that a system without the distortions, that usually result in concieling the flaws, can easily have those distortions added. However, I am completely unaware of such devices that don't leave something else to be desired I think I've come to the realization that we're slaves of the recording industry and once we've gotten our rooms acoustically correct, then we must choose the equipment and speakers that make our musical tastes the most enjoyable. I cannot deny the awesomeness of Art's system, but if it makes 'MY' listening unenjoyable, then I must grudgingly seek other alternatives. And since I'm totally in love with Nightwish, then it makes more sense for me to build my system around them to maximize my enjoyment...all I know is that listening to my recordings of them on Art's system would make me wanna puke In an extension of my thoughts, I think that once such a level of enjoyment can be achieved, that the question of which system is better becomes a mute one. The recording quality is a variable we can't change, as too the musical tastes that have been engrained in us (granted they might change over time). The only real variable then is the equipment that we choose to listen with and in the grand scheme of things it makes sense to pick equipment to accomadate the tastes and recordings that you have to deal with. I think ideally, we'd have a room with the capability of housing many sound systems, each tuned and designed around each album that we listen to (the cost of this though is a bit insane) Well I hope I'm making sense. I hesitated discussing this in this thread because it's not exactly related to Art's system...though it's his system that has got me thinking about it. ALso, keep in mind that I make these comments assuming the listener has trained ears (which i believe increases enjoyment) and that the listener is listening in a good acoustic environment. Crap recordings and crap bands do exist and I refuse to listen to them (though Art might call me a hypocrite, hehe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Cluless has a good point - that is why some of my cds end up in the car, where they sound reasonably OK, and some end up in the listening room with the other "good" stuff... I find that I am more satisfied with music being presented the "way it was recorded" than having the system (like the car cd) make it sound "ok" or at least "tolerable". Some recordings make the music "background" music - not suitable for concentration. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Mike, PWK wouldn't even put an "L" pad on his creations becuase he didn't trust us cretins(my word not his) to change the sound of them without his instruments. At least that is what I got out of the Dope From Hope Papers. Poor Ole PWK is probably spinning what with people putting JBL311's in his beautiful Klipschorns. Rick ----------------- Hi rick: What I meant by my impression that PWK was open to improvement is that if PWK thought he could make a genuine improvement then he would change it but not for the sake of change. As things like recording technology would (catch up) to the Khorn it would allow him to make improvements in his Khorns but the design was so fundamentally correct and good that real improvements were few over all these years. I never had the impression that he chose to do or not do anything because of what it might cost it just had to be a real improvement to him. I know I read in one of his papers he mentioned if someone thought they had a real improvement they would consider testing it. Now Please everyone, I didn't know PWK and there is no way I know for sure what he thought I just have these impression from what I've read and the way Klipsch as a company always did business with me. They never tried to sell me anything if it wasn't necessary and often you might get an answer like we changed it in production because it measures slightly better but most people probably wouldn't hear the difference. What a great way for a company to treat their customer and no wonder people stay with klipsch. To sum it up if you like modifying your Khorn then great. I know I enjoy seeing the ideas people are trying. But I feel a fundamental truth is unless the room is given proper attention the stock Khorn(or any speaker) isn't reaching its full potential(AS artto's Room Shows so Well) and any modifications want reach their full potential either. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 4, 2004 Author Share Posted August 4, 2004 i think to put it in different words (like my own), there is a difference between an improvement and another set of compromises...changing out the drivers in the khorn is just choosing a new set of distortions within the same design. If someone were to introduce a better way to fold the horn, then I think Klipsch might start getting interested. The only reason I'm chiming in is because tweakiness is one of my pet peaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Mike, My Khorns aren't bone stock either. I like you have followed the advice of many here more learned than myself. I enjoy doing a little of this 'n a little of that. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 "and what's the point of having the best room on earth and use some mediocre equipment ?" What a person can afford in terms of equipment is, in some ways, maybe just a little personal. Not everyone has the means to acquire very high dollar amplification, source equipment, etc. All of this is certainly obvious. I respect the effort to which someone goes to maximize the performance of the best they can do in terms of components. The fact that the listening environment is known to play an important role in the overall sound of ANY system, seems reason enough to me to go to the trouble of making the best of the situation. A lower cost system may indeed sound better in a room with some minimal treatment, as opposed to its performance in one with none. I don't really think that 'the best room on Earth' is what's being discussed. