Big horns, low volumes...?

[Old78s]

Hey all,

I am currently running Heresy I speakers through a tube system (HK Citation I preamp, Fisher SA-300-B power amp). I typically listen at low volume levels to small ensemble acoustic music (country blues, hillbilly, early jazz, jug band, etc.) from 78s, CDs, and LPs. My system sounds exceedingly dandy as it is, and I have way more volume than I will ever need, but I am wondering if I "upgrade" to LaScalas or Cornwalls (my room geometry does not suit Khorns) if I could significantly improve sound quality, as well as the "dimensionality" effect of my stereo recordings. In one respect it seems a bit silly to have gigantic PA-size speakers to listen to low-volume acoustic music in my living room, but I also understand that different horns may have desirable acoustic properties regardless of volume levels.

Browsing the fora here reveal many opinions on speaker performance, but these are rarely supplemented with listening volumes or preferred types of music. I would therefore like to solicit opinions on the relative performance of the Heritage speakers for low-volume acoustic music listening. At low volumes would LaScala or Cornwall sound quality dramatically exceed the Heresy sound quality from the perspective of a non-audiophile hobbyist? Any thoughts?

Another issue is that I often listen to source recordings with a lot of background noise. 78s in particular can have a lot of hiss and crackling. I don't have a problem at all with my Heresys, but I have seen other posts suggesting that Khorns and LaScalas can magnify source material shortcomings in a very unpleasant way. I know this is getting pretty obscure, but by any chance does anyone out there have experience listening to pre-WWII 78s through Cornwalls or LaScalas? If co, could you please describe the experience?

Thanks!
Bob R.

[Daddy Dee]

Bob,

I don't have experience with '78s, but do have experience with LaScalas, Khorns, and Heresies.

My take on changing to CW's or LaScalas would be that if you are happy with Heresy bass performance you would be better pleased with LaScalas. LaScalas, IMO offer a better midrange experience crossed at 400hz. My take on the popularity of the CW has alot to do with it's powerful bass performance. The LaScala is fully horn loaded so there is something of a different quality to the bass, which I find very pleasing. I don't know how to describe it except to say that horn loaded bass is less distorted than direct radiated bass. Some people find the LaScala bass shy. That's why I think you'd be fine with LaScala bass if you are pleased with your Heresy performance.

As to the thought that LaScala and Khorns magnify source shortcomings, I wouldn't think they do that any more so than Heresy or CW.

[HarryO]

I live in an apartment and volume is critical. I've found the CWs and tubes are great late at night. Plenty of full and deep music at lower volumes with vinyl or disc. I pretty much gave up the vinyl a few months back but I don't feel the larger Heritage speakers magnified "impurities"any worse than the Heresy. Pretty much the same driver configuration except for the woofs.

I think you'll love the increased sound from the larger Heritage at night especially. In an apartment the CW doesnt' depend on "bouncing" bass to sound good. I don't disturb my neighbors at all with my tube/Heritage combo. I keep late hours with no problems.

Harry

[oldbuckster]

That is another good point about Klipsch, they don't need to be "Balls to the Wall", to sound good. I listen to more LOW volume than High volume, and they still produce a sweet sound.............

[pauln]

Hello!

I had my Heresys for almost 30 years before I got La Scalas. I thought I listened fairly loud (to me) until I found this forum and discovered that I am a soft listener. I thought the Heresys did it all (dynamics, clarity, imaging, beautiful inspiring music) until I got my La Scalas. I thought the Heresys had perfect bass to my tastes until I heard my La Scalas (considered bass shy by almost all others). I thought the Heresys had a big, clear, and distortion free presentation until I heard my La Scalas.

Being a low listener has so many advantages - much less possibility of distortions and room reactions, far greater dynamic range, decades of decibels of headroom, purity of reproduction. These things are all benefits that the La Scalas enjoy with their ultra high efficiency even more than the Heresy .

I use SET amps and play only records - the La Scalas are a match made in heaven for this kind of listening. The voicing of the La Scalas is comparable to the Heresy overall, but the horn bass is quite different and hard to describe. It sounds more natural, to me; less effort for more range and detail. The overall "size" of the sound is bigger and makes the illusion of musicians present quite realistic. I would recommed La Scalas to anyone that likes the Heresys.

About the 78's. This forum's member Dave Mallette is a serious 78 lover and has an extraordinary ear for music and a long background of recording/engineering. I have heard his 78's played on his system (I brought 78s from my collection, too) and he uses electronics to "clean" the sound of all the records (including 33) that he plays. There is no noise and no loss - Louis Armstrong played right in front of us (through a single Cornwall) and every breath and blow was remarkable and real - I had never heard a 78 sound so good. Dave might be an excellent source for answers to questions like yours, and I know he would be eager to do so - he loves to discuss all of this.

