Heresey II vs Chorus I

[Erik Mandaville]

"You however want to go off talking about the emotional response to that physical process."

No, I didn't want to go off anywhere, including discussing emotional response. This is the problem, I think. What I was talking about had to do with the brain processing signals perceived by the ear. The emotional aspect has nothing to do with that -- though later on it might.

Another way of looking at it: An ear in isolation is useless. It needs the brain to process the information it gathers in order to give it meaning -- and I'm not talking about poetic or emotional meaning, I'm talking about the things that have to be in place between the ear and the brain in order for us to perceive sounds as language, music, whatever it may be. That process is essentially the same for everyone, but the health or acuity of those structures and organ may not be. More than that, though, what one person may perceive as 'accurate' reproduction can't be used as the same yardstick for another person.

The following amp is now connected to our Klipschorns. If you're using an SS Crown, it's not the right amp to use. I find usual solid state contraptions very brittle and unmusical. I've heard the difference and know very well what I have is better. You need to get the same amp.

[Marvel]

Gosh Erik, I thought those were my doggies in the picture. How do you like them? I have been more than pleased with my pair. I haven't done a thing to them but turn them on and listen.

Bruce

[Morton]

This Is facinating. I think what we have here is the engineers vs the religionists. I personally find listening to music a religous experience. There are farther out places in the human consciousness that can perceive sound without any material induction. (Later on that one.) All our experiences are stimuli. Better equipment can produce an agreed upon better sound but the experience is definitely subjective. Just ask my sisters who listened to the Beatles through 5" transistor radios. For those of us who love the music and the sound of the "Sound", well, what better than a pair of Klipsch's and a tube amp. IMHO

Bob

[oldbuckster]

what better than a pair of Klipsch and a tube amp..you ask.....answer....LIVE MUSIC that's what..............EH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jbsl]

DrWho:

oldbuckster:

It is simple...you can't tell someone what they hear....

Yes you can.

You just can't tell someone what they prefer.

No you can not tell someone what they hear. You can tell them all the tech specs but not what they actually hear for themselves because you have no way of knowing that.

You can tell me how low the bass goes, 45hz etc or how hight the treble goes in tech terms. You can tell me how many dbs at this many watts, etc, etc but that does not mean I can hear it.

Everyones ability to hear is different due to genetics, environment, physical injuries, etc. You can take 5 people in a room with a system and all of them thinks itsounds great but that does not mean they all hear the same frequencys, tones, etc.

I prefer not to walk into a small club with the band already playing a loud song, why? I was on the swim team from 6-15 years old and I had soo many ear infections I get a ringing in my right ear in the above situation. So is my prefrence emotional or phyical in nature or both?

I can understand using equpment that gives all the TEch data if you are designing equipment and testing equipment but in the end would you go just by the tech data or how expensive the parts are or what you hear?

Now your ears and the tech data might agree 100%. Then I come along and my ears don't like the way it sounds and I don't speak or read Techese so I don't care about the Tech side.

What if a person can not hear bass below 50 hz? Sure they could feel it but not hear it. Would the Chorus be the better choice? Maybe, maybe not. RJMO(Remember Just My Opinion ) in most cases I think the Chorus would be the better sounding speaker.

I'm not bashing people who enjoy the Tech side of the business if it makes the music more enjoyable then go for it!

I'm saying is you have no way of actually knowing what another person hears.

[Erik Mandaville]

Bruce:

True enough, they look similar. When I got mine, we went back-and-forth about whether to go the walnut or bird's eye maple route, but you can see the choice. They are similar looking. I have an extra hole in the top plate of mine when I was using them with a volume control, which then became the BNC input, then 5 volt entrance for running 300Bs. When I was working on some of those changes, I also paralleled the sections of the 6SN7s for hoped for slightly lower noise and possibly improved coupling between stages, and I really, really like the way it sounds. But, as I remember you have Jensen interstage caps and Kiwami resistors (which Thom Mackris liked), and I changed mine to, ahem, inexpensive Orange Drops. I liked them better than either the Jensens or the Hovlands, which confirms that I am not an audiophile. I also got mine just after the change from MQ iron to Electra-Print, but they both sound good to me.

