Finally some high performance Klipsch speakers

[tuga]

in this instance i would say it has to do more with instruments sounding like instruments. a recording sound more like an actual instrument than the playback of the instrument. one major difference I've noticed is in bass texture. lower notes have more detail in their tonality than before and by a large margin. the small oscillations/warbles of a string beginning and ending a note are more clear.

Well, you like what you like, possibly you prefer some signal-correlated distortion which enhances the perceived spaciousness and resonance of instruments, a sort of glow that you'd get if you were to increase the reverb.
Of course not knowing your equipment or room it is also possible that the valve amplifier is technically more transparent.

 

[Steve 57]

in this instance i would say it has to do more with instruments sounding like instruments. a recording sound more like an actual instrument than the playback of the instrument. one major difference I've noticed is in bass texture. lower notes have more detail in their tonality than before and by a large margin. the small oscillations/warbles of a string beginning and ending a note are more clear.

But tuga (rick) seem to be insinuating that's euphoric and some kind of distortion?
But I'm with you.. to me that's realistic

 

[tuga]

A dead over-damped sound that bares no resemblance to any real music I’ve ever heard.

Harmonic distortion has that effect, it works a bit like reverb. Vinyl playback has a lot of sources of a lot of signal-correlated, sometimes slightly delayed, distortion. If put together in a particular manner you could almost get a remastered sound from a turntable such can be the impact of the player.

 

[Steve 57]

At last years ETF there was a room full of some very technical people, mostly all agreed that all distortions do not sound good..

 

[tuga]

But tuga (rick) seem to be insinuating that's euphoric and some kind of distortion?
But I'm with you.. to me that's realistic

I've recently discussed 'realistic' (with GT Audio if I'm not mistaken).
My view is that it is, like 'musical' a matter of personal opinion. I find that 'clarity' (absence of distortion) is the audio quality that gets me closest to what I can hear live, but as mentioned before you really need to use a recording that was produced to sound like reality in order to assess realism and there aren't many of those around...

Tony mentioned overdamping dead sound, which I think is expressed in the dry/wet dichotomy used in audio production or in room acoustics. Harmonic distortion, particluarly low order, has that same effect. If you play a bit with reverb and harmonic distortion on Audacity you might see where I'm coming from.

 

[tuga]

At last years ETF there was a room full of some very technical people, mostly all agreed that all distortions do not sound good..

Have you read this piece about 'euphonic' distortion?

(...) To paraphrase, Hiraga contended that it wasn't the quantity of an amplifier's nonlinear distortion that determined its sonic footprint so much as its quality; not the absolute level of that distortion but its pattern. To anyone brought up on the notion, as I had been, that total harmonic distortion (THD) was a reliable measure of an amplifier's nonlinearity, this was a shocking proposal indeed. But the idea that the nature of an amplifier's nonlinear behavior is as important as its amplitude was itself nothing new, even if the hi-fi world at large had up till then largely succeeded in ignoring it. In fact, the notion had first emerged in the US as long ago as the late 1930s (footnote 1) and been refined by D.E.L. Shorter at the BBC in the early 1950s (footnote 2). (...)

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/406howard/index.html

 

[Tony L]

But I think that the dead overdamped sound you are referrig to is the result of compression, not cabinet mass. One of the best speakers I've listened to, the TAD Reference 1, is high mass.

I heard them at a show, certainly a far less than an ideal environment, and far too loud, but I still left absolutely hating them. Just over-damped, dead, sterile and hard. All my usual high-mass checkboxes. Instant headache.

I’d happily listen to them again in a better room and at a level of my choosing, but I doubt they’d impress.

Huge TAD horns? Now you are talking!

But I think that the dead overdamped sound you are referrig to is the result of compression, not cabinet mass.

I don’t think that is it. My best guess is something I am sensitive to is either absorbed or reflected back into the driver by the cabinet mass. I can’t tell you which. I don’t even know if what I don’t like here is additive or subtractive, but I know it is there and I can hear it. It might even be both. The end result is always the same: a system that to my ears/priorities sounds dead, over-damped, over-analytical, and like the musicians don’t care about what they are playing. A system that doesn’t interest or engage, and very often swiftly gives me a headache. I find shows and dealer dems very tiring at the best of times, but since this category of component has ended up dominating the market you’d have to drag me kicking and screaming to either. This modern hi-fi sound is just not for me.

