"Headroom" - what does it sound like to you?

[Deang]

"And the final irony is it appears the Klipsch 2 Channel Forum is now the Telarc 1812 of the Forum world, with 120dB of dynamic detritus, with points missed, specs abused, and just enough technical understanding to dig a virtual Black Hole..."

Man, that's harsh.

The general level of "technical understanding" on this forum is pretty good actually. The problem as always is taking all the data and using it to figure out how it translates and can be used into achieving the "best" sound. Not an easy task by any stretch.

Try to remember that many here enjoy movies at THX levels. As far as music and SPL goes, I'm probably one of the worst offenders here -- but rarely if ever breach the 100dB barrier. "Headroom" is simply enough power to cover dynamic peaks. The formula in my last post works, and people should use it.

Amplifiers are interesting, and we decided a long time ago that it's nice to have more than one. However, an amplifier, regardless of topology -- can't begin to approach the improvement derived from better horns, drivers, and networks.

[Jeff Matthews]

Allan: Nonsense!

MH: If only you were as "sweet" as those tube amps. Talk about harsh. Man!

Ben, check out that Crown. There are alot of folks on this forum that think we equate loud with dynamics. When it is explained to them, they go to another thread and start acting like they didn't learn anything there. It's either hard-headedness or baiting - - or both.

Your sound is fully dynamic until you turn the volume up to a point where the amp cannot deliver the full spectrum of power needed to maintain the dynamics. Then, as you keep turning up the volume, the softer notes get louder, while the louder notes do not. Too much of that makes the sound all garbled.

The "nay-sayers" to this are the guys who spent way too much on an amp and have still never heard what good Klipsch can do. Klipsch doesn't meet specs of handling 100 watts continuous and 400 watt peaks for nothing - or should I say, so you can MAX them out with your 30-watt amp. If you think you're even close at 30-watts because it sounds loud, get a life. The only reason it sounds loud when cranked with a 30-watt amp is because the dynamics are lost and that's awfully loud for something that sounds like crap. .... Kind of like we can listen to a tuned TV station easier at a high volume than we can listen to static at the same volume.

It's some sort of goofy "audiophile mentality" that makes people want to brag about how they can do so much more with so much less. I'm not sure where that came from, but it wasn't experience.

Klipsch made their Heritage to handle 100 watt continuous and 400 watt peaks. That was no accident, and it was meant to be used. Seems half around here have never seen the top end of the speaker's qualities actually used.

[Deang]

"it's hard to list a Studio that Doesn't use a D75 for monitors....

I guess these Engineers / Producers all have tin ears, eh ..??."

Bad argument Duke -- a good recording is a rare item.

[Duke Spinner]

hear ya go Doc - an article I found from somewhere a while ago that makes interesting reading:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/LPvsCDformats.php

Enjoy

intersesting link, Max ....

i have both vinyl and CD playback in my system

the LP's seem somewhat lacking compared to the CD's

in the defense of vinyl, 95% of the CD content is live music, tho

[Duke Spinner]

The music I listen to isn't available on LP, but I'm certain it wouldn't keep up if it was....pushing on average over 30dB of dynamic range (and as much as 60dB on some of my favorite pieces of music).

.

Similar here, Who ....30-40 dB range

[Duke Spinner]

"it's hard to list a Studio that Doesn't use a D75 for monitors....

I guess these Engineers / Producers all have tin ears, eh ..??."

Bad argument Duke -- a good recording is a rare item.

the problem, Dean , is that compression is Artist driven....."make Mine louder"

and by FM stations, that want your radio to lock on thier Higher signal

most Engineers I still converse with, are sooooo disgusted with what they put out ....

[maxg]

"Klipsch made their Heritage to handle 100 watt continuous and 400 watt peaks. That was no accident, and it was meant to be used. Seems half around here have never seen the top end of the speaker's qualities actually used."

By this logic if my car is capable of doing 5000 rpm in fifth gear I should - even if that means doing 150 mph?

I do not know what proportion of Klipsch Horn owners bought them because of the ultimate volume they can run - without clipping the transients.

If a speaker is capable of 104 dB/watt and I have a pair in a typical listening room sitting about 4 meters back (actually that is quite a large listening room) I should expect something like 90 dB at the listening position. 90 dB is already loud by my listening criteria - but for the sake of argument lets say I want to be able to listen at 100 dB continuous with the same 6 dB headroom you are allowing (100/400). That means I would need about 10 to 12 continuous and for peaks 40-48.