Welcome to the Klipsch Forum

Pauln

[Deang]

Good post Paul. I want to say something but I have no experience with the kind of source material he uses.

[Mallette]

Dang. High praise from a person of Paul's stature. Wonder if I have anything to back it up...[:$]

My 78 chain starts with a Stanton 500 cartridge with a 2.7 mil stylus which I track around 6 grams. It is mounted on an Empire 598 Mark IV TT and feeds a TCC TC-778 RIAA phono preamp with 78rpm equalization switch. It then goes to a line level input on my Van Alstine Super PAS4 preamp and loops though a DBX 4BX dynamic range expander. While most vinylphiles eschew DBX, I find listening to records without one every bit as irritating as listening without RIAA equalization. Records are DYNAMICALLY COMPRESSED. A properly set DBX does nothing more than reverse this process. The complaints of pumping and such are entirely from those who either cannot master the art of setting them or did not take the time required (which for me was a WHILE) to learn. If you get one with impact restoration, TURN IT OFF if there are significant impulse noises (read: scratches) as they will be amplified. While I am sure the original poster knows this, for others who might give it a shot make SURE you set your preamp to MONO. Otherwise, you will get stereo noise. It is even better to insert a switch wire to L only, R only, L+R, R-L, or L-R as one position or the other will provide the best noise phase cancelation on various recordings as cutting techniques changed a lot over the years.

I have 78's going back to 1918 (actually some Edison Diamond Discs and cylinders going back farther, but no way to play them properly). If you want ORGANIC, there is nothing like a pure acoustic recording. In good condition, these things have real presence and sometimes it seems I am looking right up out of the recording horn at the muscians all straining to get as close as possible. Early electric recordings suffer from the same "learning curve" as early stereo and CD's. However, they learned quickly and by the early thirties you get 78's that can be downright startling in their reality. I've had youngsters who simply could not bring themselves to believe they were listening to an 80 year old recording of Kid Ory.

As to low volume listening, I do not do much as levels matching reality are as much part of fidelity for me as the rest the rest of the process. However, I can say I do not hear anything over emphasized by my Khorns, and, in fact, everything "appears" to be coming directly from the center Cornwall when I play these unless you put an ear right up to a 'horn.

I have yet to hear a transcription that sounds as good as the original. Nothing above is an attempt to "clean up" but only to access the original material as accurately as possible.

My Khorn's are in a pretty minimal room as well, about 14X15, but I find the sweet spot, though small, adequate and I have no interest in downsizing. Get a bigger room, maybe. Get rid of the K'horns...from my cold, dead hands.

Dave

[pauln]

Good post Paul. I want to say something but I have no experience with the kind of source material he uses.

Thanks DeanG, I just love the idea of someone that loves Klipsch sound upgrading into their dreams. The music can be so rewarding for those that let this happen.

Hey, send that Trends to Lisa... I'm eager to see if see can break it...[*-)]

Dave, the 78 world is a small one, hope you and Old78's get in touch. See you around...

Pauln

[Old78s]

Thanks everyone for the great responses. This morning I arranged to buy a pair of 1970s La Scalas off craigslist - I will pick them up the day after tomorrow. The description of the La Scala bass response sounds more suited to my listening preferences than the Cornwalls - in general I do not like bass in music, but if it is going to be there I want it to be tight tight tight. I'll report back when I get the new speakers up.

Apparently the La Scalas I am buying have the undesirable AL crossovers, so I will have to pick up a pair of new crossovers somewhere. Any opinions on the A vs. AA vs. ALK...? I've seen some previous threads discussing these crossovers, but I'd be interested in getting fresh opinions in the context of this "low volume" discussion.

Thanks also for the 78 insights David. I don't use any digital processing when listening to 78s myself - it's all tubes. My HK Citation I tube preamp has really nice settings for non-RIAA phono recordings with the HUGE bonus of having a stereo blend feature that allows you to blend the amount of left and right channel coming out of your speakers. This is incredibly handy for some 78s that have groove wear on one side and not the other. One of my favorite Blind Willie Johnson records sounds horrible on the left, but crystal clear on the right - probably because a previous owner had a crooked needle in their old Victrola. Besides the Cit I, using a custom 3.25mil truncated elliptical stylus dramatically cleans up the sound of many early electrical records - especially the Paramounts thank goodness.

