MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
It would have to be better if for no other reason than to bring the drivers into time coherence.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Stereophile Reviews New Klipsch Forte, Klipschorn
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,578
- Likes
- 25,277
MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
He was to Audio magazine what Herb Reichert is to Stereophile.
Ridiculously overstated!
Like all speakers they have their strengths and weaknesses.
And each listener has his own listening bias and preferences.
So when someone calls out a product as utter trash like this, you have
to ask yourself why? I would think if this review has a level of truth to it,
that any person with any background at all in audio would say the same
after just a few moments of listening. (eek, this speaker sounds bad in just
about any parameter you care to use).
But that's not the case, in fact far from it.
With just a few minutes of search you can find reviews from people with
strong "audiophile creds" that think the exact opposite.
The below gentleman has been an audiophile for some 35 years, has some
fairly strong financial muscle, and loves the La Scala, making statements about
it's qualities 180 degrees opposite of senior garbulky
Lets jump back some 15 years to Sam Tellig's (Tom Gillett) 2006 absolute rave review for Stereophile of the La Scala II
Sam Meets the Klipsch La Scala II Loudspeaker
Sam Meets the Klipsch La Scala II Loudspeaker
www.soundhifi.com
Are these folks and many others so off base they can't hear all the claimed properties that make this speaker unlistenable?
I'm pretty deaf now but I was 28 when I bought my new La Scala's in 1978. I kept them for the next 32 years and living in Chicago I was able to walk into any one of at least a half dozen high end stores selling the very best of what was then available, and I never felt the desire to trade them for anything else in my financial ballpark. The only speakers that could come close to the imaging, speed, and inner detail of the La Scala's were panels like Quad's or Magies, but 5 minutes in the home of any rocker would have them light up like a ball of tinfoil in the microwave. LOL
There's only one real truth about speakers,
One mans ceiling is another mans floor.
I purchased my first set of “real” speakers, used Boston Acoustics T1030’s, from an ad in the back of Audio magazine. I had wanted a pair of Paradigm towers, but the T1030’s were what I could afford. Never were as satisfying as Paradigms, but for some reason I still have them in the garage.
The Bostons did get a good review by D.B. Keele, though! It was the Audio and Stereo Review reviews of Klipsch speakers which sparked my curiosity in Klipsch, only to have it extinguished by my experience with a roommates Heresy’s. I never liked those speakers.
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/90s/Audio-1991-01.pdf
Indeed. We did have a violinist play for us in our music room, for free -- after she stopped moving around, and stayed at the prescribed distance, she did sound much like a violin on our sound system, but, of course, every violin recording sounds different. An 115 piece orchestra playing a Mahler symphony didn't seem affordable.
Agreed! In one of our orchestras, back in the Mesolithic, we found that string players liked Bozak, especially on the cello ... Bozak sounded the most beautiful, but other speakers might have slightly more detail of a certain kind, like the Klipsch, JBL, Electro-voice horn speakers. But the majority of the string section liked Bozaks on strings, at least.. They agreed with Martin Mayer that -- on strings, at least -- 3 way Bozaks sounded the most "musical."
Yes, but orchestral music, as well, from classical forward! K-horn, LaScala, and some JBL were my favorites for percussion. Guess what instruments I played ... I was a percussionist, playing bells, gongs, as well as everything else in "the kitchen," including the gun in Slaughter on Tenth Avenue, and Great Gong in The Great Gate of Kiev in the finale of Pictures at an Exhibition. The timpani we sometimes fought over* Anyway, the percussion, piano, and brass tended to like Klipsch and JBL.
I've heard those big JBLs in the '70s -- and before -- sound good and bad, depending on everything else, including room treatment and tastefulness of set-up. The home brew enclosures at Stairway to Sound (Fisher Electronics) that held basically the same components as the Hartsfield, but had 2 or 4 woofers sounded much better -- more bass. In the '70s, studio monitors I saw were BIG, and JBL or Altec. This JBL (the 4350B)
as surrounds!
The speakers for the main channels (5 behind the curved screen) were probably these:
*There was an outdoor contest in the middle of a cold snap (by tame San Francisco standards). The guy who had won the timpani lottery called in sick when we were getting on the bus. It was hard (for me) to get the timpani properly tuned in the cold, and I had never played the piece before. One of the judges said, "The timpani player showed great discretion." Well, the timpani player was scared to an extreme degree.
Honestly I have no idea how people think these are credible speakers. Same goes for the JBL L100 reissue. I think back then they probably were. I remember growing up, the mainstream speakers were so bad I couldn't tell anything like soundstage or even all the different instruments or background melody lines in music. Most either had no treble or were ALL trebleRidiculously overstated!
