Heresy vs. Heresy II

[Malcolm]

Seadog, check inside your Heresys. Between K-55-V squawker driver which was used for many year, and the K-53-K which was accompanied by the plastic K-701 horn, there was the K-52-H which Klipsch apparently sourced from Heppner as an interim solution. IIRC it was a screw on unit and used the same aluminum K-700 horn as the K-55-V. 1983 would be around the time it was used.

[robertMAXWELL]

"Seadog---And they worked well for me as main speakers when I turned up the bass tone control a little (a definate "audiophile" no-no; better to listen to bad sound than use tone controls is the orthodox dogma). They're very good speakers. But flawed, as are all speakers."

------------------------------------------------------

TONAL CONTROLS ARE THERE FOR A REASON. NOT USING THEM OR KEEPING THEM AT WHAT'S KNOWN AS "FLAT" OR NEUTRAL SETTINGS JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE "AUDIOPHILE" THING TO DO IS BULLSH_T.

I'VE NEVER ONCE HAD A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER LISTEN TO MY SYSTEM AND DECREE THAT IT SOUNDS BETTER WITH THE TONAL CONTROLS FLAT.

NOT ONCE.

PERHAPS PEOPLE LEAVE THEM FLAT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S THE REAL AUDIOPHILE WAY OF DOING THINGS AND IF THEY WANT TO PRENTEND TO BE AN AUDIOPHILE THEN THEY MUST LEAVE THEM FLAT?

IF SO, THEN IT SOUNDS INSANE TO ME.

FURTHERMORE, IF ONE WAS TO DO THINGS PER THE SO-CALLED AUDIOPHILE BIBLE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ADMIT TO OWNING KLIPSCH SPEAKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE LAUGHED-AT AND SCOFFED BY THE SO-CALLED AUDIOPHILES.

GETTING BACK TO THE TONAL CONTROLS, I HONESTLY THINK CERTAIN PEOPLE MAKE THEMSELVES BELIEVE THE SOUND IS BETTER WHEN SET TO FLAT BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN FED THAT LINE OF BALONEY SINCE THEY WERE TEENAGERS BY SEEMINGLY SELF-PROFESSED AUDIOPHILES IN THEIR 30S, 40S, 50S, WHATEVER...YOU GET THE POINT.

I'M NO AUDIOPHILE, BUT I'M NO DOPE EITHER.

I'VE OWNED SEVERAL BRANDS OF KLIPSCH SPEAKERS DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS.

I'VE HAD MANY, MANY "NORMAL" (READ: NON-AUDIOPHILE) PEOPLE VISIT ME AND LISTEN TO THEM ON VARIOUS AMPS AND RECEIVERS (GRANTED ALL SS) AND I'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY TELL ME THEY LIKED THE SOUND WHEN "FLAT."

I DID HAVE ONE FRIEND WHO, UNLIKE MYSELF, TRIED TO PLAY THE ALL-KNOWING AUDIOPHILE ROLE AND HE HAD HIS CORNWALLS SET TO FLAT WITH AN OLD MCINTOSH SS AMP AND HE ALWAYS MADE A BIG TA-DO OVER HIS SYSTEM AND ALWAYS TRIED TO GET PEOPLE INTO HIS ROOM TO HEAR IT.

LET ME SAY THIS: THERE WERE MORE THEN JUST A FEW PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT OF THERE ADMITTING TO ME THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT ALL HIS FUSSING WAS ABOUT. IN FACT, I HAD SOME SAY THEY LIKED MY HERESYS WITH MY H/K SS RECEIVER BETTER THEN HIS MCINTOSH AND CORNWALLS, AS CRAZY AS IT MIGHT SOUND.

PERSONALLY, I ALWAYS CHALKED IT UP TO THE TONAL SETTINGS. I WAS NEVER AFRAID TO CRANK UP THE BASS AND TREBLE SETTINGS AND WOULD ALSO USE THE LOUDNESS (OR CONTOUR SETTING AS IT WAS CALLED ON MY OLD H/K) AT VOLUME LEVELS BELOW 11 O'CLOCK.