I liked the 300Bs Jim Tidwell gave me so much, I've just ordered some 5 volt filament transformers I'm going to install next week. I was using an outboard 5 volt regulated DC supply, which was actually extremely quiet. In the interest in maintaining a more classical circuit, though, I'm going to use AC filaments.

Wondeful amps, that I liked more after the changes in the input driver stages, which, to me sound very similar to the 5687 -- maybe not quite as quick and open, though. For 95% of what we listen to, they are more than adequate. For hi-res SACD, I could have sworn I heard both the Moondogs and Moth clip a bit. Maybe 300Bs will bump up the headroom just a notch.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

For the next few weeks, though, the Moondogs are going to be used on our downstairs system with my 6SN7 preamp. They were incredible with the 16 ohm Heresies, and the setup is really nice looking with a new tile floor (but, unfortunately, some new room issues and excessive echo with the carpet now gone). I know I'm going to have to work on that, because sonics are probably not going to be able to keep pace with room decor.

Erik

[J M O N]

Erik is right here folks. I'm just not sure everyone is understanding his point. In the case of the Geo Metro vs. the Ferrari, the Ferrari certainly has better characteristics than the Geo, but that doesn't mean the Geo doesn't have some characteristics better than the Ferrari. If given the choice, and price being the same, don't think that 100% of the population is going to pick the Ferrari. Not everyone wants a fast car. Some will prefer the ease of getting into and out of the Geo, the trunk space, the ability to carry more people, the better gas mileage, etc., if this is something they will actually have to live with. Personal preference is the key here and there is no "right" answer for everybody. It's the reason there isn't a "best" speaker or component for that matter.

[theplummer]

Erik is right here folks. I'm just not sure everyone is understanding his point. In the case of the Geo Metro vs. the Ferrari, the Ferrari certainly has better characteristics than the Geo, but that doesn't mean the Geo doesn't have some characteristics better than the Ferrari. If given the choice, and price being the same, don't think that 100% of the population is going to pick the Ferrari. Not everyone wants a fast car. Some will prefer the ease of getting into and out of the Geo, the trunk space, the ability to carry more people, the better gas mileage, etc., if this is something they will actually have to live with. Personal preference is the key here and there is no "right" answer for everybody. It's the reason there isn't a "best" speaker or component for that matter.

I just want to quote Fred Klipsch at the Pilgrimage. "We (Klipsch) build High Performance speakers........NUF SAID.

If you want a GEO, go buy Bose or something else.

[SilverSport]

To paraphrase what I think theplummer is trying to say...I would rather sit in a Ferarri without gas (fini, insert joke here) than drive a Metro...silversport and theplummer...what are we...Superheroes??? ...sorry...too much caffeine and not enough sleep!..."to the mancave!"

Bill

[theplummer]

To paraphrase what I think the Plumber is trying to say...I would rather sit in a Ferarri without gas (fini, insert joke here) than drive a Metro...silversport and the Plumber...what are we...Superheroes??? ...sorry...too much caffeine and not enough sleep!..."to the mancave!"

Bill

Hey Silversport, get with it you spelled Plummer wrong......No wait, or did I?

[SilverSport]

ruh roh reorge...[:$]...corrections made!...[8-|]

Bill

[J M O N]

Erik is right here folks. I'm just not sure everyone is understanding his point. In the case of the Geo Metro vs. the Ferrari, the Ferrari certainly has better characteristics than the Geo, but that doesn't mean the Geo doesn't have some characteristics better than the Ferrari. If given the choice, and price being the same, don't think that 100% of the population is going to pick the Ferrari. Not everyone wants a fast car. Some will prefer the ease of getting into and out of the Geo, the trunk space, the ability to carry more people, the better gas mileage, etc., if this is something they will actually have to live with. Personal preference is the key here and there is no "right" answer for everybody. It's the reason there isn't a "best" speaker or component for that matter.