Like all speakers they have their strengths and weaknesses.
And each listener has his own listening bias and preferences.
So when someone calls out a product as utter trash like this, you have
to ask yourself why? I would think if this review has a level of truth to it,
that any person with any background at all in audio would say the same
after just a few moments of listening. (eek, this speaker sounds bad in just
about any parameter you care to use).
But that's not the case, in fact far from it.
With just a few minutes of search you can find reviews from people with
strong "audiophile creds" that think the exact opposite.
The below gentleman has been an audiophile for some 35 years, has some
fairly strong financial muscle, and loves the La Scala, making statements about
it's qualities 180 degrees opposite of senior garbulky
Lets jump back some 15 years to Sam Tellig's (Tom Gillett) 2006 absolute rave review for Stereophile of the La Scala II
How are we supposed to reconcile these reviews against the trash callers?Sam Meets the Klipsch La Scala II Loudspeaker
Sam Meets the Klipsch La Scala II Loudspeakerwww.soundhifi.com
Are these folks and many others so off base they can't hear all the claimed properties that make this speaker unlistenable?
I'm pretty deaf now but I was 28 when I bought my new La Scala's in 1978. I kept them for the next 32 years and living in Chicago I was able to walk into any one of at least a half dozen high end stores selling the very best of what was then available, and I never felt the desire to trade them for anything else in my financial ballpark. The only speakers that could come close to the imaging, speed, and inner detail of the La Scala's were panels like Quad's or Magies, but 5 minutes in the home of any rocker would have them light up like a ball of tinfoil in the microwave. LOL
There's only one real truth about speakers,
One mans ceiling is another mans floor.
.So compared to those, the Klipsch's were probably incredible to listen to. When I heard the Klipsch, forgot which one, it was one of the larger ones Lascala? , I was able to hear the instruments come out into the living room and off to the side which must have blown people's mind when they first heard it. Same goes for the Heresy. I heard it playing jazz and when a trumpet was played it felt like it was right in my face sounding very pronounced where I could hear lots of "detail" and "speed" as the trumpet player played quick runs. If I had heard these before I'd heard other speakers, I would probably think these were incredible. But I couldn't get past that the the treble was glare central and the trumpet just couldn't sound like a real trumpet.
Comparing them to current speakers now...sorry. I just don't think they can really hang. Other speakers sound far more balanced, have substantially better detail and extend lower. And of course are priced substantially lower. I primarily listen to acoustic only instruments preferrably recorded in stereo. So things like tonality, a lack of muddiness and extension in the low bass is important to give a realistic reproduction. Others may have different priorities like volume, "rock factor" etc. When I see these selling for 5k I can only think that it is for the gorgeous finish and wood. They are really nice - if you like the big bulky look. I can't think of any other modern speakers that look like these. Give me some nice Thiels if you wanna go vintage!
Last edited:
tuga
Major Contributor
Use your tired line: with science.
Except that science does not explain taste.
So you are wrong in both counts: Klipschs are low accuracy/performance transducers and not liking accuracy is perfectly fine.
But I wonder if you would really like how they sound in a blind test comparison
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,744
- Likes
- 6,475
Loudspeakers, as the remaining subjective component in most people's rig, are always going to be primarily a preference thing. Always going to be room dependent, too. That's one reason why they make so many different kinds.
I liken it to coffee. There's even a big thread here on ASR about coffee, somewhere. What's the best brew? I'm buying a mild to medium Costa Rican, with unbleached paper filters dripping from a Chemex glass-blown cone. Others prefer pressing French roast through a Bodum. The man who has a shelf of McIntosh gear might prefer a Jura Giga X7, just because he can afford it, and because it has blue meters (just kidding about that part, but it does have a blue touch screen). The old man, when he was still around, only drank Folgers crystals. Wouldn't touch anything else. So was I supposed to have told the old man that he was doing it wrong?
I liken it to coffee. There's even a big thread here on ASR about coffee, somewhere. What's the best brew? I'm buying a mild to medium Costa Rican, with unbleached paper filters dripping from a Chemex glass-blown cone. Others prefer pressing French roast through a Bodum. The man who has a shelf of McIntosh gear might prefer a Jura Giga X7, just because he can afford it, and because it has blue meters (just kidding about that part, but it does have a blue touch screen). The old man, when he was still around, only drank Folgers crystals. Wouldn't touch anything else. So was I supposed to have told the old man that he was doing it wrong?
I think he was getting a bit senile in the later years.
His audio knowledge was shallow (and, surprisingly, so was his musical knowledge) but his commitment was genuine.
