How to ruin an Audiophile's day......

[Bill Cain]

Since when has audiopile-ism ever been about the music? It really isn't. It's an addiction akin to all the other consumer addictions. The point is to spend your way to superiority over other audiopiles.

Great initial post and wonderful reply.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Stand back while I throw some gasoline on the flames........

I've dabbled in photography since 1960, or so. In 1989 I got a brand new Nikon F4 and some AF (auto focus) lenses. Thought it was a 'step up' from my 1968 vintage Nikon F. It wasn't. But it took the theft of all my AF gear (and a lot of learning) to realize why.

I eventually concluded AF gear is not inherently superior to MF (manual focus) because it takes part of the creative process away from the photographer. Don'tcha just love a photo that is perfectly focused on the pores at the tip of the subject's nose, rather than on the pupils of the eyes? LOL But AF has been marketed as the "answer" to all your needs and a "necessity." AF kinda reminds me of those $10,000 speaker cables...... that we all "need."

Threads such as this one are refreshing and rare. Thanks to all. []

[garyrc]

Thanks Max!

I had a living breathing violinist in one of the rooms in which we listen to reproduced music. She played some nice, complex, solos.

I wish we had a good recording set up, but we didn't, so we had to compare the sound of her live playing to a variety of commercial recordings. All speakers we listened to had the same type and model of amplifiers, etc.

We found:

1) The real violin sounded pretty much like what we hear from many recordings, but ...

2) The violin had a little more upper midrange and a little less high treble than we usually hear over our Klipshorns. "Close miking on all of our violin recordings," I thought, but putting my ears close to the real violin did not produce the louder overtones we heard on the Khorns.

3) Her violin sounded surprisingly loud, louder than we usually play a recording of a solo violin, or the violin part of a concerto. So we checked ... at the listening position (about 15 feet away) a Radio Shack meter, c wt, "fast" gave us a needle swing centering at about 80 dB on the louder passages, with a few peaks pinning the needle at above 86 dB. We later listened to quite a few violin recordings, and we play most as much as 10 dB lower. Why?

4) The Khorns sounded more like reality than the Heresy IIs, and, surprisingly, the Belle. Khorns had the loudest overtones, and the most "detail," then the Belle. Both had slightly more prominent overtones than the real violin. The Heresy IIs sounded nice, but with slightly less on the top than the real violin, the other speakers, and less "immediacy" than either reality or the Khorns/Belle.

5) I'm assuming that this is not a matter of frequency response, or at least not frequency response alone, because in the published Klipsch curves of the late 80s (and reproduced by Garrison on this forum), the Heresy II is a bit smoother than the Khorns and Belle in the treble, and certainly not lacking in treble response. But the Heresy II sounds a bit attenuated in the highs, less "reach out and touch it" --- a violin over them seems less "there."

To reverse Gertrude Stein's foul slander of Oakland, with the Khorns and the Belle, there's more "there" there.

[J M O N]

Thanks for sharing Max -- nice story. That has been a viewpoint I've had for the past few years -- that horns can bring you closer to the music than anything else (at least at sane price points). I assume it's possible to get better than your basic Khorn setup, but only minutely so and at very extreme price premiums. The law of diminishing returns hits hard here.

Bill Cain:

I've dabbled in photography since 1960, or so. In 1989 I got a brand new Nikon F4 and some AF (auto focus) lenses. Thought it was a 'step up' from my 1968 vintage Nikon F. It wasn't. But it took the theft of all my AF gear (and a lot of learning) to realize why.

I eventually concluded AF gear is not inherently superior to MF (manual focus) because it takes part of the creative process away from the photographer.

Don'tcha just love a photo that is perfectly focused on the pores at the tip of the subject's nose, rather than on the pupils of the eyes? LOL But AF has been marketed as the "answer" to all your needs and a "necessity." AF kinda reminds me of those $10,000 speaker cables...... that we all "need."

Interesting analogy. I've haven't made the connection to audio before, but I have had similar thoughts on photography just recently. I have a manual focus Canon T-90 that is now approaching "old" status as it's almost twenty years old. I love that camera. It does everything I can ask of it. Of course it is not auto-focus, but that has never bothered me. Recently while focusing my lens and composing a shot of the Grand Canyon I noticed that I was surrounded by many, many people wielding cameras and shapping shots. I may have been the only one doing any manual focusing. I started thinking that with the levels of concentration I was going through, maybe that auto-focus stuff took you further away from the art since you have less to do, maybe doesn't force you to think as much, and maybe, just maybe you end up with lesser photos. I know I will eventually make the switch to digital, which will require all new auto-focus lenses in addition to a new camera body. I expect to be slow in making the transition, mostly because of the cost of replacing all of the manual-focus lenses I have.

