7 speakers by way of the Lexicon

[Erik Mandaville]

Craig:

I'd love to have that sub here sometime to try! It sounded so fantastic at your place. I know that Dean is as passionate about music and audio as we all are on this forum, and we all have very much in common with one another in that sense. Regardless of subject or issue, there will always be differing opinions.

Shawn: You read my mind. I just now got out of my closet a very decent sounding vintage Kenwood SS amp from the 70's. I think it would be perfect for the side and rears, and I actually have another one just like it! I'm going to have to be sneaky on that one, because Marie likes it for NPR news and classical music in the mornings. The little 6BQ5 stereo amp will work well in it's place.

This is exciting! I haven't built loudspeakers in years, and it will be a nice thing to do again after such a long time. And, my gosh....talk about air and ambience! We bought a Celtic Christmas music CD today at Barnes and Noble, and the quality of the recording is exceptional. As sad and contemplative as bagpipes always sound to me, the sound with 3 front and side and rear channels was wonderful.

Erik

[Deang]

I can't wait to hear what DEAN has to say about this

About the sub? I think they're cool -- buy probably a major PITA to get one working right with horn loaded bass. Horn loaded bass has a unique sonic signature. I'm also big time into what tube preamps bring into my system, and I don't get the warm fuzzies thinking about running the full range signal through a sub before it gets to my amp. That's also why I cringe and dig my fingernails into my chair everytime I think about someone using a processor in front of a tube amp. I had a very nice Bryston BP-20 over here at one time, and putting this thing in front of AE-25 Superamp sounded pretty awful. I don't think there is anyone here that seriously believes a solid state processor or preamp is the way to go with a tube amp. At any rate, the only sub I like right now for Klipschorns is the Dayton Audio Titanic III. It's an acoustic suspension type, and has an adjustable low pass that can be cut off low enough to properly blend with the Klipschorns. Even in my small room -- it would probably still take two of them to keep up.

[sfogg]

Erik,

Have fun designing and building the speakers.

"And, my gosh....talk about air and ambience! We bought a Celtic Christmas music CD today at Barnes and Noble, and the quality of the recording is exceptional. As sad and contemplative as bagpipes always sound to me, the sound with 3 front and side and rear channels was wonderful."

What CD is that? I'll have to pick that up as my wife as I'm sure my wife would like it.

Isn't it a revelation to go from standing outside the performance hall listening 'through a window' to opening up the doors of the hall and walking in and taking whatever seat you desire?

Shawn

[jdm56]

I think Erik's observation that his k-horns sounded, relatively "flat and two-dimensional" w/o surround augmentation is interesting, as that was basically my experience too. I lay the blame, in my own case, mostly on my room being too small and too square. The solution for Erik may be surround processing via his Lexicon. My ultimate solution was much more drastic: A return to the "conventional" audiophile paradigm (there's that word again - sorry... Mark) of two speakers pulled out from the room boundaries.

[sfogg]

Dean,

"and I don't get the warm fuzzies thinking about running the full range signal through a sub before it gets to my amp."

Erik has no need to do that. The Lexicon will handle all crossover duties (Bass Manage) for him and will do a better job then what the subwoofer offers as it will time align the subwoofer with the rest of his speakers. It will also keep a subwoofer from overloading and distorting really badly which will keep it from sticking out like a sore thumb when it runs out of output.

"I don't think there is anyone here that seriously believes a solid state processor or preamp is the way to go with a tube amp."

Believe it or not but SS is not inherently evil... at least not to everyone. (Now the question is what does SS stand for in that sentance in the context of this thread?)

And while I'm obviously a crazy moron for having a satanic piece of hardware in my system I've been using it with tube amps for my front channels. I've also used it with SS for my front channels.

There is no reason, at least not a logical one, why one automatically precludes the other.