It's shocking how good some 78s can sound. Some of my 78s have a sound quality that surpasses any CD I have ever heard in terms of producing the illusion that a person is sitting four feet in front of me playing a guitar or fiddle. I don't understand why... but it is very pleasant indeed. It's interesting to hear that you have had the same experience. Most other 78 collectors I have visited tend to have pretty lousy sound systems, which is ironic because their records can be worth many thousands of bucks. It's been challenging for me to find any opinions or information on setting up a tube system to enjoy 78s, but I think I'm getting there. The Cit I was a big breakthrough (sounds great with LPs too!). I am interested to see how the La Scalas perform!

Bob

[pauln]

I really love the type A's I got from Bob Crites (BEC) here on the forum. My LS were new 2005 with the fancy and expensive AL-4 networks, but the A's sounded so superior the decision to swap took all of 3 seconds. There are a few folks in the forum that make various networks to be considered. For low listening levels I find the A's are very nice. I'm sure others will provide their thoughts about what they have done as well.

I am very interested in reading your impressions of your LS as your preferences and habits sound like they make you a perfect candidate for their features.

[Mallette]

"Thanks also for the 78 insights David. I don't use any digital processing when listening to 78s myself - it's all tubes."

No digital here, either. The DBX is an analog device...basically a variable dynamics curve necessary to reverse the compression of the original recording. As I mentioned, in my mind about the same job RIAA does to restore a flat response curve.

"It's shocking how good some 78s can sound. Some of my 78s have a sound quality that surpasses any CD I have ever heard in terms of producing the illusion that a person is sitting four feet in front of me playing a guitar or fiddle. I don't understand why... but it is very pleasant indeed. It's interesting to hear that you have had the same experience."

Shocking, indeed. I am befuddled by why so few "audiophiles" listen to 78's. How can one claim to love jazz, blues, or whatever and only listen to stuff recorded after the golden age of these genre? Especially as they sound SO GOOD when properly recovered! I am not suggesting that great music in these areas ended in 1955 or so, but Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Kid Ory, Glenn Miller, Whiteman, Artie Shaw, and so many others either did thier finest or all their work before the LP.

Oh, well. Their loss. I am still GIVEN stacks of invaluable musical treasures...[H]

Dave

[Mallette]

"Thanks also for the 78 insights David. I don't use any digital processing when listening to 78s myself - it's all tubes."

No digital here, either. The DBX is an analog device...basically a variable dynamics curve necessary to reverse the compression of the original recording. As I mentioned, in my mind about the same job RIAA does to restore a flat response curve.

"It's shocking how good some 78s can sound. Some of my 78s have a sound quality that surpasses any CD I have ever heard in terms of producing the illusion that a person is sitting four feet in front of me playing a guitar or fiddle. I don't understand why... but it is very pleasant indeed. It's interesting to hear that you have had the same experience."

Shocking, indeed. I am befuddled by why so few "audiophiles" listen to 78's. How can one claim to love jazz, blues, or whatever and only listen to stuff recorded after the golden age of these genre? Especially as they sound SO GOOD when properly recovered! I am not suggesting that great music in these areas ended in 1955 or so, but Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Kid Ory, Glenn Miller, Whiteman, Artie Shaw, and so many others either did thier finest or all their work before the LP.

Oh, well. Their loss. I am still GIVEN stacks of invaluable musical treasures...[H]

Dave

[Mallette]

You can say that again...[]

[WMcD]

Olds,

I'd expect you will find the LS very good even at low levels, and high.

I'm not into old recordings. None the less, over the years, I've read consistent comments by people with a love of 78s and no pre conceptions about horn reproducing systems. They find that there is a lot of magic in the recordings which only comes out with a three way horn system.

Bruce Edgar is a proponent of horns.

He argues that that direct radiators have a distortion signature. And maybe horns too. Our ear-brain can decode a consistent distortion pattern.

So, a three way non horn can be semi okay. And a three way horn is very good. But not so well when the system is a mix of direct radiator in the bass and the treble.

- - -

There is one thing which is interesting about your post. It is that you can listen at low levels. This implies that your room has a low noise floor. It makes me think your ears can detect the low level information which was encoded into the recordings many years ago.

Best,

Gil

[NOSValves]

I started out with Heresy's and then moved on to Lascala's where I most likely will never venture away from completely. One thing you have to keep in mind when switching is that if any weakness currently exists in your upstream components or source material they will be more prevalent on the Lascala's with its increase efficiency and force you to start tweaking. I enjoy the tweaking aspoect so in the end I thinks it's well worth it!

That said I still think properly setup Heresy's are an amazing speaker! I'll never sell mine.

Craig

[NOSValves]

I really love the type A's I got from Bob Crites (BEC) here on the forum. My LS were new 2005 with the fancy and expensive AL-4 networks, but the A's sounded so superior the decision to swap took all of 3 seconds. There are a few folks in the forum that make various networks to be considered. For low listening levels I find the A's are very nice. I'm sure others will provide their thoughts about what they have done as well.

