Klipschorn ten times as efficient as Audio Note's best

[Feanor]

While he had some 901s with tweeters added, his main system used AR-9s. His unique "Arrogant-ignorance" style didn't go over very well where he eventually got banned both here and at AA for bad behavior.

I remember his fawning over the Klaus Peterson amp he used. Never heard of that before? That's because it was a Franken-amp made from leftover Dynaco parts for the ST-150 (designed by Harry Klaus) and purchased by a guy named Peterson who ran Stereo Cost Cutters.

You'll see him continuing to promote the magic of his AR speakers over at Classic Speaker pages. Where you'll also find one of the funniest exchanges between him and speaker designer Ken Kantor.

I remember all that. It was quite surreal at times.

[E-Stat]

I remember all that. It was quite surreal at times.

Ooh, here it is:

SM getting slapped around

[RGA]

Personally I don't think he should have been banned because he often brought up excellent important points. And he said it well.

I enjoyed reading Ken Kantor and he did bring up an interesting argument about classical music. As a Lit Major I get his argument about classical music's relevance and that it was not lost via the quality of the reproduction which is Soundmind/skeptic's argument.

However, I disagree with what I perceive to be his de-valuing of classical music as an art form or that a stereo ought to be designed to be able to reproduce classical music. Classical music is the gold standard I use to evaluate the quality of audio gear - unlike many - it's not the only one - but it's the main one because it uses real instruments (not processors synthesizers) and generally speaking they are of the highest recording quality in terms of both frequency range and dynamics.

His argument seems to be on the popularity of classical music and he's correct on all his points.

"Give it up. Classical music is an anachronism. It's a dead art form, which speaks to fewer and fewer living people. Some of it may be beautiful, as some Baroque painting is. But, Art is all about change, not stasis. People want to hear music from their time, music that speaks to them about their life experiences, however abstractly. The audio manufacturers who maintained a reactionary allegience to old music were the first ones to go. Ones which embraced healthy creative evolution in the field of music, thrive.

I couldn't imagine being on the proverbial desert island with more than 2 or 3 classic music recordings, out of the dozens of works I want to bring. And live concerts? Yawn. Can humans get more pompous and stuffy? Classical audiences seem to forget that, oh, Beethoven was much like your typical rock and roller.

Audio equipment stopped being made for classical music after classical music lost its audience, not the other way around. Radio stations changed format. Record stores changed merchandising. Gradually, speaker companies got the message.

Classical music accounts for roughly 3% of the music business. What's so hard to understand about that figure? Even that 3% is mostly movie scores. It's dead. Kaput. Mort. This is not a value judgement or a philosophical argument. It's just the facts.

His argument also applies to much of classical literature - taking out the sales by students who are forced to take the subject and read the books/plays/sonnets I wonder how much Chaucer is purchased just for the joy of reading it.

I think where Ken goes off the rails is arguing essentially that because it's not popular with a wide audience it's bad. That can sometimes be true but often it comes down to exposure and while I agree with them that people today want art that speaks to them today what he fails to understand that art written in the past that survives still possess the same message and the same arguments that are fully applicable today. Dickens a prime example. Music pre 1900 that still survives because it was a cut above the rest of the stuff that didn't last.

[E-Stat]

Personally I don't think he should have been banned because he often brought up excellent important points.

His trouble was separating his opinion from reality. You'll note Kantor's reply to SM/Skeptic's pretension of fact.

His unique arrogant-ignorance style didn't fare well over at AA either.

[Feanor]

...
... Classical music is the gold standard I use to evaluate the quality of audio gear - unlike many - it's not the only one - but it's the main one because it uses real instruments (not processors synthesizers) and generally speaking they are of the highest recording quality in terms of both frequency range and dynamics.
...

You won't be surprised that I agree with this. The trick of reproducing real instruments in real space is what defines not only the highest play-back technology but also the highest recording technology. Play-back technology is weaker by the extent to which it ignores the demands of complex acoustic music.