OF COURSE, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE RECORDINGS, SINCE SOME SOUND INFINTELY BETTER THEN OTHERS, BUT THE POINT I'M MAKING IS, YOU HAVE TO TAILOR THE SOUND TO YOUR EQUIPMENT, ROOM, RECORDINGS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOUR TASTES.

MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THE CORNWALL/MCINTOSH COMBO WITH FLAT SETTINGS DIDN'T SOUND ALL THAT GREAT BUT THOUGHT THAT MY HERESY AND H/K SYSTEM WITH THE COUNTOR ENGAGED AND INCREASED BASS AND TREBLE SETTINGS SOUNDED AWESOME.

I DID AND STILL DO AGREE.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF, WERE (AND STILL ARE) WRONG AND THAT MY ONE "AUDIOPHILE" FRIEND WAS RIGHT?

I KNOW IT'S A SUBJECTIVE AREA BUT I'M TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT MY PAL WAS DUPED INTO THAT WAY OF THINKING, IN ESSENCE, ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE BRAINWASHED BY THOSE CLAIMING TO BE "IN-THE-KNOW."

AS FOR HDBRBUILDER'S POSTING ABOUT THE INSANITY THAT IS THE HERESY PRODUCTION LINEAGE I CAN ONLY SAY THAT WHATEVER THE CASE MAY TRULY BE, IT'S A FAIRLY WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT THE 70S HERESYS ARE THE MOST COVETED AND THAT THE MODEL WENT DOWN HILL AROUND 1983 OR SO AT OR AROUND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HERESY II.

IN MY OPINION, THE NEW MIDRANGE DRIVER FOR THE HERESY 1.5 AND FINALLY, THE HERESY II IS *NOT* AN IMPROVED DRIVER AT ALL, SINCE I PREFER THE SOUND OF THE ORIGINAL K-55s THAT WERE USED ON THE HERESYS, CORNWALLS, SCALAS, BELLES, AND KHORNS, NOR CAN THE CURRENT K76 TWEETER COMPARE TO THE K77s THAT WERE USED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED SPEAKERS.

SO, TO ME, THE HERESY II AND IT'S "IMPROVED" DRIVERS OFFER NO IMPROVEMENT AT ALL THEREBY NEGATING THE VERY CONCEPT OF THAT PARTICULAR MODEL BEING AN IMPROVED VERSION OF IT'S PREDECESSOR.

HMMM...WHAT ELSE?

OKAY.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH HDBRBUILDER THAT THE HERESY II IS LESS SENSITIVE THEN THE ORIGINAL HERESY. I HAVE SALES LITERATURE FROM THE LATE 70S WITH THE HERESY SPECS EQUALLING WHAT IS NOW LISTED ON THE KLIPSCH WEBSITE INSOFAR AS FREQ RESPONSE AND SENSITVITY ARE CONCERNED. THE 1970S HERESY IS LISTED AT 96DB 1 WATT 1 METER.

COMPARE THIS TO THE LITERATURE THATS POSTED BY KLIPSCH FOR THE HERESY II MODEL WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES A SENSITIVITY OF 97DB 1 WATT 1 METER.

SO THE HERESY II IS, IN FACT, MORE SENSITIVE THEN THE HERESY, WHICH GOES AGAINST WHAT HDBRBUILDER SAID.

WHOM SHOULD I BELIEVE, HDBRBUILDER OR KLIPSCH?

HMMMMM....I'LL TAKE KLIPSCH ON THAT ONE.

AS FOR ANYBODY CONSIDERING A HERESY PURCHASE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A 70S VINTAGE HERESY MODEL IS THE WAY TO GO, AND SHOULD BE CHOSEN, BASED ON MY MY EXPERIENCE AND PREFENCE OVER THE HERESY 1.5 AND HERESY II MODELS.

[HDBRbuilder]

Robertmaxwell...welcome to the forum...now....