PS Again what I don’t like is very much a modern high-mass speaker thing. It does not exist in panels, headphones, BBC boxes etc.

 

[Steve 57]

Tony mentioned overdamping dead sound, which I think is expressed in the dry/wet dichotomy used in audio production or in room acoustics. Harmonic distortion, particluarly low order, has that same effect. If you play a bit with reverb and harmonic distortion on Audacity you might see where I'm coming from.

I use /own all types of amplifiers but I still struggle with what your saying here..

When I used my low wattage set amps there is no increase in musicality with volume, they sound just as good at 1/2"watt or 2 watts, where there's virtually no distortion at either volume..but once I get around maximum volume I can hear the 2nd harmonic and it does not sound good..

In saying that i have heard distortions sound exceptable though loudspeakers that possess low acceleration ( mostly low efficiency) .

 

[tuga]

I heard them at a show, certainly a far less than an ideal environment, and far too loud, but I still left absolutely hating them. Just over-damped, dead, sterile and hard. All my usual high-mass checkboxes. Instant headache.

I’d happily listen to them again in a better room and at a level of my choosing, but I doubt they’d impress.

Huge TAD horns? Now you are talking!

Interesting.
I've listened to a pair of TAD 2402 at an audiophile's place more or less at the same time, and they sounded nowhere near as good, coloured and boomy.

 

[tuga]

I don’t think that is it. My best guess is something I am sensitive to is either absorbed or reflected back into the driver by the cabinet mass. I can’t tell you which. I don’t even know if what I don’t like here is additive or subtractive, but I know it is there and I can hear it. It might even be both. The end result is always the same: a system that to my ears/priorities sounds dead, over-damped, over-analytical, and like the musicians don’t care about what they are playing. A system that doesn’t interest or engage, and very often swiftly gives me a headache. I find shows and dealer dems very tiring at the best of times, but since this category of component has ended up dominating the market you’d have to drag me kicking and screaming to either. This modern hi-fi sound is just not for me.

PS Again what I don’t like is very much a modern high-mass speaker thing. It does not exist in panels, headphones, BBC boxes etc.

I've generally associated the 'subtractive' issue with amplifiers, also some DACs.
Maybe the speakers you are referring to need a lot of amplifier power and those big monsters mask some low-level detail?
I agree that you can't have clarity without effortlessness, it just grates into your ears and head...

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The ONLY thing that has ever been designed, adjusted, tested and perfected by the use of ears alone in the audio world, are instruments.

The world of audio recording and reproduction has never worked that way, it has always been based on measurements because thats how the people who create all the equipment involved in both chains are educated. You can't design an audio amplifier without understanding amplifier design, that requires knowlege of measurements and mathematics. Same for speakers, same for microphones, same for DACs and CD players, same for turntables or literally any peice of equipment you can name that may exist between the intrument and the sound you hear in your listening room.

No English major who failed mathematics ever designed a single piece of audio recording or reproductive equipment.

None of that matters to how you or anyone else may decide to evaluate a peice of audio reproduction equipment of course, but that with full respect to you, is a total irrelevance to the audio equipment industry and the people who work in it.

What amuses greatly about these discussions is that the audio world is the only industry based on electronics where anybody insists that anything but measurements and testing are needed. It doesn't happen in RF, in Telecommunications, in Microwave, in Aviation, or anywhere else where electronic engineering is the fundamental requirement to produce the equipment.

This completely misses the point. In fact, it's a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that measurement has no place. It is clearly essential in the design and testing of audio equipment. The argument is that the measurements are not the be-all and end-all of things, and should not, cannot, determine whether we will enjoy the output of that equipment, nor even assess it's intrinsic value. The measurements may give you an indication of the equipment's likely strengths and weaknesses, but anybody who treats measurements as more than a guide is, er, misguided.

 

[Tony L]

Maybe the speakers you are referring to need a lot of amplifier power and those big monsters mask some low-level detail?