If your room is smaller you can reduce those figures but anyone with a 50 watt amp (RMS into 8 ohms) shoud almost never expect to experience clipping on a Khorn unless they are listening at insane levels - especially if the amp itself has some headroom built in (which I think most do).

The converse of your argument would be that manufacturers who make amps with RMS outputs of 1 to 8 watts must have some speaker in mind when they do so. I would imagine the KHorn would be quite high up on their list of such speakers.

Finally - take Avantgarde. Their Trio speaker has 110 dB/w/m sensitivity and the amp they built to maximize its capabilities (in their eyes) is 1.1 watts (but with 27 watts of headroom). Again I seem to recall the Trio can take upto 100 wpc continuous - but I do not think they recommend it.

[Duke Spinner]

. However, an amplifier, regardless of topology -- can't begin to approach the improvement derived from better horns, drivers, and networks.

now that's a true statement...!

i regard the Amp ..as 10-15% of the signal chain ...

i thought it pertinent to mention, that I have 11 vacuum tube based amps here ...EL 34/ 84 6L6 6V6 6550

it's not just .......Crown .....[]

[Jeff Matthews]

"Klipsch made their Heritage to handle 100 watt continuous and 400 watt peaks. That was no accident, and it was meant to be used. Seems half around here have never seen the top end of the speaker's qualities actually used."

By this logic if my car is capable of doing 5000 rpm in fifth gear I should - even if that means doing 150 mph?

No, Max. It means you don't need a car that does the 5000 rpm if you don't want to go 150mph. So, if you drive 55 in such a car, you are wasting some of the car's qualities. You might prefer to waste those qualities, and if so, that's fine. I think wasting some of a car's qualities is different when you start analogizing to speakers. Why waste the qualities that Klipsch put in? You won't get in a wreck, and they will sound just fine - even at MUCH higher volumes.

The problem is people can't imagine that the higher volumes won't sound "overboard loud." When you crank that 30-watter, it might sound louder than cranking a 300-watter at 100-watts. Because when you crank that 30-watter, it gets AWFULLY rackety. It's the racket that people think defines a limit of loudness. The news is that it does not. It defines the limit of loudness people WANT to hear. If you can crank 100-watts through a 300-watt amp, it won't be rackety, and people will not consider it to be as "loud" as the racket you get when cranking a 30-watt amp toward its limit.

[Allan Songer]

"Rackety?"

That must be what happens when ear-splitting, bone rattling sound isn't dynamic enough?

[Jeff Matthews]

"Rackety?"

That must be what happens when ear-splitting, bone rattling sound isn't dynamic enough?

Allan, that's the first "no-nonsense" observation you have made on this topic. That's right on the money.

[Jeff Matthews]

Mdeneen, draw graphs 'til your heart's content. At these high-power outputs I listen to - and they are high - the music is still extremely clear and well-defined.

[Jeff Matthews]

Also, mdeneen, you still might be confusing distortion with loss of dynamics. You lose dynamics as you turn up the volume and only certain aspects of the song will get louder - but not all. When the flute starts sounding on even keel with a kick drum, it's all out of whack and rackety. You might think it's distortion, but it's not. It's out of proportion and sounds like loud, ear-bleeding crud.

[mobile homeless]

I also am skepical of your Anti- D75 agenda, which You seemingly Love to flaunt ....it's hard to list a Studio that Doesn't use a D75 for monitors....I guess theseEngineers / Producers all have tin ears, eh ..??.

Ahhh...The Duke. As par for the course, you read two posts of mine, possibly one, and make the nice judgement. Anti D-75 agenda? I played in bands since the age of 13 till college and ran an in-home recording studio for a few years in the mid 80s. Had a seven year stint at a radio station where I brought up the reference to the D-75. During my time playing in bands, I've been around a number of Crowns, including quite a few D series and versions of the 150 and 300, along with various Micro/Macro Tech.. Between Phase Linear and Crown, this probably accounted for 90% of our support sound for the band from monitors to the PA. This doesnt include the Crowns you run into when playing at clubs, venues, or in the studios that favored them. It was THE amplifier to have for band work. So I'm on no anti-D-75 campaign. Simply put, I think Crown amps are pretty coarse and lacking in all the things I take as important for musicality and reproduction in home use.

I found Crown a solid pro audio device when working. I found EVERY one I have had in home inserted into a system FAR less rewarding. And the recording industry is not something to tout as a "standard".