Believe whomever you want to believe. Specs are just that...SPECS! It is what one hears that counts, and I have had both my 1977 Heresys and my 2003 Heresy II's hooked up to speakers A and B on the same receiver and I HEARD the difference in the performance...the older ones are MORE EFFICIENT, since I could not even hear the newer ones over them. I was also at Indy for the gathering in 2003 and one of the Klipsch engineers brought up the subject of the current Heresy II's lower efficiency due to its different tweeter requiring a tweaking of the crossover network to adjust back the performance of the midrange driver and woofer to align the overall performance with the lesser performance of the new tweeter used. He was hoping that there would soon be a way to use the same current tweeter the K-horn, LaScala, and Belle are currently using, but he lamented that using that tweeter would raise the price of a pair of Heresy II's a couple of hundred dollars a pair...so for the time being the Heresy II would be stuck with the lesser performing tweeter.

BTW...Those Heresys you like so much from the mid-1970's until around 1983...if they are birch models...were likely built by ME, since I was the primary builder of them from late 1976 until September of 1983. I also built the vast majority of all of the Cornwalls built during that time frame and a helluva lot of finely veneered (read mitered cabinets)Heresys too...among the other things I built while there.

But, then again, you ARE a newbie on this forum, aren't you? So...you probably don't have any idea who I am...or that what I wrote is the plain truth...BECAUSE I WAS THERE!

I DO listen to my Heresys with tone controls set flat, but that is because my old H/K equipment powering them sounds great set flat for them, unlike many other power sources around...old OR new. If I were to use a power source that required adjustment of the tonal controls, I would NOT turn any of them UP, but would turn the ones that were too bright or heavy, down instead...so that I would NOT stand a chance of blowing any drivers by overpowering them through usage of tone controls set ABOVE flat.

BTW...there is a little button on your computer keyboard called "caps lock"...please use it so that forum members don't think you are "yelling" the words of each sentence you type.

[Audio Flynn]

Robert MAX

I suggest entering the fray of the forum with a little more subtlety.

HDBRbuilder is the man when it comes to cabinets and a few other pertininant aspects of Hertiage speakers.

Reading a forum contributors posts before you respond can help balance your comments and add credibility to your comments.

[boomer9911]

Interesting thread, thanks for the cool read folks, owned both but have the II's now with my Khorns and Scala's....

[joshnich]

----------------

On 8/14/2004 7:38:14 PM robertMAXWELL wrote:

"Seadog---And they worked well for me as main speakers when I turned up the bass tone control a little (a definate "audiophile" no-no; better to listen to bad sound than use tone controls is the orthodox dogma). They're very good speakers. But flawed, as are all speakers."

------------------------------------------------------

TONAL CONTROLS ARE THERE FOR A REASON. NOT USING THEM OR KEEPING THEM AT WHAT'S KNOWN AS "FLAT" OR NEUTRAL SETTINGS JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE "AUDIOPHILE" THING TO DO IS BULLSH_T.

I'VE NEVER ONCE HAD A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER LISTEN TO MY SYSTEM AND DECREE THAT IT SOUNDS BETTER WITH THE TONAL CONTROLS FLAT.

NOT ONCE.

PERHAPS PEOPLE LEAVE THEM FLAT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S THE REAL AUDIOPHILE WAY OF DOING THINGS AND IF THEY WANT TO PRENTEND TO BE AN AUDIOPHILE THEN THEY MUST LEAVE THEM FLAT?

IF SO, THEN IT SOUNDS INSANE TO ME.

FURTHERMORE, IF ONE WAS TO DO THINGS PER THE SO-CALLED AUDIOPHILE BIBLE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ADMIT TO OWNING KLIPSCH SPEAKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE LAUGHED-AT AND SCOFFED BY THE SO-CALLED AUDIOPHILES.

GETTING BACK TO THE TONAL CONTROLS, I HONESTLY THINK CERTAIN PEOPLE MAKE THEMSELVES BELIEVE THE SOUND IS BETTER WHEN SET TO FLAT BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN FED THAT LINE OF BALONEY SINCE THEY WERE TEENAGERS BY SEEMINGLY SELF-PROFESSED AUDIOPHILES IN THEIR 30S, 40S, 50S, WHATEVER...YOU GET THE POINT.

I'M NO AUDIOPHILE, BUT I'M NO DOPE EITHER.

I'VE OWNED SEVERAL BRANDS OF KLIPSCH SPEAKERS DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS.