Maybe. I’m convinced it is far, far harder to make a good big amp than a good little one. Most of the stuff I’m describing is almost always demmed with huge shiny oligarch-fi solid state amps that likely need a fork-lift truck to get in the room. I can’t remember what was hooked up to the TAD, but it was certainly huge and CNC-machined out of a massive block of alloy.

I find it fascinating as I can’t fully explain it. I just hear it in a certain genre of hi-fi system that has sadly become much of the high-end thinking this century. As such I’ve all but lost interest in modern audio. There are a few things that buck the trend that are still interesting, e.g. I’d be curious to hear Rega’s latest speakers, but there is very little. Audio is a remarkably conservative market. High-mass is the 21st century black ash, except you can hear it!

 

[tuga]

This completely misses the point. In fact, it's a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that measurement has no place. It is clearly essential in the design and testing of audio equipment. The argument is that the measurements are not the be-all and end-all of things, and should not, cannot, determine whether we will enjoy the output of that equipment, nor even assess it's intrinsic value. The measurements may give you an indication of the equipment's likely strengths and weaknesses, but anybody who treats measurements as more than a guide is, er, misguided.

The measurements give an indication of the equipment's likely strengths and weaknesses and if you learn how to correlate them with your listening preference they can help you sort out the worth-listening-to from the rest.
Using measurements to help you with system building is not (meant to be) an exact science.

But if an equipment performs poorly in one or several parameters it's performance doesn't reach the potential, regardless - and I think this is worth stressing - of whether few or many people enjoy that equipment or that kind of 'presentation'.
In other words, many people like equipment which produces some form of euphonic distortion or frequency response changes; that is perfectly normal but doesn't make those equipments good performers, only good sounding to some people.

Returning to measured performance, people who like elevated bass or a BBC dip in speakers can easily look at measurements to determine whether that aspect of performance will suit their preference.
You can also look at measurements to determine if a speaker has 'loose' bass, will sound bright in narrow rooms, will be hard to drive with valves or might not be suited to large rooms wothout a subwoofer.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The measurements give an indication of the equipment's likely strengths and weaknesses and if you learn how to correlate them with your listening preference they can help you sort out the worth-listening-to from the rest.
Using measurements to help you with system building is not (meant to be) an exact science.

But if an equipment performs poorly in one or several parameters it's performance doesn't reach the potential, regardless - and I think this is worth stressing - of whether few or many people enjoy that equipment or that kind of 'presentation'.
In other words, many people like equipment which produces some form of euphonic distortion or frequency response changes; that is perfectly normal but doesn't make those equipments good performers, only good sounding to some people.

Returning to measured performance, people who like elevated bass or a BBC dip in speakers can easily look at measurements to determine whether that aspect of performance will suit their preference.
You can also look at measurements to determine if a speaker has 'loose' bass, will sound bright in narrow rooms, will be hard to drive with valves or might not be suited to large rooms wothout a subwoofer.

I'm not convinced this 'correlation with your listening preference' is actually a thing at all, though.

And the fact that some people may like what you describe as a 'euphonic distortion' where others, like you, prefer something else, should tell you that we are all different. There is no DIN-standard for ears. So how can you determine what is a 'good' measurement in absolute terms? You liked the TAD speakers, Tony hated them. I'm ambivalent, I can respect them without wanting them in my life. I haven't yet heard a Magico loudspeaker I'd let in my house, let alone pay money for. Tony loves the big Klipsch speakers, as do I, and you disparage them in the thread title. I, like Tony I suspect, love them not for their accuracy, but for the vitality they bring to music. Measure that.

 

[tuga]

Maybe. I’m convinced it is far, far harder to make a good big amp than a good little one. Most of the stuff I’m describing is almost always demmed with huge shiny oligarch-fi solid state amps that likely need a fork-lift truck to get in the room. I can’t remember what was hooked up to the TAD, but it was certainly huge and CNC-machined out of a massive block of alloy.

