Heresey II vs Chorus I

[DrWho]

I don't care how people "respond" to anything. The fact of the matter is that the physical process of hearing for any individual doesn't change.

[HarryO]

"I am at 8 pairs of Klipsch , down from 9. I sold a pair of black KG4's. I like the look of wood grain better. I don't think I'm done yet. Still have the Lascalla's, Belle's, Klipschorn's, and now damn it, the Jub's to get."

It's a good thing the Jubs were black. Bunch of potential there. A nice deep rich grained wood veneer might have put a dent in the "Rainy Day" jar.

For me, "There's no substitution for Cubic Inches. bigger is better with Klipsch". I have or have had most besides the Jubs. Of course equipment matching is just one aspect and everyone has different wants from their speakers. I look at the sound as a personal want or passion. I'm not good in putting it on paper. I tend to trust my ears and feelings on what I like or don't. That's what listening is about to me. How I perceive the sound and a bunch of the fun is matching it all up. To me the numbers put out are ideal for marketing purposes. If a salesperson can say it, it must be true? Granted for R&D they're a must. For my purchasing or listening, well that's a different tune.

Harry

[tom b. 57]

"I am at 8 pairs of Klipsch , down from 9. I sold a pair of black KG4's. I like the look of wood grain better. I don't think I'm done yet. Still have the Lascalla's, Belle's, Klipschorn's, and now damn it, the Jub's to get."

It's a good thing the Jubs were black. Bunch of potential there. A nice deep rich grained wood veneer might have put a dent in the "Rainy Day" jar.

So true. "Rainy Day Jar " is recouperating at the moment.

[Erik Mandaville]

Whether you care or not is again beside the point. You are wrong, the physical process of hearing can be and very often is different from one person to the next. We all have the same hearing structures, but the physiological aspect of hearing is meaningless without the subsequent processing -- carried out by a different organ.

Maybe this analogy will make things easier to understand: Dynamic drivers operate by way of essentially the same principles, using essentially the same driver components -- voice coil, suspension, magnet, cone, pole piece, etc. However, all dynamic drivers sound alike. More to the point, some people, though they possess the anatomy for hearing, are very unfortunately not able to carry out that process -- either completely or in part.

More simply still: We all have olfactory capability, the responsible 'component' for which resides as a roughly triangular and perpendicular protrusion just beneath our eyes. That the sense of smell is common to most people necessarily mean that we all like the fragrance and odor of the same things? Again, the physical ACT of hearing in the absence of adequate subsequent processing means nothing.

Eyes: Our eyes work essentially the same way, but just as some people have hearing anomolies that require some sort of correction by way of reamplification, so do some need to wear corrective lenses. However and moreover, that people see basically the same way has zero to do with a preference for viewed object/things -- that has to do with the processing and personal aesthetic sensibility.

Ears are no different, and there is no standardized pair of ears to which I or any of us should pay homage. We have our own ears and mind to please, which is why it's nice that Klipsch, to use one example, has created a great number of different sorts of loudspeakers.

So, the Chorus stomps the Heresy. Maybe that's true for some, but it may not be for everyone.

Clear?

Erik

[oldbuckster]

Thanks Eric, at first I thought it was just me.....You explain it much better than I would....You cannot tell another person what they hear !!

[meagain]

But with many things that have "specs" like gadgets, cars, gear - there is a factual side to what's better. It can be shown, proven, demonstrated. Is an Acura RL better than a Chevy Aveo? Yes. Factually. It 'should' give a better driving experience as well as comforts. Because it's factually better all the way around. Could one have more fun driving the Aveo over the RL? Sure. Personal opinion/bent. But if one is asking whether or not one is better than the other, surely the answer would be the RL.

I cannot imagine a Heresey besting a Chorus myself. Personally or factually.

[flannj]

Whether you care or not is again beside the point. You are wrong, the physical process of hearing can be and very often is different from one person to the next. We all have the same hearing structures, but the physiological aspect of hearing is meaningless without the subsequent processing -- carried out by a different organ.

Maybe this analogy will make things easier to understand: Dynamic drivers operate by way of essentially the same principles, using essentially the same driver components -- voice coil, suspension, magnet, cone, pole piece, etc. However, all dynamic drivers sound alike. More to the point, some people, though they possess the anatomy for hearing, are very unfortunately not able to carry out that process -- either completely or in part.

More simply still: We all have olfactory capability, the responsible 'component' for which resides as a roughly triangular and perpendicular protrusion just beneath our eyes. That the sense of smell is common to most people necessarily mean that we all like the fragrance and odor of the same things? Again, the physical ACT of hearing in the absence of adequate subsequent processing means nothing.