I can name about 10 different amplifier companies I would choose over a majority of the Crowns you see floating about. I went through the low/high power solid-state solution for many a year with quite a few extremely nice SS samples coming through (among others, Classe, Krell, B&K, Adcom, Bedini, Monarchy, Aragon, Krell, Sumo, PS Audio, Conrad-Johnson, McCormack, Musical Fidelity, Creek, Bryston, Threshold, etc ). While I have not heard the Crown Reference series, I would put the amps I have heard and used way down in the list as musical solutions for an in-home system. Obviously, it's my opinion derived from my experience with my taste.

I would surely rate the amplifier higher than 10-15% of the musical chain, though. But I would probably rate the PREAMP as even more important. And I have also heard other speakers besides Klipsch and horns in general that float my boat. I've had monitor speaker systems do very well with different goals. On the other hand, there's nothing like the immediacy and dynamics of good horns but I've found them far more senstitive to mediocre amplication than other options, especially in normal sized listening rooms.

[mobile homeless]

The problem as always is taking all the data and using it to figure out how it translates and can be used into achieving the "best" sound. Not an easy task by any stretch.

This is a point that needs to be stressed over and over, especially in a number of these threads, notably this one. I think there is quite a bit of tech info use without real world experience that can show how much can be contradicted. Actually, I dont think this place is a paragon of experience with different solutions. But I agree with much of your post here, Dean. Yet, I think headroom doesnt always equate with watts as used in your formula but it's a start. As you know, amplifiers in real world conditions have a lot more going on. This simple forumla doesnt always get the nut in my view and some monkey going out to buy and amp with his THD and Wpc specs is in for a rude awakening when comparing the sonics...

[mobile homeless]

in the defense of vinyl, 95% of the CD content is live music, tho

Actually, most of the BEST recording are of LIVE sessions with care taken from the mic to the mix. Minimalist techniques with attention to detail bypassing the standard ape at the mixing board brings far better live recording sonics than most. Most engineers couldnt produce a decent recording to save their lives....

[Allan Songer]

To my ears the best recordings were ( and ARE) done "live" in the studio with no editing straight to two (and more often than not ONE) track.

[meagain]

Also, mdeneen, you still might be confusing distortion with loss of dynamics. You lose dynamics as you turn up the volume and only certain aspects of the song will get louder - but not all. When the flute starts sounding on even keel with a kick drum, it's all out of whack and rackety. You might think it's distortion, but it's not. It's out of proportion and sounds like loud, ear-bleeding crud.

Jeff - You seem to be saying emphatically that those here without high wpc (300+) cannot crank it because they lose 'dynamics' and hence it sounds bad at very loud levels. Do you not think that it's even remotely possible you are wrong until you've visited every member's listening room? Isn't it possible that they (maybe not all) very well CAN turn it up loud and ALSO retain quality and/or dynamics? It just seems to me that most here are pretty savvy & probably have good ears and I would think they would be able to tell the difference or admit to not being able to crank it cleanly?

I'm willing to bet money that those with less 300+ WPC, etc. can indeed crank it without losting quality & your dynamics. I mean, we don't even know for sure if there will be a tomorrow - so to issue such a blanket statement of fact just doesn't seem what a thinking person would do. I mean, this may have been the case with your particular gear you've used to historically test this - but this doesn't necessarily mean it's fact to everyone out there.

[artto]

.

[DrWho]

hear ya go Doc - an article I found from somewhere a while ago that makes interesting reading:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/LPvsCDformats.php

Enjoy

I have quite a few issues with that article, but for discussion sake I'll try to limit myself (but the guy is clearly an idiot) []

First of all, let's discuss his noise floor charts...they were recorded "around the same point" which means there is a lot of room for error (based on how digital noise floor algorithms work). So really you can only look at natural trends, which he did to an extent but he totally forgot to mention that the recording in the studio is going to attribute a lot of its own noise floor - so most of what you see in the 1kHz - 10kHz range is most likely there before it was even put onto the recording. Below 500Hz it is very clear that the LP is adding it's own LF noise floor (which is a result of the RIAA curves). Above 20kHz the CD looks better thanks to the nyquist low pass. This is the first time I've seen such a comparison graph and I would bet good money that if we were to boost the LF noise on a CD that many of these audiophools would prefer the sound of the CD. (It must be the source of that "warmness" crap). He also didn't show the plots of the digital encoding of the CD, but from his RMS data it is already clear that his audio path is adding over 20dB of noise! Not an acceptable player or DAC in my books....My conclusion is that he needs to invest in some power conditioning to clean up his analog signal path.

