The Official Klipsch Speakers Thread

[allstar780]

Originally Posted by prerich

PWK had the nerve to state "If my speakers don't sound good in your room - you need to fix your room" On a serious note, I've heard Klipsch sound bright and shrill, I've also heard them sound smooth and mellow. In my current room the latter applies, but the ceiling in that room is composed of acoustic tile. I belive the room also has a lot to do with it - along with break-in periods ect. I know many RF series owners who are happy with their purchases - and I have only heard them and the Icons at a disadvantage. I would love to hear a used pair in my home. Any volunteers to come to the Panhandle with their RF's for a movie, music session?

If you are ever in Alberta give me a shout, I'll show you how the reference should sound

[prerich]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Is he speaking of the Icons over the Reference?

Good question - because I heard this said of the Icon series. I'm going to give them a re-audition after they have been played a bit. I have seen several Palladium reviews (all good) - there's a demo in ATL on the 28th of this month with all McIntosh gear. P.S. DM (Marantz,Denon,McIntosh) was bought by BAIL (Dunkin Donughts, Burger King) - says he will make Marantz open to all who will sell it (no longer specialty market)

[prerich]

Originally Posted by allstar780

If you are ever in Alberta give me a shout, I'll show you how the reference should sound

10-4, Havent been to Canada since the 1970's - a beautiful country!!!

[DBlackGT]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Is he speaking of the Icons over the Reference?

I hope so, cause Klipsch really nailed it with the new Icons.

[jhawkjd]

Originally Posted by prerich

Hey everybody - I know we have a bunch of Klipsch owners out there but not many replying to the thread. I'm going to stir the pot a little bit and quote an interview with Klipsch Engineer, Jim Hunter concering the Cornwalls vs the RF-83's

"Cornwalls vs. RF-83s: what is your opinion on the older technology vs. new stuff, do you think listening is a very personal thing? Is the 2000s reference line better than the 1980s Heritage line? Is this even something you can answer without political consequences"?
"Ah, you DO want to get me in trouble……. The older technology was “more to the point”. That is, it took the path of least resistance in terms of form vs. function. Today the W.A.F. rules, and mamma wants slim, i.e., essentially no-width baffles. Well, the woofer “likes” an ample baffle such as is present on the Cornwall. In the case of the RF83 (and family), its virtual absence demands more drivers and stronger motors to get back to roughly the same place".


Anybody's take on this...For or against. As you answer and I see the points (if the come out like I expect them to) I will have another question to ask everyone regardless of their speaker manufacturer or preference.

I don't know if he answered your question directly. He probably was saying the optimum design was large, bulky size to allow the woofer to "breath". I think the point of his answer is that to satisfy customer desires for a smaller speaker, they had to compromise the design and offset the compromises in other ways which make them different, not better, not worse. I have the Fortes (not the Forte II) which is a 3-way design with a 12" woofer and a passive radiator on the back. I'm guessing he considers even this a compromise to make the cabinet a bit smaller. All the women who visit comment (derogatorily) "my how big it is". And all the men are jealous of the size. I didn't give the wife a choice in the matter and I wouldn't trade them (except for maybe the Forte II which isn't in production now either) especially not just to please someone with a smaller size.

[ixlegitballinxl]

my girl thinks the rf's are too big!!! lol , couldnt imagine older models...im part of the newer age, i prefer good looks and sound.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by ixlegitballinxl

my girl thinks the rf's are too big!!! lol , couldnt imagine older models...im part of the newer age, i prefer good looks and sound.

Whoaaa!!!!! Give this man a door prize for getting the mind of the Ipod generation right!!!! In so manny words Hunter continues to state that engineers are under the pressure to "make it look right" instead of the direct approach of just making it sound right. Cosmetics used to just "fall where they may" if sound was right. Now with the WAF making a good speaker has become even more difficult. He states the 90% of all speaker design was accomplished by the end of WWII. Now the major problem is cosmetic design -and sounding good.

I'm still a function over form guy and as long as I can afford it (and haven't made any major purchases) my wife is fairly cooperative (my room is my room) I don't mind hulking speakers. But with the fashion elite of - make it look good too -people out there - would you take an ugly awsome sounding speaker or a beautiful great sounding speaker (awsome sounding 3 times better than great - to get a bead on the question)

Cosmetically the Reference and Icon series have the old Klipsch beat with a beauty stick, So do the new Martins against the old, Polks, you name it. One of the few speakers that I've seen that has advanced its looks as well as its sound is B&W (but the 802's, 801's, ect are still massive - so they don't count). Speakers are getting prettier but they seem to lose a little bit to some of their counter parts in a straight up shooting match. However, the Klipsch Palladium seems to posess it all - looks and brawn (well they're still large also - so squash that too)