Eyes: Our eyes work essentially the same way, but just as some people have hearing anomolies that require some sort of correction by way of reamplification, so do some need to wear corrective lenses. However and moreover, that people see basically the same way has zero to do with a preference for viewed object/things -- that has to do with the processing and personal aesthetic sensibility.

Ears are no different, and there is no standardized pair of ears to which I or any of us should pay homage. We have our own ears and mind to please, which is why it's nice that Klipsch, to use one example, has created a great number of different sorts of loudspeakers.

So, the Chorus stomps the Heresy. Maybe that's true for some, but it may not be for everyone.

Clear?

Erik

For some reason I think Don Mossi would agree with you.

[DrWho]

Clear?

You obviously have no clue what I'm referring to and are going off on red herring tangents.

A single individual has a single physical process that we call hearing.

Whether listening to a speaker or a live sound, that physical process

remains constant. Ignore the emotional response to the sound for a

minute and consider the process of comparing the sound coming from a

speaker to the sound of the real instruments. The physical process is

absolutely the same. When comparing the speaker to the live sound, the

actual process of our hearing gets cancelled out. In other words, the

non linearities of our physical process do not matter when doing

comparisons. This is science 101. Your inability to accept this reality

screams that you don't understand the fundamentals principals afforded

us by logic.

You however want to go off talking about the emotional response to that

physical process. It is absolutely useless to use the emotional

response as a measuring stick for performance. Why? Because our

emotions can change even without the hearing process. Heck, I guarantee

I can play you two different things, but prep your emotions in such a

way that you will consider one infinitely better than the other. I do

it all the time with emotional wackos like yourself.

Meagain says it perfectly....you are ALWAYS trying to argue that a Geo

Metro can be considered as good as a Ferrari simply because you can

find ways to have fun in the Metro. Have fun in your metro, but don't

tell the guy in the ferrari that he's having less fun...

My apologies for being a butt head, but it is precisely your kind of

reasoning

that is responsible for so much of the crap in the audio industry. Crap

that is making the high-end world a thing of the past. You have

absolutely no clue the ramifications of your conclusions.

[HudsonValleyNoah]

um... nice truck...

[oldbuckster]

That is a Great base-ball card.............got anymore?

[theplummer]

To put it simply, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?". duplication of the original sound is the goal here. It doesn't matter what the listener hears. I'm sure we all perceive the same sound differently, that's just the way our brains are. The goal is a quantifiable, measurable, signal that is as close to the original as possible, So each of our brains are "fooled" into thinking we are hearing it "live".

[Duke Spinner]

To put it simply, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?". duplication of the original sound is the goal here. I.

You .... must be kidding ....

most current recordings are so electronically removed from thier origins ...

As to be Un-Reproduceable .. without all the electronic's

[Islander]

Whether you care or not is again beside the point. You are wrong, the physical process of hearing can be and very often is different from one person to the next. We all have the same hearing structures, but the physiological aspect of hearing is meaningless without the subsequent processing -- carried out by a different organ.

Maybe this analogy will make things easier to understand: Dynamic drivers operate by way of essentially the same principles, using essentially the same driver components -- voice coil, suspension, magnet, cone, pole piece, etc. However, all dynamic drivers sound alike. More to the point, some people, though they possess the anatomy for hearing, are very unfortunately not able to carry out that process -- either completely or in part.

More simply still: We all have olfactory capability, the responsible 'component' for which resides as a roughly triangular and perpendicular protrusion just beneath our eyes. That the sense of smell is common to most people necessarily mean that we all like the fragrance and odor of the same things? Again, the physical ACT of hearing in the absence of adequate subsequent processing means nothing.

Eyes: Our eyes work essentially the same way, but just as some people have hearing anomolies that require some sort of correction by way of reamplification, so do some need to wear corrective lenses. However and moreover, that people see basically the same way has zero to do with a preference for viewed object/things -- that has to do with the processing and personal aesthetic sensibility.

Ears are no different, and there is no standardized pair of ears to which I or any of us should pay homage. We have our own ears and mind to please, which is why it's nice that Klipsch, to use one example, has created a great number of different sorts of loudspeakers.

So, the Chorus stomps the Heresy. Maybe that's true for some, but it may not be for everyone.

Clear?

Erik

For some reason I think Don Mossi would agree with you.

Is Don Mossi related to Prince Charles? There's something similar about those sail-like appendages...

[theplummer]

To put it simply, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?". duplication of the original sound is the goal here. I.