I am very interested in reading your impressions of your LS as your preferences and habits sound like they make you a perfect candidate for their features.

The type A is indeed probably one of the best for low level listening. Crank the VC a few notches and they become the worst networks to listen too pretty darn fast. It's kind of strange really.

Craig

[Mallette]

Hi, Gil! How's it going?

"It makes me think your ears can detect the low level information which was encoded into the recordings many years ago."

Specifically what type of low level info are you speaking of?

It was postulated 20 or more years ago that acoustic recordings would someday be analyzed and accurate stereo be extracted from them. This is due to them being TRUE direct-to-disc recordings with phase and dynamic information directly related to the distance from the horn of the original players. This is NOT true of electrical recordings done with a single microphone where this information is lost.

I found that I get a sense of where players on these recordings were standing or sitting through brain processing...though, of course, it could be imagination. In any event, a well recorded acoustic record can be an extraordinary time trip and beats a straight wire with gain by eliminating the wire! As to horns for listening, bear in mind these were recorded into a horn and played back through a horn originallly...certainly seems appropriate.

Dave

[WMcD]

Hi Dave.

BTW, I kick myself for not having more time to spend with you when I visited your house in Flower Mound (?). Congrats on the new location.

Again I have limited experience with old recordings, myself.

Some years ago I bought a used pair of Forte II for the office. I've told the story of bringing them back to Chicago from Milwaukee on Amtrak, on a blustery Saturday. The last leg with a hand truck over the Chicago River bridge at Adams was really something.

I tried one with a table radio. This is a bit of an inside joke from the first Pilgrimage. It was quite astonishing to listen to old time radio (Those were the Days) which then was on WNIB (now converted to rock). The next day I bought a Sony mini system and used that little system. Again an ear opener to hear what was on NPR.

I think I had been thinking that old audio recordings were of such poor quality that it was not worth using a good system and even that a band limited system might be better. But that is not true.

I know it is generally said that good systems bring out the best in good recordings and also show up problems in bad recordings. My thought is a bit of twist on that.

Old electrical recordings (and even direct to disk) typically do have at least noise and other problems like resonances. (Is it the microphones? There is something "off" with many.) Let me call that grung.

I would think that the grung causes a masking on poor speaker systems The grung is distorted and masks the good stuff. So we're better off with clean grung and clean signals.

Somewhat OT. There was a review of an old, venerable, Collins, ham receiver in QST about a year ago. Essentially, the very fine design of the entire super-het system (they all use this system) was credited with maintaining phase relations. This allowed one to hear the signal buried under the general interference. That is not quite the same as my clean grunge theory, but could be close to your theory.

If anyone is interested, Those Were the Days can now be found on WDCB on Saturday afternoons. It is on the Internet. Also, WFMT Chicago, and probably others, has From the Recording Horn. WFMT wants a subscription on the Internet. Maybe someone else on the Internet carries the program.

Best,

Gil

[Mallette]

There were great recordings, and there were poor recordings just like today. In the electronics side I think most here would agree that the finest VT circuits from the 30's and 40's were nothing to sneeze at. As to mikes, my 1936 RCA ribbon is still considered one of the finest ever designed. That leaves only the medium. There is certainly inherent noise in the old materials, but in pristine condition it can be a non-issue. There was certainly a learning curve for the engineers in early electrical converting from acoustic as steep as that experienced by analog engineers going digital...but, they got through it.

I do not overstate when I say I have 78's that are superior in listening experience to many CD's. I go where the music is, even back in time.

BTW, in the 30's class A lines were 50-15k. I've read reports of listeners to live concerts at the time that suggest they could be awesome. Of course, few had the high end recievers to appreciate this (or speakers), but 40+ tube Scott's and McMurdo were built that would not sound shabby today.

Dave

[Old78s]

Please hush now, Mr. Mallette. It would be a disaster if audiophiles became interested in 78s. My bank account would vaporize instantly. Pre-war 78 prices are already starting to shoot through the roof, and since I moved to the West Coast it's nearly impossible to find lucky bargains at the junk shops.

Some of the electrically recorded 78s have truly amazing sound. I always wondered if they used some sort of special microphone that made everything sound so great. Even before 1936 (the date of the RCA ribbon mic you mention) there were some electrical Okehs from the late 1920s that had phenomenal sound quality the exceeds any CD or most LPs. A musician / electrical engineer friend of mine speculated that they were using a special source of high quality carbon in the mics...? I don't know much about mics but I am very curious about this whole thing.