I'VE HAD MANY, MANY "NORMAL" (READ: NON-AUDIOPHILE) PEOPLE VISIT ME AND LISTEN TO THEM ON VARIOUS AMPS AND RECEIVERS (GRANTED ALL SS) AND I'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY TELL ME THEY LIKED THE SOUND WHEN "FLAT."

I DID HAVE ONE FRIEND WHO, UNLIKE MYSELF, TRIED TO PLAY THE ALL-KNOWING AUDIOPHILE ROLE AND HE HAD HIS CORNWALLS SET TO FLAT WITH AN OLD MCINTOSH SS AMP AND HE ALWAYS MADE A BIG TA-DO OVER HIS SYSTEM AND ALWAYS TRIED TO GET PEOPLE INTO HIS ROOM TO HEAR IT.

LET ME SAY THIS: THERE WERE MORE THEN JUST A FEW PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT OF THERE ADMITTING TO ME THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT ALL HIS FUSSING WAS ABOUT. IN FACT, I HAD SOME SAY THEY LIKED MY HERESYS WITH MY H/K SS RECEIVER BETTER THEN HIS MCINTOSH AND CORNWALLS, AS CRAZY AS IT MIGHT SOUND.

PERSONALLY, I ALWAYS CHALKED IT UP TO THE TONAL SETTINGS. I WAS NEVER AFRAID TO CRANK UP THE BASS AND TREBLE SETTINGS AND WOULD ALSO USE THE LOUDNESS (OR CONTOUR SETTING AS IT WAS CALLED ON MY OLD H/K) AT VOLUME LEVELS BELOW 11 O'CLOCK.

OF COURSE, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE RECORDINGS, SINCE SOME SOUND INFINTELY BETTER THEN OTHERS, BUT THE POINT I'M MAKING IS, YOU HAVE TO TAILOR THE SOUND TO YOUR EQUIPMENT, ROOM, RECORDINGS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOUR TASTES.

MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THE CORNWALL/MCINTOSH COMBO WITH FLAT SETTINGS DIDN'T SOUND ALL THAT GREAT BUT THOUGHT THAT MY HERESY AND H/K SYSTEM WITH THE COUNTOR ENGAGED AND INCREASED BASS AND TREBLE SETTINGS SOUNDED AWESOME.

I DID AND STILL DO AGREE.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF, WERE (AND STILL ARE) WRONG AND THAT MY ONE "AUDIOPHILE" FRIEND WAS RIGHT?

I KNOW IT'S A SUBJECTIVE AREA BUT I'M TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT MY PAL WAS DUPED INTO THAT WAY OF THINKING, IN ESSENCE, ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE BRAINWASHED BY THOSE CLAIMING TO BE "IN-THE-KNOW."

AS FOR HDBRBUILDER'S POSTING ABOUT THE INSANITY THAT IS THE HERESY PRODUCTION LINEAGE I CAN ONLY SAY THAT WHATEVER THE CASE MAY TRULY BE, IT'S A FAIRLY WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT THE 70S HERESYS ARE THE MOST COVETED AND THAT THE MODEL WENT DOWN HILL AROUND 1983 OR SO AT OR AROUND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HERESY II.

IN MY OPINION, THE NEW MIDRANGE DRIVER FOR THE HERESY 1.5 AND FINALLY, THE HERESY II IS *NOT* AN IMPROVED DRIVER AT ALL, SINCE I PREFER THE SOUND OF THE ORIGINAL K-55s THAT WERE USED ON THE HERESYS, CORNWALLS, SCALAS, BELLES, AND KHORNS, NOR CAN THE CURRENT K76 TWEETER COMPARE TO THE K77s THAT WERE USED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED SPEAKERS.

SO, TO ME, THE HERESY II AND IT'S "IMPROVED" DRIVERS OFFER NO IMPROVEMENT AT ALL THEREBY NEGATING THE VERY CONCEPT OF THAT PARTICULAR MODEL BEING AN IMPROVED VERSION OF IT'S PREDECESSOR.

HMMM...WHAT ELSE?

OKAY.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH HDBRBUILDER THAT THE HERESY II IS LESS SENSITIVE THEN THE ORIGINAL HERESY. I HAVE SALES LITERATURE FROM THE LATE 70S WITH THE HERESY SPECS EQUALLING WHAT IS NOW LISTED ON THE KLIPSCH WEBSITE INSOFAR AS FREQ RESPONSE AND SENSITVITY ARE CONCERNED. THE 1970S HERESY IS LISTED AT 96DB 1 WATT 1 METER.