Godataloss
Senior Member
Nothing wrong with the khorn that replacing all the drivers (and horns) and a dose of Dirac can't solve. I adore mine. #velvetsledghammers
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,744
- Likes
- 6,475
Is that really the case? From his bio I would presume that he had a pretty good (if not in-depth) knowledge of classical music.
It is interesting to follow the 'evolution' (some might call it devolution) of the mainstream US audio press. When the magazines first started, gear reviews were not primary, since a lot of equipment was not 'off the shelf', but something you'd construct. So you had articles about the 'theory' of electronic sound reproduction, what to look for in a hi-fi system, how to assemble the pieces and then hook it up...
Debates over loudspeakers were as heady as they are, today. Paul argued why his horns were the way to go, while Ed Villchur offered up a different opinion. Klipsch licensed his designs, and if you had some wood working skills you built yourself a copy. JBL sold kit plans, and probably sold as many drivers as they did assembled boxes. Dyna, Scott, Eico, Harman Kardon, sold the kits--McIntosh and Marantz sold you an assembled product, if you had the dollars to spend. It was a tube lovers dream, because that was all there was!
Record reviews featured mostly 'classical'-- symphonic and opera, with less emphasis on jazz, along with some spoken word. Pop record reviews were almost an afterthought, or not thought about at all. And pop reviews consisted of 'show tunes', along with 'middle of the road' vocal performances, plus dance/party records. Folk music was covered. I don't think I ever read about the early California surf scene--Dick Dale or the Beach Boys. The Beatles and Rolling Stones were first ignored, until later on, when they couldn't be ignored. There was a 'highbrow' editorial aura back then, and men like Ed Canby somehow represented that.
Of course all that flipped by the mid '70s, when rock 'n roll was king. First opening up your magazine, you encountered multi-page fold out ads featuring the Allman Brothers Band hawking Pioneer gear. I don't know how that copy went over in NYC, or on the West Coast, but I'm sure it sold a lot of Pioneer receivers in the South.
Rock record reviews were now featured up front, with discussions not so much of the musical performance, but rather the 'profound' sociological importance of it all. If a reviewer didn't mention Marshall McLuhan or Alvin Toffler, he or she wasn't doing their job. Looking back on it, it was kind of ridiculous, but through it all, Canby kept plugging away, writing about the same stuff--stuff few were interested in, and stuff even fewer could explain very well, after they had read it. I'd have to look to see when he stopped contributing. Once he left the scene, I don't think anyone even noticed. He just sort of faded away.
I spoke with him several times and really liked him. He was honest and enthusiastically committed to music and audio. However, the reason I spoke with him was to respond to statements he made, in print and on the radio, with which I, as a cocky college kid, took issue. We did have a good discussion but, in each case, he accepted that he was incorrect. They may have been trivial points but they are the basis of my statement.
None the less, I remained an avid reader and listener and aspired to what he did.
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,578
- Likes
- 25,277
Was ETC related to Vincent Canby? I realize I could google it, but... since the name came up... and since I am preternaturally lazy... now seems like a good time and place to ask.
PS With no offense meant towards Stereophile -- Audio was the sine qua non of audio periodicals -- at least for a staunchly amateurish amateur like me.
PS With no offense meant towards Stereophile -- Audio was the sine qua non of audio periodicals -- at least for a staunchly amateurish amateur like me.
I was raised on Audio but weaned on AudioCraft: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Audiocraft_Magazine.htmWas ETC related to Vincent Canby? I realize I could google it, but... since the name came up... and since I am preternaturally lazy... now seems like a good time and place to ask.
PS With no offense meant towards Stereophile -- Audio was the sine qua non of audio periodicals -- at least for a staunchly amateurish amateur like me.
IMO, only if smoothness of frequency response is the sole measure of accuracy.
To me, other aspects of accuracy are:
1) Full dynamics, from ambient noise floor to about 100 dB, with instantaneous (only) peaks up to about 115 dB in my approx 4,300 cu ft room at about 13 feet away.
2) Lack of compression
3) Low distortion, especially modulation distortion
4) The subjective resemblance of the sound to what I heard playing in several orchestras, and going to concerts (mostly classical and Jazz). I compared Klipschorns, B & Ws, etc., etc., and I drop in to hear whatever hi end are around (not for the last 5 years, or so -- the stores have disappeared in my area). Only the Klipschorns and "horny" JBLs seem to get the brass and percussion right. I deliberately avoid very expensive speakers. I heard some ribbons that sounded pretty good, but they didn't have full dynamics. Etc.
I agree. You need to like it, or what is the point?