But hey... if you don't want SS with your SS (and fear digitial because "it is the devil" (said in a Kathy Bates voice)) buy one of these:

http://fosgate-audionics.com/products/FAP-V1.asp

But you better have your speakers all equiadistant from your listening position because this unit lacks the ability to time align everything as that can't be done with just tubes. Time alignment makes a big difference in how everything sounds and meshes together to become a coherent 'big picture.'

Shawn

[Deang]

"A return to the "conventional" audiophile paradigm (there's that word again - sorry Dean) of two speakers pulled out from the room boundaries."

Kind of like this?

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/files/room20.jpg

"The Lexicon will handle all crossover duties (Bass Manage) for him and will do a better job then what the subwoofer offers as it will time align the subwoofer with the rest of his speakers. It will also keep a subwoofer from overloading and distorting really badly which will keep it from sticking out like a sore thumb when it runs out of output."

No disputing the fact that this is a very cool feature. No doubt about it.

"Believe it or not but SS is not inherently evil... at least not to everyone. (Now the question is what does SS stand for in that sentance in the context of this thread?)"

I know that, but to me it's like drinking orange juice with apple pie. I meant what I said to only be taken in the context of really liking the sound I get from having a quality tubed preamp section in front of my amp. I don't have a "problem" with solid state or digital.

"And while I'm obviously a crazy moron for having a satanic piece of hardware in my system I've been using it with tube amps for my front channels. I've also used it with SS for my front channels."

I don't think you're a "crazy moron", just crazy. I'm sure it sounds great, but having run solid state preamps for the majority of my life, I don't think they compete all that well with good tubed units. I don't see how processing in and of itself can overcome the low level hash.

[mike stehr]

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Lexicon/mc12/smr_image_02.html

They need a few more jacks, yikes!

[tkot]

after reading through this thread (twice) i have to say a couple of things

(1) some of you guys use really big words?

(2) surround has its place(like it or not , 2 channel purists)

(3) i dont always do 7 channel, sometimes its only 3 channel or only 2 channel

it depends on the recording

(4)the lexicon is a ss pre/rpo(dean g)

(5) i find this interesting , but wouldnt have given it a sesond thought if it wern't

for a dope from hope article that was posted here some time ago. after reading

that article i started playing with 3vs2vs5vs7vs9 channels

(6)for the guys who have played aroung with multichannel sound you know what eric is talking about. for the ones who havent tried it...you should

a link to the" dope from hope" that i refer to

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/files/Center%20Loudspeaker.pdf

jay

[jdm56]

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

On 12/22/2004 11:26:48 PM DeanG wrote:

"A return to the "conventional" audiophile paradigm (there's that word again - sorry Dean) of two speakers pulled out from the room boundaries."

Kind of like this?

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/files/room20.jpg

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

HaHa -- Well, not ~exactly~ what I had in mind, but still cool!

[sfogg]

"but having run solid state preamps for the majority of my life, I don't think they compete all that well with good tubed units. I don't see how processing in and of itself can overcome the low level hash."

Because 'low level hash' isn't in all SS equipment. Maybe that is what you got with whatever you tried but it isn't systemic of any/all SS.

Shawn

[sfogg]

Mike,

"They need a few more jacks, yikes"

Believe it or not but some people would agree with that. Some want more then a single 5.1 input (I have a solution for that) and some want something like a firewire connection for digital input of multi-channel DVD-A or SACD material.

But yeah, for a lot of systems there are a lot of input and output connections on the back of a MC-12B.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"(6)for the guys who have played aroung with multichannel sound you know what eric is talking about. for the ones who havent tried it...you should"

Well said.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"The solution for Erik may be surround processing via his Lexicon. My ultimate solution was much more drastic: A return to the "conventional" audiophile paradigm (there's that word again - sorry Dean) of two speakers pulled out from the room boundaries. "

I can't speak for the K'Horns but in my other room I had my LaScalas pulled well out away from the walls... and they still sounded flat in comparison to surround sound. As did the pair of high end monitors I was using before the LaScalas.