COMPARE THIS TO THE LITERATURE THATS POSTED BY KLIPSCH FOR THE HERESY II MODEL WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES A SENSITIVITY OF 97DB 1 WATT 1 METER.

SO THE HERESY II IS, IN FACT, MORE SENSITIVE THEN THE HERESY, WHICH GOES AGAINST WHAT HDBRBUILDER SAID.

WHOM SHOULD I BELIEVE, HDBRBUILDER OR KLIPSCH?

HMMMMM....I'LL TAKE KLIPSCH ON THAT ONE.

AS FOR ANYBODY CONSIDERING A HERESY PURCHASE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A 70S VINTAGE HERESY MODEL IS THE WAY TO GO, AND SHOULD BE CHOSEN, BASED ON MY MY EXPERIENCE AND PREFENCE OVER THE HERESY 1.5 AND HERESY II MODELS.

----------------

Could you please not yell. Im trying to listen to music here.

Thanks for the consideration

josh

[Seadog]

Malcolm,

O.K., you are correct! My '83 Herseys have the K52H drivers. They also have type E-2 crossovers.

So, is this supposed to be a good thing?? Does anyone else have an opinion on the K52H?

[robertMAXWELL]

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS LOCK.

I've A/B'd my Heresys and Heresy IIs side by side also and the Heresys are much brighter and in-your-face.

Can I say that they're louder (i.e. more efficient)?

I don't think so.

I say instead that their tonal qualities are different and that's what accounts for the difference in sound.

My Heresys do NOT drown out my Heresy IIs to the point where, as you stated HDBRbuilder, they make the Heresy IIs hard to hear, i.e. making them obviously more efficient.

My Heresys sound brighter and edgier then my Heresy IIs but not louder.

If the Heresys can drown out the Heresy IIs in a side-by-side comaprison using the same amplifier, then the Heresys must be significantly more efficient then the Heresy IIs, which, according to published Klipsch literature, they are not. In fact, factory-published specifications put the Heresy IIs at 1db MORE sensitive then the Heresys.

Now, I might be wrong here, but can you actually HEAR a 1db difference in sensitivity?

I don't think so, but I'm not an engineer so I can't say for certain.

But if you CAN, if you can hear a 1db difference in sensitivity, then the Heresy IIs OUGHT to be audibly LOUDER then the Heresys and this would run contradictory to HDBRbuilder's statements.

If, on the other hand, the Heresys are indeed capable of making it so that you cannot hear the Heresy IIs at the same time (which is what HDBRbuilder said in his above post) then I submit that the Heresys must have a *substantial* improvement in sensitivity over the Heresy IIs, which, according to corporate specifications that span from 1979 to this day, in 2004, they simply do not.

Nor does my own personal experience bear this out.

But say that HDBRbuilder's correct and the Heresys are THAT much MORE efficent then the Heresy IIs that they can overpower them in a side-by-side comparison then what does that say about Klipsch then? What does that say about a company wherein, according to HDBRbuilder, a Klipsch engineer attested to him personally about a speaker being less sensitive then the one it replaced while published company figures that I have going back 25 years say the exact opposite by constantly rating the Heresy at 96db while ones going back at least a decade rate the Heresy IIs at 97db?

So if he's right, why has Klipsch been printing product specification sheets with erroneous information that has been handed out to tens of thousands of potential customers for a quarter of a century?

I must then ask whether anybody is awake at Klipsch or have they all been in a Nyquil-induced stupor/haze for 25 years?

If what he says is true about the obviously decreased sensitivity in the Heresy II, why then would Klipsch publish figures ("facts" mind you!) that say the opposite?

If what the engineer supposedly told him has merit, then why can't I hear it for myself when I compare my speakers and why hasn't anybody told Klipsch executives that they've been publishing data saying the Heresy II is 1db more efficient but in actuality, its at least 3db LESS efficient? (I'm playing fast with my guestimates here people...I'm figuring on at least a 3db decrease in sensitivity for the Heresy II based on HDBRbuilder's stated observations in volume but I could be wrong here so grant me some latitude)

All I'm saying is that it just doesn't jibe.