I like the idea of double blind comparisons. That would put me in the minority. I think the "audiophiles' " objections could be overcome by a factorial design. It would take a lot of planning, and co-operation, which might be why it may never have been done --- that and that each side is convinced that they are right. No doubt there are simpler designs, especially when only two speakers are being compared. Off the top of my head, something like this:
Variable I: Type of Audition. Short term blind vs. Long Term Blind In both, an acoustically transparent screen would in front of the speakers in all trials. In Long, music washes over the listener -- brain is not in judgement mode. Weeks long, if desired by the participants. Short would be conventional ABX.
Variable 2: Type of Speaker. Speaker A vs Speaker B ABX as many trials as participants would like, with the acoustically transparent screen for consistancy.
So, you'd look at Type of Audition and Type of Speaker and the Interaction of Type of Audition and Type of Speaker. For instance, people may tend to prefer Speaker A in Short term exposure and Speaker B in Long. Two way ANOVA would do it, with counterbalancing to deal with any order effect or carryover effect.
Do I think I'd like Klipschorns best in a double blind comparison? Yes, but that's what they all say. Prediction: the trumpets would tell.
Not taste, itself, exactly, but, science can go part way in explaining which painting, film or music most participants will choose to experience in perceptual choice experiments. See the book by D. E. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology, and his many papers. Also, Psychology of the Arts, by Hans and Shulamith Kreitler, and selected papers by Frank Barron, Bob Dreher, and others.
anmpr1 ["Quote" function not working]
"If a reviewer didn't mention Marshall McLuhan or Alvin Toffler, he or she wasn't doing their job."Oh ... Tipping my hat to Alvin Toffler, I told my dealer that the JBL Graphic Controller Pre-amp gave me Future Shock, so .....
I bought a McIntosh C28 instead
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,744
- Likes
- 6,475
In the 'early days of hi-fi, Audiocraft was the 'gearhead' oriented magazine, split off from High Fidelity, which carried a lot of music and performance related copy. For a while, Hi-Fidelity incorporated the Musical America magazine, where for an extra dollar or two, subscribers could read about opera stars and orchestra conductors. One could easily ascertain the 'audiophile' split back then--a) those who used recorded music to listen to their gear, and b) those who used their gear to listen to recorded music.
Audiocraft featured Gordon Holt, along with Roy Allison, the latter migrating over to AR, as chief engineer.
The relation of articles/authors to editorial content was blurred. David Hafler could write an article on modding your Williamson amplifier by using a new and improved transformer, and then you turned to page 40 and found an ad for Dyna's Williamson-modding A-430 output transformer. But the press has always been that way.
Unlike the music reviews, gear run-downs were matter of fact. You read about how the gear was put together, how it measured and how flexible it was to use. Were the instructions to build it legible and logical, and how many evenings did it take to assemble? You never read about the reviewers as reviewers. To their credit they had the decency and good sense to stay in the background.
Sometime around I'm not exactly sure, audio reviewing moved away from this template, and reviewers started inserting themselves (and their wives) into the mix. Before reading about the gear in question, you had to read an anecdote about the reviewer's vacation, or some other incredibly uninteresting and unrelated episode in their life, that was then somehow supposed to be related the the gear they were reviewing.
This sort of 'gonzo' reporting was not in and of itself unwelcome, yet it hardly ever worked out because none of the reviewers utilizing this style was as interesting or as funny as Hunter Thompson on his way to Las Vegas. So it was mostly cringeworthy. With the possible exception of the late Enid Lumley, who was so bizarre and so off the wall, that you wanted to read about her and her exploits, simply for that. Today, Fremer likely approaches her in the overall weirdness department, but doesn't have the 'endearing' personal qualities that Lumley showed, at least in print. So until someone better comes along, Enid is still the journalistic Queen of Tweak.
As far as Canby? He started out reviewing records in Audio. I went through a few to refresh. Generally his record reviews were to the point. And he certainly had a way... in his review of The Civil War, Its Music and Its Sounds, Vol 2 (Mercury LPS2-902) Ed wrote: "In spite of a bit too much gun fire, this is by far the best Civil War album I've yet heard and seen." I don't think ETC was being funny or ironic--he was by all accounts a serious man, yet I had to laugh out loud at that.
Canby was born in 1912. There was a literary 'style' common around that time, particularly in England, where writers would spend paragraphs upon pages trying to make a point, obliquely. A good example was Alfred Orage's literary, social and political commentary newspaper, the New Age,--the early years of the last century. It was almost as if writers were not supposed to make a point, but just beat around the bush, hoping readers would figure it all out. Use 10 words, when one would do. Canby's prose was like that. A guy like
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,744
- Likes
- 6,475
Different parents.
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,578
- Likes
- 25,277