It wasn't because anything was lacking in my two channel setup, it was simply because surround sound has far more depth (sense of the acoustic space) to it then 2 channel.

Shawn

[jdm56]

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

On 12/23/2004 12:39:17 AM sfogg wrote:

I can't speak for the K'Horns but in my other room I had my LaScalas pulled well out away from the walls... and they still sounded flat in comparison to surround sound. As did the pair of high end monitors I was using before the LaScalas.

It wasn't because anything was lacking in my two channel setup, it was simply because surround sound has far more depth (sense of the acoustic space) to it then 2 channel.

Shawn

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

Surround certainly can give you more sense of space, but by "depth", I am not talking about that , but about stage depth; the sense that the musicians are living, breathing three-dimensional entities, and not card-board cutouts plastered up against the front wall. And I did find that using a center belle with the k-horns did help a lot in this regard. But using a more wide-dispersion pair of speakers, well out from the walls helped much more. This characteristic hinges mostly on the front two (or three) speakers, I feel. I guess we are just using two different definitions of "depth".

[sfogg]

"Surround certainly can give you more sense of space, but by "depth", I am not talking about that , but about stage depth; the sense that the musicians are living, breathing three-dimensional entities, and not card-board cutouts plastered up against the front wall. "

That is exactly what I am talking about too. Until I heard what surround could do I wouldn't have called my previous 2 channel systems 'flat.' Far from it in fact. Its just that after I've experienced what surround does (even in defining the front sound stage) 2 channel falls on its face and is very flat in comparison.

Shawn

[maxg]

Shawn,

You just brought to mind something I regard as the biggest weakness of Heritage speakers, namely the depth of image.

At the High End show last month I was really struck by the difference in sound between the KHorns and the RF7's.

The Khorns were, unsurprizingly magnificent - huge, wide soundstage, image size to die for, dynamics to die for, everything....except depth.

The RF7's were not quite the equal of the KHorns in any aspect of the sound except one - depth, where they clearly outshone they elder siblings and by a distinct margin.

I think that if you heard one, without the other you would not be aware there was better in any direction. The RF7's cast a big image, a wide soundstage and have excellent dynamics in their own right - it was a huge shock for me as it really was the first time I have heard them play properly - they are WAY BETTER than I had thought - to the point that I might prefer them as an option for my own system over Belles or other Heritage options.

What has all the above to do with any of this thread. Simply this.

I have the feeling (and only a feeling) that the dramatic difference you and now Erik are experiencing is exactly because the Heritage speakers don't do depth well. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has done something similar but with RF7's as opposed to Heritage, or indeed any other speaker that is known for having good image depth.

I would imagine that trying to setup a similar multichannel arrangement with panel speakers, for example, would be extremely difficult to do well as these fire out backwards and are already providing a form of surround sound by bouncing sound around the walls of the room in question.

[jdm56]

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

On 12/23/2004 4:07:13 AM maxg wrote:

Shawn,

You just brought to mind something I regard as the biggest weakness of Heritage speakers, namely the depth of image.

The Khorns were, unsurprizingly magnificent - huge, wide soundstage, image size to die for, dynamics to die for, everything....except depth.

I have the feeling (and only a feeling) that the dramatic difference you and now Erik are experiencing is exactly because the Heritage speakers don't do depth well.

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

I agree completely. I hated to say it though, being merely a "former" klipsch owner, and the fact that I don't look good in tar and feathers. It's not like the emperor has no clothes, it's just that well, maybe there is a seam that could be straighter; a buttonhole that could be neater.

[Erik Mandaville]

Dean: ""I don't think there is anyone here that seriously believes a solid state processor or preamp is the way to go with a tube amp."

Your thinking is inaccurate. I am using one right now, and like it better (even in two channel mode)than any of the many tube preamps (8 of which I made myself)I have used in my system. Mark's Peach and the Transcendent Grounded Grid come very close, but there is something going on with the Lexicon, even in stereo, that I really like.