Doesn't jibe with long-published company facts.

Doesn't jibe with my own personal experiences.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything here; I'm not trying to make any friends or brown-nose veteran, established people on this forum just because I'm a new poster (much to the dismay of Audio Flynn I'm sure---sorry buddy but you'll have to find somebody else willin' to sniff your farts 'cause I'm not).

All I'm doing is reading somebody's post and raising my hand and saying "Hey, this doesn't sound Kosher to me. It goes against my experiences and it goes against published company facts."

Just because some people might have worked in a production shop doing the manual labor necessary to construct an engineer's brainchild doesn't make him an engineer. That's like saying a line-worker who puts the panels on a BMW is an authority on a BMW engine...or transmission....or, worse yet, the whole darn car.

Now, I know that robots do that kind of work for BMW, so save your weak arguments...I'm just trying to make a point here.

I guess people on this board hold HDBRbuilder in high esteem but hey, he (apparently) was just a cabinet maker at the Klipsch factory. He wasn't an engineer tasked with designing crossovers or drivers or horns or anything like that. He simply assembled and finished what was given to him.

Like I said before, being an auto-assembler doesn't make one an auto-authority.

Now if HDBRbuilder was a product, design, or research engineer than I'll eat my words and make my apology now.

But, from what I can gather, he just made the cabinets and perhaps screwed the drivers into place.

I didn't know such a position could elevate somebody to such high a high perch on this board as to have him wave his hand at Klipsch-published data not only to dismiss it just as easily, but offer what he sees as fact *directly* contrary to it.....and get away with it without anybody here questioning it!

Perhaps you're all audiophiles and have thus been brainwashed (lol) into accepting such actions and notions without hesitation (kind of like the ol' "Leave the tone controls FLAT! Don't you DARE move them! Audiophiles DON'T!") but I for one am not and do not.

Rats!

Guess I'll never be an audiophile...

Shucks...guess I'll have to give up on that one then (lol).

I'll give up on this here particular topic too.

Hell, might as well give up on the forum as well!

LOL

What a bunch of humorless, know-it-all old men!

Bye, bye!

LOL

[robertMAXWELL]

OOPS!

I'm sorry!

The above post was Josh's attempt at humor I guess...

Good God man! What are you - 20 going on 60?!

Leave this place at once before any serious damage is done!

LOL

ROFL

[robertMAXWELL]

Oh no!

I just looked...you're stated age is 50!

Guess it's too late --- you're right where you belong!

ROFL

[joshnich]

I am not sure what part of what you said was funny or clever. If you want to rant like an idiot please go ahead but please dont bring me into it. I just asked you, in a civil way, to please not yell. I admit also that I intimated that its the music that matters I stand by both points.

Josh

[edwinr]

----------------

On 8/14/2004 11:45:01 PM robertMAXWELL wrote:

----------------

Welcome to the forum robertMAXWELL. You're obviously out to make an impression. Which is okay, but it's a shame you color your obvious intelligence and perception with a propensity for rudeness and obnoxiousness.

If I can comment without receiving a tirade of ill-informed invective from you, the main reason I don't use tone controls, is that I want to hear what both the recording engineer and the artists/musicians intended in their recording. I feel that many artist use variations in tonal quality as well as lyrical and musical content to make a statement. Slapping a cd or vinyl disc on the platter and priding myself on my ability to manipulate gross bass and treble tonal changes with a twist of the wrist seems self defeating to me.

Any carefully matched hi-fi system, properly setup, will play most cd's exceptionally well - without resorting to loudness or excessive use of bass and treble controls. Even those representing recordings made in the 50's and 60's. From what you have stated in your posts, your system obviously needs some fine tuning. There may very well be a system mismatch. Forum members would be happy to assist you in correcting your system deficiencies.

HDBRbuilder, thanks for your very informed posts. I always look forward to reading your comments. I was particularly interested in reading about the Heresy and Heresy 2. The Heresy 2 is in contention for an upgrade option further down the track.

[HDBRbuilder]

Obviously, Robertmaxwell is a confused individual.