Second of all, his "peak comparisons" are a bunch of crap and show a huge lack of understanding of the digital realm...Note the timeframes for each of the 3 green on black plots. They are not zoomed in the same. I am also 100% certain that the time of play for the LP and the CD were not identical, and even 1/1000th of a second will affect the rendering of the frequency plot. If you've ever done any digital waveform work, you would know that looking at peaks zoomed out this far doesn't show anything. As you change your zoom you will notice the peaks getting smaller and bigger for the exact same section. It's not because the information is changing, it's just the alogorithm being used to redraw the waveform is using different input data based on the zoom. And again you have the same issue with his spectral charts (the red flame like ones). My point here is that his data is extremely misleading and he really needs to zoom in one specific peak (which cool edit is more than capable of). What would be even better is a waterfall plot of a single identical peak and then conduct some distortion measurements.

And lastly, there is no guarantee that his recordings were both being ripped from the same exact same original source....in other words, usually there are different transport functions ("EQ curves") being used in the mastering of each of these mediums. If you wanted to do a true comparison between mediums, you would go to the studio and record a single live acoustic sound and then master straight to CD and straight to LP. Then play each of them back and compare. I have done these comparisons between DAT (same thing as CD) and 2" reel-to-reel (at all sorts of different levels) and it is interesing how much more like the original sound the digital is. Sure, the analog sounds better but the CD is a better medium (one where you can store that "analog sound" on it - something I do all the time when mixing drums).

Oh, I forgot to mention that he misinterpreted all the RMS power levels too...which clearly show a lower noise floor and more dynamic range with the CD [] I also love his subjective opinions strewn all about...makes me want to put him through a blind ABX test (so far, I'm yet to see a vinyl lover that blindly chooses a turntable as the best sounding...in fact, of all the tests I've seen published they usually pick the CD! And I'm sure all the TT lovers are going to jump up and say that they are more special than the idiot in the reviews and have better ears blah blah blah, but before they make such a claim they better have gone through a blind ABX test first [])

It really is quite easy to calculate headroom and power level needs. Take out your recording and measure how loud you want to listen. Then go measure the waveform of the medium and give yourself and extra 6dB (to keep the amplifier in a linear range for those peaks). If you want to be more picky, go take frequency specific measurements (average and peak levels for different ranges of the audio band) and then compare the "8 ohm" needs to the impedance response of your speaker and compensate accordingly (4 ohm dips will need twice the power, and 2 ohm dips will need 4x the power). Add your 6dB in the end and you're done.

How bout a practical example? Let's say I want to listen to a piece of music with 30dB peaks at a very loud 90dB average. Since my speakers are 102dB sensitive and have a minimum 4 ohm impedance, I need at minimum 128 watts to achieve a clean 120dB peak. Using the "6dB linear rule" that comes to 512 watts for a guaranteed clean 120dB transient. And this is sitting 1 meter in front of the speaker! To get the same levels at the listening position requires even more power...And before people start arguing about how loud this is, keep in mind that a good rock concert is usually around 100-105dB, with peaks of 130+ dB quite the norm...So if this were a recording of a live concert, I wouldn't even be listening at "realistic" levels at a 'measly' 90dB. But to bring my subject opinion into play, I think 90dB is way too loud and I usually listen around 80dB...which puts my transient peaks in the 110dB range...thus requiring no less than 64 watts of clean power. At 70dB, which is way too quiet I would be ale to get by with 8 watts (again sitting 1 meter from the speakers). But at a more realistic 4m from the speakers, this 8 watts turns into 32 watts (80dB with peaks turns into 256 watts and 90dB with peaks turns into 2056 watts). And all this is with only 30dB transients....just imagine the power requirements for a 60dB transient listening at 80dB!

The whole reason behind horns is to be able to reach "live volumes" with as little distortion as possible. You could never dream of finding a direct radiating speaker capable of delivering a clean 120dB, let alone 140dB! I'm sure there are speakers and amps out there that "clip nicely" and don't bring out the limitations of the system, but that doesn't mean sufficient power handling isn't necessary. If you aren't into loud sound then I would highly recommend finding a good sounding direct radiator speaker and power them with a beefy amp - and it is entirely possible to achieve low distortion this way, but don't tell the horn crowd this []

Oh btw, I love your post artto....reminds me of how low your noise floor is []