I just want to quote Fred Klipsch at the Pilgrimage. "We (Klipsch) build High Performance speakers........NUF SAID.

If you want a GEO, go buy Bose or something else.

Looks like you missed the point too.

[theplummer]

Erik is right here folks. I'm just not sure everyone is understanding his point. In the case of the Geo Metro vs. the Ferrari, the Ferrari certainly has better characteristics than the Geo, but that doesn't mean the Geo doesn't have some characteristics better than the Ferrari. If given the choice, and price being the same, don't think that 100% of the population is going to pick the Ferrari. Not everyone wants a fast car. Some will prefer the ease of getting into and out of the Geo, the trunk space, the ability to carry more people, the better gas mileage, etc., if this is something they will actually have to live with. Personal preference is the key here and there is no "right" answer for everybody. It's the reason there isn't a "best" speaker or component for that matter.

I just want to quote Fred Klipsch at the Pilgrimage. "We (Klipsch) build High Performance speakers........NUF SAID.

If you want a GEO, go buy Bose or something else.

Looks like you missed the point too.

You know, absolutely NONE of this makes any sense to me. I just cannot understand why anyone would want to compromise performance (efficiency) for anything else other than price. And what really chapps me here is, comparatively speaking, Klipsch flat out outperforms any other product, in that particular price point, than any other speaker I've ever seen.

For example, I have a race boat, It's not really a race boat (Its a 20' 6 passenger bow rider), but it runs 98MPH. How does it do that?, it's very efficient at what it does, wich is, slide across the water, with a very low coefficient of drag. Now that does not mean that I have to drive it at full throttle every time I climb into it, (even though I do most of the time), I still pull skiers at 28mph, and still cruise at 35mph, but I can also drive it to the winery that we like to go to 35miles away and get there at a cruising speed of 70mph, I get 3miles to the gallon at that speed, (That happens to be VERY fuel efficient for a boat of its class).

So I ask again, Why would you want a speaker that does not perform at its absolute BEST, especially when it's cheaper than it's competition in that same price range.

This thread got WAY off topic. The original question was Which is a better performer, the Chorus or Heresy. I'll change my answer slightly to say, In Each of their specific price points, they are better than any other speaker than I have found on the market, compared to each other though, the Chorus outperforms the Heresy hands down.

And I'll say it again, The whole idea behind sound reproduction is to reproduce that sound as close to the original intended sound as possible. I personally think horns do that quite nicely. It doesn't matter how my ear hears it and brain processes it, because if I were hearing it live, I'd have the SAME emotion as if I hear it CORRECTLY reproduced through another media.

EXAMPLE. Did you know what a French Horn Sounded like before you ever heard it, NO, you had to either see it being played and associate the sound, or someone told you what that sound was when you were being presented with it. That's how your brain made the association to that sound. Its the same with colors. When your children ask you what color is the sky, If you told them the sky was RED, they'd believe you and make the link in their brains, that's why ACCURATE sound reproduction is so important, it doesn't mean that the amp has to be at full throttle to enjoy it, I think that's what Mr. Fred Klipsch was refereing to.

I hope this clarifies my point of view.

[oldbuckster]

This thread got off track the minute one person tries to tell another person what they are hearing........You can't tell a person what they hear......I thought it was a very simple question, Which do you prefer H2's or Chorus 1 ? There is no right or wrong answer......

[Erik Mandaville]

"And I'll say it again, The whole idea behind sound reproduction is to reproduce that sound as close to the original intended sound as possible. I personally think horns do that quite nicely."

Two points stand out here:

1) How can you, away from the recording studio in terms of both time and location, know if the reproduced sound is close or faithful to the "original intended sound" without knowing what the original sounded like? Furthermore, how can you have any idea of the original intent unless that was made known to you? Even if it had, does that necessarily mean that you as a different individual will perceive the original in the same way the recording engineer had? I've heard different recordings of the same pieces of music that were significantly different from one another, both in terms of the interpretation by the artist/performer playing the music, as well as in terms of the quality of the recording.