I thing marketing and looks are changing the landscape of Audio faster than technology is. Look what marketing did to the esteem of women - if your a size 8-10, people think you're fat... come on now!!! What do you guys think? FYI (the use of women is just an analogy - lets keep it about speakers )

[prerich]

Originally Posted by jhawkjd

I don't know if he answered your question directly. He probably was saying the optimum design was large, bulky size to allow the woofer to "breath". I think the point of his answer is that to satisfy customer desires for a smaller speaker, they had to compromise the design and offset the compromises in other ways which make them different, not better, not worse. I have the Fortes (not the Forte II) which is a 3-way design with a 12" woofer and a passive radiator on the back. I'm guessing he considers even this a compromise to make the cabinet a bit smaller. All the women who visit comment (derogatorily) "my how big it is". And all the men are jealous of the size. I didn't give the wife a choice in the matter and I wouldn't trade them (except for maybe the Forte II which isn't in production now either) especially not just to please someone with a smaller size.

To PWK (Paul W. Klipsch) everything is a compromise Below a K-horn . Lascalas and Belles - K-horn with a folded horn woofer - no need for corner placement. Cornwalls same tweeter and Mid as the K-horns, LaScalas and Belles, but a 15 inch direct radiating woofer. Same for the Heresy but it has a 12 inch. Your Forte's are an awsome speaker, I've heard them in action (as well as the Chorus) - what center channel are you using or are they only for two-channel music?

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by prerich

But with the fashion elite of - make it look good too -people out there - would you take an ugly awsome sounding speaker or a beautiful great sounding speaker (awsome sounding 3 times better than great - to get a bead on the question)

If I couldn't find a way to disguise or hide the butt ugly awesome speaker; I'd take the beautiful great sounding speaker. The awesome speaker would kind of be like the really beautfiful buxom blonde that you have a great time with, but can't converse with at all. Fun for a while, but couldn't live with it in the long term.

[Driver_King]

I prefer sound quality over asthetics anyday. With my kind of budget of course. You can get a lot more for your money buying pre-owned or vintage many times and still get better performance than that of higher priced speakers made to look nice.

[Slec]

Prerich, To the point though, isn't everything a compromise? Some of my beliefs probably aren't sound (no pun intended) but I can't shake them. For Example, I would never buy a speaker with an active subwoofer as I feel the sub being in the same box (sealed or not) will disrupt the sound from the drivers. I'm sure there are papers that prove I couldn't be more wrong, but its one of those things that I will never shake. Want low frequencies, get a sub type of mentality.

To someone else, a speaker setup must be beautiful as well as functional. I bet a lot of people are willing to sacrifice because of their actual uses. Take a great pair of speakers, plug them up to separates and the detail will be astounding. Put those same speakers in the average living room on a do everything AVR <cough> onkyo 605 <cough> and some detail will be lost. But you can't know what your missing if it ain't there.

If pair of speakers A sound better but look like they should be hanging from rafters at a concert, while pair of speakers B sound great, look great, but not at the level of speaker A, then the WAF is going to win out because the alternative is no speakers

Then there is budget vs. impatience... compromises are made all the time...

edit: oh and I own a Onkyo 605, so I'm not bashing because its popular, just making a point using something I own as reference.

[ixlegitballinxl]

hmmmmm, i can see having a designated room for your gear to throw out the "looks" side of this debate....but considering most here have a "home theater living room" i'd say looks will win 9/10x's

i only hear my system for 1-2 hours a day... i have to look/walk past it more then i listen to. lol

if i had a dedicated theater room...i'd think more like you

[Lucy Diamond]

I can remember so cleary, many many years ago; back in the days of my Fisher bookshelf stereo system...long before I was into Paradigm or Signet or Celestion speakers...I remember going to a store called THE WIZ and seeing my first female sales guy...er...person. I was "just browsing" when she came up to me and asked "Hey what's up". She wasn't asking what I was looking for and she didn't seem to care about making a sale (to my knowlege, WIZ sales people were non commission.)

I asked what was "the thing" for quality sound these days (this was at least 12 or 15 years ago) and her eyes lit up like a kid at christmas. She took my hand and said "Klipsch!!! you have to hear them" We spent about a half an hour just listening to different speakers and she told me stories about her dad's old system at home.

I will always have a soft spot for Klipsch speakers because of that.
She knew SO much about sound and timbre and voicing. Honestly, I really hope she has the system of her dreams now and I hope she is rocking Blu-ray.
No...she is most definitely rocking Blu-ray.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Slec

Prerich, To the point though, isn't everything a compromise? Some of my beliefs probably aren't sound (no pun intended) but I can't shake them. For Example, I would never buy a speaker with an active subwoofer as I feel the sub being in the same box (sealed or not) will disrupt the sound from the drivers. I'm sure there are papers that prove I couldn't be more wrong, but its one of those things that I will never shake. Want low frequencies, get a sub type of mentality.