I started building my own tube equipment in the early 90s, Dean, and have some small amount of understanding of how and why they work the way they do. I say "...small amount of understanding..." because the more I learn, the more I realize how little I really know compared to some people with whom I have come into contact. Sorry, but I find it very difficult to agree with your thinking that a hollow state preamp is the ONLY serious or valid way of gaining control of a signal when using tube amplifiers. I am also a true fan of vacuum tube audio equipment, however I have learned enough over the years to NOT discard a certain type of technology, philosophy, ideaology -- whatever -- simply because of my own preconceptions of it.

Is it not possible to understand that ANY circuit, tube or solid state, will color, alter, change, and distort a musicl signal in some way that differs from what it was before it entered that circuit? It's such an extremely simple concept. The point is that we are free to choose the subsequent coloration that sounds best, most pleasing, etc. on an individual basis.

Does your CD player have a vacuum tube amplification stage in it? It may, since some do, however that does not mean that that specific CD player is inherently superior to a design that does not. There absolutely have been SS amps and preamps that did not sound so good to me, but there are also tube preamps and amps that fall into the same category. Your CD player has enough output to have likely driven those Quads (depending on their input impedance and sensitivity)you had into clipping. If your CD player does not use a tube voltage gain or impedance-matching buffer (such as a cathode follower), are you going to throw it away simply because you are using tube amps? Your CD player has already processed the signal before sending onto the preamp and amplifiers.

Broadly sweeping statements, such as the one I copied and pasted above, are simply untrue. If you don't care for what solid state preamps do when used with tube amplifiers -- the answer is pretty striaghtforward, I think. Don't use one.

How does this come across to you? "I don't think there is anyone who frequents this forum who is so ignorant and uninformed that they would ever consider the possibility of using a tube preamplifier with a tube amplification stage." To me it sounds rather lacking in accuracy.

I have experience with both types of technology, Dean, and do indeed think that a solid state preamp or amplifier can sound very good. That is not always the case, nor is it always the case with tube equipment.

LOL!

[maxg]

Half a mo..er...

"Your thinking is inaccurate. I am using one right now, and like it better (even in two channel mode)than any of the many tube preamps (8 of which I made myself)I have used in my system. Mark's Peach and the Transcendent Grounded Grid come very close, but there is something going on with the Lexicon, even in stereo, that I really like"

Erik, lets just confirm this, you prefer the unit in STANDARD 2 channel mode (i.e. no centre channel - just left and right speakers) over all the other tube pre-amps you own INCLUDING THE PEACH! Correct?

If so - Wow! I hadnt picked up on that one before. Ignoring all the surround sound bits, that fact alone makes this item extremely interesting!

How much are they again? This I got to hear!

[Erik Mandaville]

The Peach and Transcendent Grounded Grid are great preamplifiers. I find certain qualities of the Lexicon appealing, even in two-channel only mode. It is not only a digital processor, it's also a line level preamplifier; and in my opinion, does a very good job at getting out of the way of music. I also recently experimented with a Carver preamp (SS) which to me only sounded good when using the fairly well-known but-somewhat-now-obsolete 'Sonic Holography' feature. I think the result of that is among some of the reasons that got me interested in signal processing. Due to my sorely twisted brain, I really quite liked the sound of Carver Sonic Holography.

Even my father, who can build tube equipment from scratch, without schematics, seemingly with his eyes closed, once said to me: "What is this fixation with tubes you have? Even rectifiers you're using seem to HAVE to be tube, where IMO this design is screaming for a simple SS bridge rectifier. Choose what SOUNDS best, not because of the output device it uses." He said something similar about my interest in SET amps, informing me (which I was already aware of) that many PP designs will have lower distortion, more power (I don't need it), etc. That's another story for some other time.

Yes, the Lexicon does very well as a linestage preamplifier. I would say, though, that this characteristic is something of a positive coincidence, because I'm mainly interested in its signal processing ability.