I find it fascinating as I can’t fully explain it. I just hear it in a certain genre of hi-fi system that has sadly become much of the high-end thinking this century. As such I’ve all but lost interest in modern audio. There are a few things that buck the trend that are still interesting, e.g. I’d be curious to hear Rega’s latest speakers, but there is very little. Audio is a remarkably conservative market. High-mass is the 21st century black ash, except you can hear it!

My amplfier was designed by a friend who is of the same opinion, that very powerful transistor amplifiers struggle to achieve the same levels of performance as medium power ones.

I had not been to a dealer in well over a decade but last year I accidentally ended up at a Innuous demo with work my colleagues. System was Innuous flagship, dCS DAC, T+A pre and monos, Magico A5s.
I was so impressed by the sound of the Magico speakers that I ended up replacing the Stirling LS3/6s.

 

[tuga]

I'm not convinced this 'correlation with your listening preference' is actually a thing at all, though.

And the fact that some people may like what you describe as a 'euphonic distortion' where others, like you, prefer something else, should tell you that we are all different. There is no DIN-standard for ears. So how can you determine what is a 'good' measurement in absolute terms? You liked the TAD speakers, Tony hated them. I'm ambivalent, I can respect them without wanting them in my life. I haven't yet heard a Magico loudspeaker I'd let in my house, let alone pay money for. Tony loves the big Klipsch speakers, as do I, and you disparage them in the thread title. I, like Tony I suspect, love them not for their accuracy, but for the vitality they bring to music. Measure that.

That 'vitality' you speak of could be the result of euphonic distortion or frequency response changes, but also the capability to play loud with low objectionable issues, the narrower directivity or as i mentioned early my suspicion that compression midrange drivers have better low-level performance. And also maybe you and Tony prefer a sound/presentation of a certain era.
I've not heard classic Klipsches but I've owned and experimented with a 3-way bin+mid&tweeter horns, there were some things they did very well and had I had the time and patience and been willing to pour more money into that project I could have ended up with some keepers. But the best commercial speakers I've listened to were all conventional forward ratiation boxes (and I've listened to AvantGarde Duos, Apogees, the largest Maggies and MartinLogans, also Westminster Royals and the aforementioned TAD horns).

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

That 'vitality' you speak of could be the result of euphonic distortion or frequency response changes, but also the capability to play loud with low objectionable issues, the narrower directivity. Or maybe you and Tone prefer a sound/presentation of a certain era.

I doubt it. All my kit is recent (except the turntable) and most of the stuff I like is modern, but I still recall fondly an EAR demo at a Manchester show where T deP played brass band music through a pair of classic Klipsches and it was just breathtaking. The rest of that extract is just speculation and I can't engage with it meaningfully, but it does serve to illustrate the limits of your argument.

 

[tuga]

I doubt it. All my kit is recent (except the turntable) and most of the stuff I like is modern, but I still recall fondly an EAR demo at a Manchester show where T deP played brass band music through a pair of classic Klipsches and it was just breathtaking. The rest of that extract is just speculation and I can't engage with it meaningfully, but it does serve to illustrate the limits of your argument.

How different is your argument from my argument?
In any case this has veered way off topic. Klipsch has finally produced speakers than can transduce the signal with a high degree of accuracy. If the were to make a K-horn that performed nearly as well it would be an amazing speaker. I'd like it, would you?

 

[tuga]

All my kit is recent

You haven't listed your kit. Also I don't understand what upsets you so much when I say that measurements can be correlated with our listening experience and preference. Would be interested in hearing that, is it because you can't that you don't think possible, or because you prefer equipment that doesn't measure as well as the best, something else?
I've noticed that you do get upset often, but thank you for engaging in an intelligent and cordial manner unlike some...

 

[Tony L]

And also maybe you and Tony prefer a sound/presentation of a certain era.

That may be true to some degree in my case as I do run what is in effect a early-70s studio monitoring system. That said I also like my HD-600s and think they sound very similar in many ways. The basic tonality and ease is similar and I get none of the disconnect or discomfort I tried to explain upthread that I associate with large high-mass multi-driver high-end speakers. I also love Quad ESLs, Maggies etc, which, whilst clearly classic audio by now, are in no way a “vintage sound”. They are just some of the best speakers ever made, as are 15” Tannoys (IMHO, but I am right!).