To someone else, a speaker setup must be beautiful as well as functional. I bet a lot of people are willing to sacrifice because of their actual uses. Take a great pair of speakers, plug them up to separates and the detail will be astounding. Put those same speakers in the average living room on a do everything AVR <cough> onkyo 605 <cough> and some detail will be lost. But you can't know what your missing if it ain't there.

If pair of speakers A sound better but look like they should be hanging from rafters at a concert, while pair of speakers B sound great, look great, but not at the level of speaker A, then the WAF is going to win out because the alternative is no speakers

Then there is budget vs. impatience... compromises are made all the time...

Ahhhh, NOW the tread is going to get deep!!!!! Good points!!!!!

[prerich]

Originally Posted by ixlegitballinxl

hmmmmm, i can see having a designated room for your gear to throw out the "looks" side of this debate....but considering most here have a "home theater living room" i'd say looks will win 9/10x's

i only hear my system for 1-2 hours a day... i have to look/walk past it more then i listen to. lol

if i had a dedicated theater room...i'd think more like you

Oh, I'm not done yet - when things get better - walls are being knocked out a big renovation!!!!! But my paycheck has to be renovated first I'm just glad we have a formal sitting or living room elsewhere in the house - nicknamed the "musoleum" because if you break any of my wifes LLardro's - ....you're as good as dead. (They are all cushioned on the bottom to protect them from my subs )

[ixlegitballinxl]

forgot about the price factor.... sound > looks > price .. that pretty much sums up your options ah? lol

"these speakers sound awesome, i don't care how they look"

"the sound is decent, but the speakers look awesome"

"I'll get these speakers because they are a cheap/great deal"

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Lucy Diamond

I can remember so cleary, many many years ago; back in the days of my Fisher bookshelf stereo system...long before I was into Paradigm or Signet or Celestion speakers...I remember going to a store called THE WIZ and seeing my first female sales guy...er...person. I was "just browsing" when she came up to me and asked "Hey what's up". She wasn't asking what I was looking for and she didn't seem to care about making a sale (to my knowlege, WIZ sales people were non commission.)

I asked what was "the thing" for quality sound these days (this was at least 12 or 15 years ago) and her eyes lit up like a kid at christmas. She took my hand and said "Klipsch!!! you have to hear them" We spent about a half an hour just listening to different speakers and she told me stories about her dad's old system at home.

I will always have a soft spot for Klipsch speakers because of that.
She knew SO much about sound and timbre and voicing. Honestly, I really hope she has the system of her dreams now and I hope she is rocking Blu-ray.
No...she is most definitely rocking Blu-ray.

Believe it or not - I'm a Paradigm fan also - there are many speakers that I just love!!! Too bad for Signet - they were good also!!!!!

[Slec]

Speaking of compromise:

I'm thinking the answer to this will be a function of what I use the speakers primarily for:
Which is more important? having the speakers pushed off the wall for better mid-range and lower end reproduction, or pushed back a few inches from the wall but even with the center channel for imaging?

My room doesn't allow for the speakers to be equidistant from the main viewing position and satisfy distance from the wall...

Any thoughts?

edit: I realize what sounds best to me is the best option. I'm trying to keep the conversation going and think this is a decent question.

[jhawkjd]

Originally Posted by prerich

To PWK (Paul W. Klipsch) everything is a compromise Below a K-horn . Lascalas and Belles - K-horn with a folded horn woofer - no need for corner placement. Cornwalls same tweeter and Mid as the K-horns, LaScalas and Belles, but a 15 inch direct radiating woofer. Same for the Heresy but it has a 12 inch. Your Forte's are an awsome speaker, I've heard them in action (as well as the Chorus) - what center channel are you using or are they only for two-channel music?

I started with the Fortes in a 2 channel system 23 years ago. Added a Velo HGS-12 and Klipsch RS62s 10 years ago for a pretty sweet 4.1 system. 2 years ago I finished it out with a Klipsch RC62 for the center channel. Because of how good the Fortes were, I wasn't really compelled to get the center channel before the surrounds.

My biggest issue is with the 5.1 DD sound tracks. On most of them they sound like they were prepared for those tiny Bose satellite speaker systems. Hence my preference for DTS tracks. I have yet to hear a DVD or Blu-Ray where the Dolby track sounds better than the DTS when both are provided.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by jhawkjd

I have yet to hear a DVD or Blu-Ray where the Dolby track sounds better than the DTS when both are provided.

It's because they were mixed differently, it has nothing to do with the compression techniques used. I.e., in Top Gun, one of the BRs where TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are offered - TrueHD might sound weaker, but it is the original theater track when the movie was released. The DTS-HD MA track was remixed for the release. Say, in the DVD versions of LOTR, where the theatrical releases are Dolby, and the extendeds have DTS-ES - the mix, again, was done differently. Not how the original track itself was compressed.