2) I absolutely respect your opinion that horns (can) provide a great sense of immediacy and presence (subjective terms), but there are some people who think horn loaded designs are inherently inaccurate. As to whether they come close to the original intended sound (to use your description) is rather difficult to know, IMO. In order for that to be understood, one would have to have a very clear understanding and first-hand experience with the quaility of the original sound, but even then we are subject to the ambiguity of our own acoustic memory.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

The car analogy helps:

I once met a guy at a local coffee place (guess the name!), who had taken his Ferrari out for a drive. Beautiful car! Italian design and workmanship is really amazing, but not surprising considering its history.

I asked him how he liked it, and he explained that it was insanely responsive, and a blast to drive but...............that it was also, in his words, a 'real PITA' to own. The AC was always breaking down, small mechanical problems, etc. He got his latte' and as he left said 'I'd probably be better off in a Honda Civic!'

Erik

edit: Hopefully the problems were unique to his vehicle, since he was not the first owner. I would think/hope that such finely built and expensive automobiles would have very good maintenance expectations. The two Ferraris (ies -- sp?) we have (one for Saturday and one for Sunday) seem to be just fine!

[Erik Mandaville]

theplummer:

""We (Klipsch) build High Performance speakers........NUF SAID."

While I would tend to agree with that, and with all due respect to the owner of that statement, I would, for myself, want to know what 'High Performance' means. High performance in what sense? When it comes down to personal preference and what for some is a considerable investment, that statement holds true for many of us (me included), but it would be a less than adequate foundation (again, for me) on which to base a purchase. I would think that such positive thinking and commentary would be common to most company representatives, whether associated with a firm that builds audio equipment or makes dishwashing detergent.

Again, we greatly enjoy our Klipschorns and Heresies, and it is in fact my opinion that they fit the above description.

Erik

[DrWho]

I mentioned differences in how people hear....

The differences between different people absolutely do not matter. The physical manner in which a single person listens is always constant, regardless of the source of the sound (except for cases that induce hearing damage). Come back when you learn how to read.

[theplummer]

"And I'll say it again, The whole idea behind sound reproduction is to reproduce that sound as close to the original intended sound as possible. I personally think horns do that quite nicely."

Two points stand out here:

1) How can you, away from the recording studio in terms of both time and location, know if the reproduced sound is close or faithful to the "original intended sound" without knowing what the original sounded like? Furthermore, how can you have any idea of the original intent unless that was made known to you? Even if it had, does that necessarily mean that you as a different individual will perceive the original in the same way the recording engineer had? I've heard different recordings of the same pieces of music that were significantly different from one another, both in terms of the interpretation by the artist/performer playing the music, as well as in terms of the quality of the recording.

2) I absolutely respect your opinion that horns (can) provide a great sense of immediacy and presence (subjective terms), but there are some people who think horn loaded designs are inherently inaccurate. As to whether they come close to the original intended sound (to use your description) is rather difficult to know, IMO. In order for that to be understood, one would have to have a very clear understanding and first-hand experience with the quaility of the original sound, but even then we are subject to the ambiguity of our own acoustic memory.

Erik

To answer your question #1. That's easy. That's why the R&D people test speakers in their Anechoic chamber. It's thier goal to produce a speaker that is capable of faithfully re-producing the sounds that their signal generators input. Input a 200Hz signal then capture it after the signal generates it, measure the difference, tweak the design until it's as close as possible, then you know the speaker is accurate. Now how it reacts in your listening environment, is probably different, but that's not the designer's problem.

My answer to #2 is as follows. Anyone who has said that horns are inaccurate to me have been the kind of person who really doesn't know or care what they really like to hear, but rather dollar motivated. What I mean by this is Their either salesmen trying to up sell me to a more expensive piece of crap or was a person who bought the more expensive piece of crap just to brag about how much they spent. They usually have absolutely no Idea what they have purchased or why. Ask them a few questions about their electronic purchases and your going to get the same sales pitch that their salesman spewed at them when they made their purchase.