I must say

[ClaudeJ1]

that the Palladium P-39F's truly represent the highest pinnacle of evolution in the modern Klipsch line for the home. Every detail of speaker design has been refined to the nth degree. Trey had to kick me out of the room, but I got a full audition with Mac tubes of all my "test tunes" which are very revealing. They are smooth, powerful, micro-detailed, sub-terranean bass (no subwoofage needed for music). Plus they are the most gorgeous speaker there.

I was very skeptical, but seeing and hearing is believing. I thinnk everyone else was impressed also. I had to leave early, so I missed dinner and seeing the winner's face. Thanks to the Amy and everyone at Klipsch for your patience and dedication, above the call of duty and passion, it was a great time once again. This is only my second time, but I learned so much again this year.

Peace, Love, Beatles

[jwc]

You have a PM

[nu2toobs]

I agree, they sounded very nice indeed. I was fortunate enough to hear them with your test tracks also[] I was very impressed!!

[SilverSport]

Claude...but do they best your LaScala theater bass bin monsters???

Bill

[ClaudeJ1]

In looks, yes. In deeper bass, yes. In smoother response, yes. In depth of image, yes. In subtle ambience/phase coherence, yes. In efficiency, no, but so what? In transient repsonse, no, but still very good. In maximum SPL, no, but who cares? In low distortion, not sure (measurable), but both below threshold of audible detection. In low coloration, yes. In sound per cubic foot of space, yes.

Can't think of anything else right now.

[SilverSport]

WOW!!!...THAT is some HIGH praise!...nice talking to you at the Pilgrimage.

Bill

[colterphoto1]

In typical Klipsch style- very little power compression too, but I think the Khorn is a bit better in this particular aspect.

The transients of the Palladium are startling!

[Deang]

As nice as they sounded, I was a bit underwhelmed, especially considering the $20K asking price. No doubt, they're a stunning set of loudspeakers, but I actually preferred the bold majestic sound of the three channel Heritage setup. As I suspected, the Palladiums are much more forgiving in nature and will undoubtedly do more justice to mainstream recordings. OTOH, once the immersive quality of a large horn is experienced, everything else sounds a little, well, little.

[ClaudeJ1]

As nice as they sounded, I was a bit underwhelmed, especially considering the $20K asking price. No doubt, they're a stunning set of loudspeakers, but I actually preferred the bold majestic sound of the three channel Heritage setup. As I suspected, the Palladiums are much more forgiving in nature and will undoubtedly do more justice to mainstream recordings. OTOH, once the immersive quality of a large horn is experienced, everything else sounds a little, well, little.

I was also, the night before. The mushy bass I heard initially was in the program material. I just got done listning to the same program material on my LaScala/MWMs all-horn 2 channel setup. The impact, dynamics, detail, etc. of this setup (see my avatar) is splendid. It's not like I want to go out and get a bank loan to buy Palladiums and replace the Klisch stuff I already have.

But for those who make big money, 20 kilobucks for a pair of Palladiums plus associated electronics, is still a small amount compared to speakers costing 2-10 times as much and are probably not as good. Everything in engineering is a compromise, but it looks like Klipsch has made very few compromises with this speaker. It should serve to establish Klipsch in the "high end" of the market. No one can argue that it's shape and woodwork is like a fine piano or the finest of hand made furniture, with a modern look.

Meanwhile, those of us who don't mind big ole (or new) horns of any size, and aesthetics/WAF be damned, can share that campfire (myself included). We still have several means of owning any flavor of horn we like from the Klipsch home or theater line. There's a Klipsch product for everyone, even you Dean!! LOL.

[ClaudeJ1]

No doubt, they're a stunning set of loudspeakers, but I actually preferred the bold majestic sound of the three channel Heritage setup.

Well I had this exact bold, majestic sound of the 3-channel setup for 30 years until recently when I went with 5.1/2.1 from the same set of speaker on a 13.3 foot wall, so the center is only used for movies. I think my LaScalas on top of MWM's is superior to Khorns by a pretty good margin, in both bass definition as well as upper bass and mid, since I can aim the LaScalas precisely where I'm sitting. Plus the Khorns fired the bass out of the sides and not directly at you like the MWM's. I still say the Palladiums belong in the same quality league. The higher price tag is for the modern look for emotional buyers who have more to spend on speakers than you and I do.

I know that flat frequency response is in fourth place out of PWK's big four, but Palladiums do the other 3 just fine, PLUS do the 4th smoother than the Khorn/Belle setup as a pure transducer that only sacrifieces 6 db of efficiency in the process of being "pretty."

But hey, it ALL sounds good to me, especially the Jubilees with the 402/K-69 setup.

[LarryC]

As nice as they sounded, I was a bit underwhelmed, especially considering the $20K asking price. No doubt, they're a stunning set of loudspeakers, but I actually preferred the bold majestic sound of the three channel Heritage setup ... OTOH, once the immersive quality of a large horn is experienced, everything else sounds a little, well, little.

I had & have exactly the same reaction. The 3-channel 60ths and Belle were grand and best-in-show by a definite margin.