There ARE differences in drivers in the various Heresy II models. Just as there are differences in drivers in the previous now-so-called Heresy I series...and, therefore, differences in the ACTUAL performance specs of those different versions...although one will NOT find all of those different specs for the differences in drivers published on this website.

The only Heresy II model I have compared to my 1977 Heresys were the ones I got in 2003 (which were BUILT in 2003, and which have Walnut veneer over MDF cabinets, NOT walnut veneer over poplar lumbercore cabinets like the first Heresy II versions were built with!). I assume that Klipsch went over to veneer over MDF core for the Heresy II cabinets about the same time they converted to using veneered MDF-core on the Klipschorns' and Belles' veneered panels, sometime in the 1990's. They do NOT have the same tweeters in them that previous Heresy II models had in them, although I do not know exactly WHEN Klipsch went to the less efficient tweeter.

Nevertheless, on an A/B comparison with both pairs hooked up to an H/K 430, then an H/K 730, then my H/K 900+, it was quite obvious that with BOTH pairs running simultaneously, the older 1977 Heresys were LOUDER (read MORE EFFICIENT) across the entire spectrum (moreso in the Bass portion, which I, at least partly, attributed to my older 1977 Heresys having custom-matched industrial woofers installed in them when I worked there), which bore out what the engineer at Klipsch stated last summer while I was at the Indy gathering.

As a matter of fact, I easily picked out the older Heresys' directivity from the two pairs while they were running simultaneously, and even though the overall volume of both pairs running together was louder than when running either single pair, I had to get up out of my listening position to confirm that the newer Heresy II models were in fact playing through all of their drivers. I then reversed the two pairs from speaker A&B to speaker B&A receiver hook-ups, and noticed the same thing. So, since they were playing from the same receivers at the same time, and the older ones were obviously LOUDER across the spectrum, then I stand by my statement that the newer ones are less efficient, which tracked along with what the engineer said at the Indy gathering!

I was not the one who broached the subject of Heresy II tweeters at the 2003 Indy gathering, though. Neither was I the only attendee in the Heritage listening room when the engineer brought up the subject of the tweeter differences...and his hope that in the future sometime, he wished that Klipsch would be able to equip the Heresy II model with the same tweeter that the rest of the Heritage series was using. From what I have heard, lately, Klipsch now has the ability to affordably do so, and MAY have already begun to do so on its CURRENT (read after my 2003-built ones were manufactured) Heresy II offering.

To simply rely on the specs given on this website for the Heresy II to be accurate for curent models, one must realize that those published specs for the Heresy II COULD BE from ANY VERSION of the Heresy II that has been manufactured over the years since the 1985 introduction of the series (although those website-listed specs SHOULD be for the CURRENT offering). This wouldn't be the first time that Klipsch website visitors have noticed differences in website specs given for speakers as compared to other current literature specs given...OR past literature specs given on particular models. For example, where it states the LaScala is made of wood and MDF products, which is simply NOT true! There is NO MDF used on the LaScala cabinet, and, to my knowledge, never has been.

Also, Robertmaxwell states that on the older Heresy models, the woofer was impeded in its excursion ability (due to its rear-of-the-motorboard mounting?) which is simply not the case. Look closely and you will notice that the excursion of the woofer on those old models is not impeded by the motorboard at all...the excursion is limited by the woofer design, itself. The opening in the motorboard allows for as much excursion as the woofer can muster, with the corrugated paper surround and the woofer cone itself unimpeded by the motorboard itself.

BUT, also, when one is talking about published specs given for the two Heresy versions (Heresy and Heresy II), one COULD account for the 1 dB increase in measured sensitivity attributed to the Heresy II by accounting for the drivers in the Heresy II being front-mounted instead of rear-mounted on the motorboard, which, effectively brings those Heresy II drivers almost 3/4" forward on the plane of the front of the motorboard, compared to the rear-mounted drivers on the old Heresy...which, in turn brings the Heresy II drivers almost 3/4" closer to the microphone used to derive those measurements in the anechoic chamber, if said microphone is set exactly one meter in front of the MOTORBOARD's frontal plane on either Heresy version, thus accounting for the PERCEIVED specification increase in sensivity in the given specifications for the Heresy II version tested as compared to the older Heresy version. BTW, the measurement-to-microphone IS taken from the front plane of the motorboard, center of mass on a horizontal and vertical axis of the motorboard's frontal plane! OR...did that little fact tend to NOT cross your mind, robertmaxwell?