You .... must be kidding ....

most current recordings are so electronically removed from thier origins ...

As to be Un-Reproduceable .. without all the electronic's

Duke, that may be so, but when the sound engineer mixes the cut for final printing and distribution, he, or she, has a particular sound that they want to convey. That's kinda their "Art". It's your equipment's job to accurately re-produce that sound, wether its a live cut, or one that has been heavily modified. I akin that to taking a picture of a painting, but your camera ads or changes the colors or shapes. That's why I prefer Klipsch. Typically a saxaphone sounds like a saxaphone, not one that has been colorized by the equipment reproducing it.

[Duke Spinner]

To put it simply, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?". duplication of the original sound is the goal here. I.

You .... must be kidding ....

most current recordings are so electronically removed from thier origins ...

As to be Un-Reproduceable .. without all the electronic's

, not one that has been colorized by the equipment reproducing it.

how would you know ...???

I worked inna studio 10 years ...

the " Recording' ...

has nothin' to do with the Recording ...

[Erik Mandaville]

"Ignore the emotional response to the sound for a minute and consider the process of comparing the sound coming from a speaker to the sound of the real instruments. "

Sorry, you're wrong. I never mentioned emotional response. I mentioned differences in how people hear. If you don't care about that, that's unfortunate for you, because it's among the very more important aspects in selecting equipment. Do you base what you listen to in the way of equipment in terms of what others think you should use, or would you prefer to use what sounds best to you? Accuracy is subjective and to a large degree dependent on the person involved. We could both go to a live performance, yet come away with different impressions based on our different value sets and objectives.

Lisa: Specs can be helpful, and they can also be very misleading. This is about personal choice, and nothing more. How one person perceives and processes sound may in fact lead them to a choice of speaker that may be different from you or someone else. Price is another one: cost can sometimes very little to do with how good a component sounds, one person to another. The cost of top-shelf parts in a compromised design do not do anything to make the design better, and in fact may make its shortcomings all the more obvious.

Nah, I'm not the one who doesn't have a clue, here, and the points I'm making are not tangents, they are exactly to the point.

Take care,

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

"But with many things that have "specs" like gadgets, cars, gear - there is a factual side to what's better. "

Yes, but only on an individual basis. When that perspective becomes lost, we start imposing our own beliefs and values (whatever they may be, not just audio) on other people. That's the part that doesn't sit quite right with me.

I know some who LOVE to drive old vintage cars. What they offer for them is not necessarily speed and great suspension (things specs about cars often mentiond), but something else that to those individuals is more valuable meaningful.

As with some people, listening to music is more about composition, phrasing, melody, and so forth, than it is how it's reproduced on electonic machines.

Erik

[theplummer]

To put it simply, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?". duplication of the original sound is the goal here. I.

You .... must be kidding ....

most current recordings are so electronically removed from thier origins ...

As to be Un-Reproduceable .. without all the electronic's

, not one that has been colorized by the equipment reproducing it.

how would you know ...???

I worked inna studio 10 years ...

the " Recording' ...

has nothin' to do with the Recording ...

Sooooo..... your saying that it's OK for a trumpet to sound like a french horn. I say, only if the sound engineer wanted it that way.

Every time I listen to Bose or the B&W speakers that my local Klipsch retailer is trying to cram down my throat, that's about what I hear. I DON'T LIKE IT. I have no clue what you are even talking about. The sound engineer is the artist. it's his job to produce the final product that goes to production. If you want to wear rose colored ear muffs, so be it.

The whole point I was trying to make is that as long as the reproduced sound is as close to the original intended recording, It doesn't matter what or how our ear, brain processing happens. If you listen to a live trumpet it sounds like a trumpet. The interpretation of that sound is your own very personal experience, but if that trumpet is being played through equipment that changes its sound in any way, you are no longer listening to the trumpet.

And Duke, I'm sorry I stepped on your little tootsies there, I did not know you were this world renowned expert, even though I have not a clue what your eluding to in your articulate 6 word sentences.

[Duke Spinner]

don't lick your fingers, before lunch, Plummer

payday's Friday ...

etc. .

ifn' ya get That ..old joke []

[theplummer]

don't lick your fingers, before lunch, Plummer

payday's Friday ...

etc. .

ifn' ya get That ..old joke []

You beat me to the punch, Duke. My next comment was going to be that for all I knew it was your job at the studio to freshen up the urinal cakes...............LOL. The way I always tell that one is, "What's the three things a Plumber has to know? 1. Payday's on Friday 2. S.H.I. XXX Rolls down hill. 3. Don't chew your fingernails. I do this as I'm chewin on em.