The P-39's were better filled out and smoother-sounding than the P-37s, as expected. Having spent some time with the P-37 + S/W + surrounds combination, I would have preferred a subwoofer with the P-39s.

[Added:] I neglected to say that the P-37 system had exceptional accuracy! String, woodwind, and brass tone quality were spot-on, making the classical sessions very easy and convincing (to me, anyway!). It's not easy getting all those things right. Dynamics and bass power were outstanding as well, with plenty of dramatic fortes and punch to carry our listeners along, just like the original audience I'm sure.

[ClaudeJ1]

The P-39's were better filled out and smoother-sounding than the P-37s, as expected. Having spent some time with the P-37 + S/W + surrounds combination, I would have preferred a subwoofer with the P-39s.

Ask a man from Vermont: "How's your wife?" to which, he would reply: "Compared to what?" (of course she would say the same about him, it's a Vermont thing, so I hear.)

Anyway, the point is, audio life, is like a beer taste test.......A vs. B. We are talking about some premium beers in all cases here, so it's really a matter of choice and the size of your mug.

After experiencing TRUE "subterranean" bass at IndyKlipschFan's home (from felllow wild Canuck, Michaels Hurd), proving once again that, short of pouring a 40 foot pair of concrete horns in your home's foundation, theres not substitute for kilowatts into huge 18" motors, with huge 18" passives, in a huge box whith room gain when doing direct radiator subs. That way, you can reproduce all of the sub bass info. (into the teens of hertz) that modern digital recordings from Hollywood can muster.

So, while I have to admit that after some really concentrated listening to the P39's (let's not forget all of the acoustically optimized rooms that are also part of the overall sound), they had some obvious positive attributes.

Yes, the 3-channel array was impressive, but I've been there, done that for 30 years, since I was 20 years old (without the benefit of digital time delay, but what's a few milliseconds among friends?). What I have now, with the huge MWM-s double bass horns (5 horns total per channel on a narrow wall) is partly dicated by the room. Yet, it's the best sound I've ever heard and I'm still improving it. Hey, it's MY beer mug, taste buds, and wallet, so there.

A good "Indianapolis Analogy" would be the "500" race. All the cars are fast, but the winner only does so by only a small margin realtive to the 500 mile journey. They are all fast. All Klipsch speakers sound good in their respective categories. They make a speaker for all tastes and pocketbooks, eh?

[Deang]

"...without the benefit of digital time delay, but what's a few milliseconds among friends?"

Worthy of sig status.

[ClaudeJ1]

"...without the benefit of digital time delay, but what's a few milliseconds among friends?"

Worthy of sig status.

You need to 'splain ursef mo heah, Mr. Dean. Whutduhheckdidjameenbydat?

[SilverSport]

I think he liked your saying there and it is worthy of being perhaps someone's signiture line...classic...

Bill

[colterphoto1]

"The higher price tag is for the modern look for emotional buyers who have more to spend on speakers than you and I do. "

HUH???[:^)]

[DrWho]

In deeper bass, yes.

More like the same - the P-39F is solid to 40Hz.

In efficiency, no, but so what?

Yikes! It's only number one priority in the PWK school of thought. []

In low distortion, not sure (measurable), but both below threshold of audible detection.

I'd say the P-39 is exhibiting at least an extra few percent - especially in the bass (compared to the hornloaded bass bins). Certainly nowhere near being inaudible.

[ClaudeJ1]

In deeper bass, yes.

More like the same - the P-39F is solid to 40Hz.

In efficiency, no, but so what?

Yikes! It's only number one priority in the PWK school of thought.

In low distortion, not sure (measurable), but both below threshold of audible detection.

I'd say the P-39 is exhibiting at least an extra few percent - especially in the bass (compared to the hornloaded bass bins). Certainly nowhere near being inaudible.

The Khorn or the Jubillee are not FLAT to 40 hz. As far as efficiency, the reason I said "so what" was not for myself, but for the people who would buy a Palladium (who would also prefer the Cornwall/Chorus sound ) can afford the whatever "high end" power to drive it. The Mac Rack driving the Palladiums was no accident. Besides, 99 db efficiency is in the realm of the Cornwall and that suits many people just fine.

I prefer the all-horn setup I have, even to Klispchorns because the bass doesn't roll off in MWM's the way it does in the rest of the bass horns, including the Jubilee.

I'm sure all these subtle differences would be audible in the perfect test room, and with all of them present there, but that is not going to happen, so I'm just going by stricly impression, not rigid blind testing.

[ClaudeJ1]

"The higher price tag is for the modern look for emotional buyers who have more to spend on speakers than you and I do. "

HUH???

If looks were important to you and I Michael, we woudn't own anthing painted black or shaped like a box, hence my comment on the "modern look."

[Professor Thump]

A good "Indianapolis Analogy" would be the "500" race. All the cars are fast, but the winner only does so by only a small margin realtive to the 500 mile journey. They are all fast. All Klipsch speakers sound good in their respective categories. They make a speaker for all tastes and pocketbooks, eh?

Perfect comment for Klipsch and Indy racing. I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that some day to explain how close we all are to the finish line.