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Erik, It's not about if the equipment or room tuning are affordable or not, it's about the decision making process and most probably, room tuning are much more expensive. Isn't it a compromise, when you invest great sums of $, in a great room but in a not so great equipment? If you do tune your room according to specific equipment, what happens when you decide to change some gear? Do you need to finetune it or start all over again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champagne taste beer budget Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 I currently have nothing but mediocre equipment, excluding, of course, my Klipsch speakers, even if they are on the lower end of the Klipsch spectrum. I am in the planning stages of a dedicated listening room that will, hopefully, bring out the full potential of what my present set-up can do, and look forward to how much better it will sound with improved equipment. To me, it makes more sense to have $1,000 worth of equipment in a good room than $30,000 in a 12' cube with tile floors and shag carpeting on the walls. I figure, when it's in the budget, it's a lot easier to go into a store, plunk down the cash and walk out the door with new equipment than it is to make structural changes to a room. JMHO, of course. I also don't see that anything in the room would change with a change of equipment. Reflection points, room modes, resonances, etc, are determined by the room, not the equipment, so any improvements to the room should remain even as equipment is rotated through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 ---------------- On 8/5/2004 8:59:31 AM Champagne taste beer budget wrote: I also don't see that anything in the room would change with a change of equipment. Reflection points, room modes, resonances, etc, are determined by the room, not the equipment, so any improvements to the room should remain even as equipment is rotated through. ---------------- Absolutely correct. You cannot affect those kinds of changes with equipment substitution. Equipment substitution may offer a compromise (albeit a small one) towards compensation for certain acoustic properties of the room, but not most of them. On the subject of "what we like" (to listen to), as opposed to "what sounds best", I must say, that along the way in my quest for "ulitmate audio", I was also introduced to new music, much of which I may never have gotten intimately aquainted with, or developed an appreciation for, if it were not for the high quality "audiophile" recordings I often sought out. Mike is correct in his observation that we are basically slaves of the recording industry when it comes to quality recordings. But its no different than anything else in life. There's that one percent at the top, the "cream of the crop", in any industry or profession. In the case of his favorite band, Nightwish, I must admit, this recording is particularly obnoxious, regardless of whether you like the music or not. But so was Three Dog Night, produced decades earlier. And I must admit, even though I bought a copy of it way back when, it has received virtually no playing time since, because even on a system less revealing than what mine currently is, the sound quality sucked (Crown amplfication, JBL L00 studio monitors, Thorens TD160 table with a B&O pickup, circa 1972 in a 10x12 bedroom, and on a 1969 Zenith 'console' before that). Definitely "made for car radio" stuff. Other recordings that were popular (Moody Blues "On the Threshold of A Dream" for instance) were reissued on 'audiophile' lables and sound fine on high resolution systems. To my knowledge, the Three Dog Night recording in question was never reissued on an audiophile label. Since there was obviously some very popular music on there, this may be indicative of a very poor original master tape, something that was not retrievable for an 'audiophile' reissue. Lets not forget that a lot of these guys were also tripping and stoned out of their minds when these recordings were made, and pretty much everything probably sounded "cool" (good) to them! For the most part, much of what we hear from bad commercial recordings is due to a lack of care in the production process. The original master probably sound fine. It's usually all the crap that's introduced on it's way from the original master to the store shelf that degrades the final result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 ---------------- On 8/5/2004 10:01:17 AM artto wrote: Mike is correct in his observation that we are basically slaves of the recording industry when it comes to quality recordings. But its no different than anything else in life. There's that one percent at the top, the "cream of the crop", in any industry or profession. ---------------- Yes, and unfortunately the top one percent of musicians don't always get to work with the top one percent of mixing and mastering engineers and producers. What it comes down to for me is that the music is more important than the sound. Iron Maiden's Piece of Mind may not have been the best recorded piece of vinyl played on Craig's system and the Cornwalls we had in Indy, but it damned sure sang to my ears. I can overlook a certain measure of bad engineering if I really love the music. That said, FZ's joke production Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch sounded every bit as horrible as he intended it to when he produced it, and it cleared the room in a big hurry. Those Corns hid absolutely nothing. Furthermore, there are a number of records that I dearly love, but just cannot bear to listen to anymore because the production is so horrid. Most 80's power metal falls into this category - some really awful production values going on in underground metal during that time period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Griff, I agree. I would even go so far as to say that, because of, the high-res setup I have, with poor recordings, I've had to listen more closely to the music to get through the poor sound quality, and listen for the sake of it's brilliant performance for instance, but falls far short of sonic excellence. There are plenty of superior recordings in my collection, but I also find myself attracted to the better performance, it taking precedence over the ultimate in sound quality. 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.