paully Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 That's good. I don't mind being taken as smarmy but don't want to come off as a conceited $%$##. My biggest problem will probably end up being the room. Living room with some reflective surfaces that is not mine to just totally redecorate. I will have to construct some mobile treatements that I can easily put up and take down when I get to that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 As much as I like my Scott, I find SS is still turn on, use, turn off....much easier for short listening sessions. One or Two albums, I won't use the Tubes. Short sessions on Tubes does more harm than good.................Nice to have a choice though........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paully Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 While I totally agree, I often find I don't bother to turn on music if I only have 15 minutes because of the start-up stress though lately I have gotten over that, I highly recommend putting in a thermistor into your Scott. I am now putting one into all of my gear. Cheap at Digikey (search for Cl-90 or Cl-80) and well worth the money. They really save tube amps from the inrush stress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschfoot Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Speaking of which, what happened to that weird paulwklipsch.com site(ior something like that)? You know, the one with all the great archive photos of just about every, if not EVERY model the PWK produced. That was some nice history. Was it put up (and taken down) by a family member? As far as what amp he favored, I think you could look at http://www.klipsch.com/news-center/founder-biography/default.aspx to see his personal(?) fave at, at least, one point of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Accurate in reproduction, but lacking in warmth. Wouldn't the conclusion of that statement be that the source material is at fault - not the amp? Basically, if the amp is accurate, then the only way for the amp to lack warmth is for the input to also be lacking warmth??? That's not to imply that compensating for the source material is a bad thing, but I think the difference in perspective might change how one approaches a solution. Do we try to compensate in the amp-speaker interface where the greatest amount of distortion is occuring, or do we move to say the preamp-amp interface where we don't have as much distortion to worry about? Or how bout the player itself? Or how about learning to appreciate the shortcomings of the source material and accepting a narrower range of music to listen to? It seems PWK's approach was to build up the most accurate system and then make his own recordings that didn't lack any of the warmth, depth, or whatever else we desire in our music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Accurate in reproduction, but lacking in warmth. Wouldn't the conclusion of that statement be that the source material is at fault - not the amp? Basically, if the amp is accurate, then the only way for the amp to lack warmth is for the input to also be lacking warmth??? That's not to imply that compensating for the source material is a bad thing, but I think the difference in perspective might change how one approaches a solution. Do we try to compensate in the amp-speaker interface where the greatest amount of distortion is occuring, or do we move to say the preamp-amp interface where we don't have as much distortion to worry about? Or how bout the player itself? Or how about learning to appreciate the shortcomings of the source material and accepting a narrower range of music to listen to? It seems PWK's approach was to build up the most accurate system and then make his own recordings that didn't lack any of the warmth, depth, or whatever else we desire in our music. Precisely. That would be my take on it as well. Those recordings of his sounded just wonderful. All I can say is Paul was right. His was the best I heard. I also attribute it to the false corners and the fact they the 3-channel array was at least 4 feet from the bay window, which eliminated the early reflections that we suffer from in small rooms. His living room was huge. So the direct to reverberant ratio was high, letting me hear the original ambience in the recordings, which were all live performances with orchestra, his ultimate sound reference. I belive PWK and Valerie attended symphonies and operas until the very end, but I don't know that for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Isn't PWK's favorite amp a different topic than what amp he designed his speakers around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 I find it highly unlikely that PWK designed his speakers "around" an amp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 USPTO 2612558 2A3 amp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 OK................I guess you just design a speaker with no regard as what to power them with? So when claims are made that PWK designed his speakers for Tubes, that's wrong, an inaccurate statement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 More correctly, PWK designed his Khorn when there were only tubes for amplification. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 That's kinda' what I thought...................Thanx !!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 OK................I guess you just design a speaker with no regard as what to power them with? So when claims are made that PWK designed his speakers for Tubes, that's wrong, an inaccurate statement? In engineering world, you sit down and define what would constitute perfection for each device in the entire chain. The idea being that engineers understand that we can never build a perfect device, but we can build devices that don't become obsolete when other devices in the chain are improved. So when a speaker engineer sits down to create a speaker, he is going to do it in such a manner that assumes perfect amplification might be used. That which constitutes perfection in an amplifier (or any device) is certainly a debatable topic, but a good engineer is always going to be working within a framework of some kind of defined perfection. A speaker designed within that chosen framework of perfection should then be expected to perform its best when used with other devices that best fit the rest of the framework. To look at it another way, you don't design anything to work its best when mated with something of known inferior performance. You want to build a speaker that will sound its best when the best possible amplifier is used - not a speaker that will sound worse with a better amplifier. From another perspective, you can't expect amplifier engineers to improve their designs until better speakers are built to realize the benefits. Ultimately, the only variable we usually don't have control over is the quality of the recordings of the music we want to listen to and enjoy...but we can't expect that quality to improve without first creating better sound systems to reproduce that music. That usually means a period of less enjoyment because a higher resolution system is going to reveal more flaws. There seems to be a fairly common passion on the forum that Klipsch speakers are some of the best. When someone new comes along with negative feelings towards Klipsch speakers, we all jump forth proclaiming the importance of better source material and amplification. The crazy thing I observe is that many people choose when to apply this logic. More revealing speakers need a more revealing amp which means a more revealing preamp which ultimately means better source material. Somewhere along the chain too many audiophiles decide that the source material is 'good' (likely because they enjoy the music) and will then try to color the sound in ways that makes it more palatable. It's fine to color the sound, but you can't let that redefine what constitutes a perfect preamp or perfect amp or perfect speaker. It is merely a compensation for imperfect source material. So while I'm aware that most audiophiles are only concerned with enjoying music and don't care how perfect/accurate something is, I would argue that the future of high-fidelity recorded music (and ultimately a higher level of enjoyment) relies on the persuit of a defined perfection. If we not only accept, but embrace and defend the mediocracy of current technology, then we have hit a dead-end and will not enjoy recorded music on a higher level. If that's the case, then screw home audio and give me only live music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 WOW!...and I thought the engineer just drove the train...[] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 USPTO 2612558 2A3 amp How about patent 4,237,340 (1978) "Crossover network for optimizing efficiency and improving response of loudspeaker system" -- where PWK made use of solid state's ability to double its output at four ohms to lift the falling response at the crossover points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 lol, here you go: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 USPTO 2612558 2A3 amp How about patent 4,237,340 (1978) "Crossover network for optimizing efficiency and improving response of loudspeaker system" -- where PWK made use of solid state's ability to double its output at four ohms to lift the falling response at the crossover points? indeed. PWK however included some positive feedback with the results of Pat 2612558 and his system, (Fig. 1 and 2 contrasts PP and SE) . . guessing this worked nicely with the Brook 12A3-K1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomer9911 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Actually, from pics I have seen(even Klipsch trips) and word on this site...they powered my Khorns, an American Compnay.... A D C O M...solid state.. US built...sort of like his speakers during that time eh... [:#] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.