[Bill Cain]

Bill Cain:

I've dabbled in photography since 1960, or so. In 1989 I got a brand new Nikon F4 and some AF (auto focus) lenses. Thought it was a 'step up' from my 1968 vintage Nikon F. It wasn't. But it took the theft of all my AF gear (and a lot of learning) to realize why.

I eventually concluded AF gear is not inherently superior to MF (manual focus) because it takes part of the creative process away from the photographer.

Don'tcha just love a photo that is perfectly focused on the pores at the tip of the subject's nose, rather than on the pupils of the eyes? LOL But AF has been marketed as the "answer" to all your needs and a "necessity." AF kinda reminds me of those $10,000 speaker cables...... that we all "need."

Interesting analogy. I've haven't made the connection to audio before, but I have had similar thoughts on photography just recently. I have a manual focus Canon T-90 that is now approaching "old" status as it's almost twenty years old. I love that camera. It does everything I can ask of it. Of course it is not auto-focus, but that has never bothered me. Recently while focusing my lens and composing a shot of the Grand Canyon I noticed that I was surrounded by many, many people wielding cameras and shapping shots. I may have been the only one doing any manual focusing. I started thinking that with the levels of concentration I was going through, maybe that auto-focus stuff took you further away from the art since you have less to do, maybe doesn't force you to think as much, and maybe, just maybe you end up with lesser photos. I know I will eventually make the switch to digital, which will require all new auto-focus lenses in addition to a new camera body. I expect to be slow in making the transition, mostly because of the cost of replacing all of the manual-focus lenses I have.

Just as I rue the day I sold my matched TD 124's, because I bought some direct-drive (Pioneer PL-71) turntables, you will boot yourself in the butt for selling your MF glass.

I have Crown amps, from D-75 to MA-3600vz. But I never dumped my Dyna MK III's. All of my stuff has a place in the scheme of things. It just took me a while to figure that out. I think it's best to figure it out BEFORE you lose good stuff, not after.

Think of digital photography as you think of CD's and SS amps and film photography as you think of vinyl and tube amps. It is possible to mix and match things. For example, I love Photoshop.... whether I'm using digital or film. Because the ultimate product is the print. Same way with music. The ultimate product is what comes out of the speaker.

Below is a pic I COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN with anything but a digital P&S, as I was driving a motorcycle at 65mph at the time.

[J M O N]

I agree! I don't plan on getting rid of my current equipment. I don't think I would get much for it anyway as used film cameras and manual focus lenses aren't selling for much at all now. The quality of my lenses sure does seem better than the AF stuff, at least the inexpensive ones I've seen.

BTW, your photo did not come through.

[maxg]

Gary,

Interesting observations on the relative performance of the Heresy Vs the others on the top end. Were you, perchance, running the Heresies on the floor with or without risers?

I noticed that when I ran Heresies that a floor position was NOT ideal for them. Placing them on some form of stand - about 40 cm tall (oh .... er.....15 inches?) made a huge difference to the presentation across the frequency range. Sadly it does impact the already limited bass of the Heresy a bit - but if you have a sub that is no issue.

Further, I don't think the "air" of the top has much to do with the real frequency extension much above 15 KHz despite audiophile claims. At its simplest you and I can probably stretch to something around 15 KHz hearing range on a good day - so what difference 17 to 20 KHz?

Ultimately I am of the opinion that it is the height of a speaker that governs how full the sound comes across. Within the limit where you will start to interact with the ceiling before the floor the higher the better seems to be the general rule. There are probably many reasons why this should be so but I would guess being hit by the soundwaves directly - rather than from reflections is key here.

[garyrc]

Max,

In our tests with violin music the two Heresy IIs' tweeters were almost exactly the same height as the two Klipschorns' tweeters. The Belle (center channel) tweeter was somewhat lower, by whatever amount floorstanding Belle tops are lower than Klipshorn tops. I did wonder if the Belle was slightly less articulate than the Klipschorn because it was lower. Squatting down didn't help, but the Belle was closer to the thick rug, and maybe it sucked up some detail/treble. I also suspect the shorter horn for the Belle midrange, and wonder if the Belle is "toned down" slightly, compared to the Khorns.

Normally, but not for these tests, the Heresy IIs are used as movie surround (5.1), and very occasionally as surround for music (through a Lexicon reverb processor). You're right, the Heresy IIs lose bass like mad when elevated, but they sound good with movies, and for ambiance for the occasional too "dry" CD.

A funny thing happened on the way to using the Heresy IIs as movie surround speakers. We found that the whole soundstage (~~~ 200 degree movie sound environment) sounded clearer, more effortless, and more articulate with the Heresy IIs operating full range ("Large"), even though with weak bass because they are far off the floor, and depriving the Klipsch RSW-15 "movies only" sub of any of the bass assigned to the surround channels.