But, then again, for some newbie to this site to lambast me publicly through insinuation and/or direct acccusation of my not knowing MY OWN HEARING, and for him to write-off my comments as pure bunk from someone who is NOT a Klipsch engineer, without knowing anything about me, or what I have done or what I have seen and experienced is INEXCUSABLE.

So...if he/she indeed has left this forum, with his/her current attitude towards others' opinions and life experiences, then good riddance, I say! BUT, if he/she intends to hang around and maybe wishes to LEARN something to supplement the apparent ridiculous narrowness of mind and opinion he/she currently has command over, then welcome to the forum, and MY ADVICE is to please PAY ATTENTION to some of what you read here, think about it and properly digest it, BEFORE publicly making a fool of yourself for the entire internet community to see.

[Marvel]

Andy,

Since I received my HIIs as a present from my son, I have been trying to figure the exact date of manufacture. The stickers are gone from the backs, and they no longer stamp the serial number on the back edge. I have stated a 1989 year as I took out the woofer on one and found a 1989 inspection sticker on the inside. As many as they cranked out, would this be a fair assumption?

Also, would this mean they are probably the birch lumbercore and not mdf? THey are black lacquer btw.

Marvel

[HDBRbuilder]

Marvel,

If they were painted black over some kind of fine veneer, then it was likely POPLAR lumbercore, not birch lumbercore for the cabinets during the 1989 time frame. Birch was the plywood used for the "D"-style cabinets, though. The easiest way to tell whether these are black mitered "D" style or the poplar lumbercore of the finely veneered cabinets is to carefully look at the rear edges of the side/top/bottom panels.

Although those edges should also be painted black, you can likely tell whether the panels are birch veneered plywood or solid poplar lumbercore plywood, since the lumbercore will have one very thick solid core with two thin layers of veneer on each side and the birch will have regular plys scattered evenly throughout its core, with just one thinner birch outer veneer on each side.

The core plys for the BIRCH plywood should have a count of 5 or 7 inner plys (likely of fir), whereas on the lumber core, the core is one thick solid ply of poplar boards edge-glued together (you won't see but one board, though, by looking at the rear edges of the panels, since the lumber core boards will be oriented pointing left to right for top and bottom panels, or up and down for side panels)...IOW you will be looking at the side of one of the poplar core boards instead of its end grain by looking at the speaker panels from the rear edges.

Since yours came black, they could be either type of cabinet material, since Klipsch often took finely veneered cabinets with surface veneer blemishes or grain irregularities and painted them black for sale in order not to have to trash the cabinets.

[edwinr]

----------------

On 8/15/2004 1:12:58 PM HDBRbuilder wrote:

Obviously, Robertmaxwell is a confused individual....

BUT, if he/she intends to hang around and maybe wishes to LEARN something to supplement the apparent ridiculous narrowness of mind and opinion he/she currently has command over, then welcome to the forum, and MY ADVICE is to please PAY ATTENTION to some of what you read here, think about it and properly digest it, BEFORE publicly making a fool of yourself for the entire internet community to see.

----------------

All I can say HDBRbuilder, is that you are an unbelievably big hearted and forgiving individual to still give robertMAXWELL a chance to redeem himself. I think robertMAXWELL, if you are reading this, and you should be, you owe forum members, and HDBRbuilder, the courtesy of an apology.

[Audio Flynn]

I remeber when I was 31.

I was not very wise.

But I was humble.

[edwinr]

----------------

On 8/15/2004 9:21:23 PM Audio Flynn wrote:

I remeber when I was 31.

I was not very wise.

But I was humble.

----------------

Actually I just checked robertMAXWELL's age profile. I think he's transposed the numbers - should read 13.

[Audio Flynn]

At 13 I was just plain stupid...

but I made big bucks with a lucrative paper route.

[edwinr]

Maybe this guy's done the same, but using 'bathroom' paper instead.