Toughest of all to reproduce arguably is large-scale choral music; (how much of this does Poultrygeist listen to with his SETs and Fugalhorns?). But I've heard a vast range of results for chamber music too, and of course small ensemble jazz is pretty much the same as chamber music in that regard.

As for classical music itself, it's here to stay as niche genre least. It is isn't terribly important that the percentage of western populations that listen to it is shrinking somewhat when the absolute numbers are steady or increasing, which is definitely the case when you consider the growing appeal of classical, or if you prefer, "western art" music in, for example, China and Japan.

To say the classical music is archaic, of the past, has not kept up with the times, is to deny the past & current history of the form. Classical music has evolved, sometimes very rapidly, from it's beginning in early Renaissance to the 21st century. To say the it isn't changing or adapting to the times is to simply be unaware of 20th & 21st centrury composers and their music.

As a student, if you want a profound knowledge of music you must study "western art" music because is the most complex form that has evolved anywhere. To say "complex" doesn't imply "better" necessarily, however the complex forms allow composers the scope for greater creativity and personal expression that do simpler genres.

[E-Stat]

You won't be surprised that I agree with this. The trick of reproducing real instruments in real space is what defines not only the highest play-back technology but also the highest recording technology. Play-back technology is weaker by the extent to which it ignores the demands of complex acoustic music.

Toughest of all to reproduce arguably is large-scale choral music; (how much of this does Poultrygeist listen to with his SETs and Fugalhorns?). But I've heard a vast range of results for chamber music too, and of course small ensemble jazz is pretty much the same as chamber music in that regard.

As for classical music itself, it's here to stay as niche genre least. It is isn't terribly important that the percentage of western populations that listen to it is shrinking somewhat when the absolute numbers are steady or increasing, which is definitely the case when you consider the growing appeal of classical, or if you prefer, "western art" music in, for example, China and Japan.

To say the classical music is archaic, of the past, has not kept up with the times, is to deny the past & current history of the form. Classical music has evolved, sometimes very rapidly, from it's beginning in early Renaissance to the 21st century. To say the it isn't changing or adapting to the times is to simply be unaware of 20th & 21st centrury composers and their music.

As a student, if you want a profound knowledge of music you must study "western art" music because is the most complex form that has evolved anywhere. To say "complex" doesn't imply "better" necessarily, however the complex forms allow composers the scope for greater creativity and personal expression that do simpler genres.

What you just said!

One of my mentors, JWC who wrote for TAS in the 70s and 80s, has been a member of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for over thirty years. He studied for years under Robert Shaw and had quite an influence on my love of classical music. If you listened at his home, that's what you heard. That was a lot of what I heard in my late teens and early 20s. Sure, I enjoyed pop music, but I also enjoyed more complex music, too.

One of my favorite concerts at the ASO was Orff's Carmina Burana which has awesome power and dynamics. The good doctor was in his usual spot singing bass.

Also, I'm not really much a fan of 19th century romantics. My favorites are Russians like Prokofiev and Stravinsky along with Copland, Holst and Strauss. I also enjoy a lot of current film scores by Williams, Horner, Desplat and Zimmer.

[Feanor]

...
Also, I'm not really much a fan of 19th century romantics. My favorites are Russians like Prokofiev and Stravinsky along with Copland, Holst and Strauss. I also enjoy a lot of current film scores by Williams, Horner, Desplat and Zimmer.

Likewise, I'm not very fond of the Romanics in general with a few exceptions such as Schubert. I like the 20th century composers much better, notably Shostakovich and others such as Janacek, Bartok, Prokofiev. I have come increasingly to appreciate Schoenberg, and I particularly like the Elliott Carter whom I consider one of the greatest 20th century composers though he will never receive the public recognition he deserves.

[Ajani]

Personally I don't think he should have been banned because he often brought up excellent important points. And he said it well.

I enjoyed reading Ken Kantor and he did bring up an interesting argument about classical music. As a Lit Major I get his argument about classical music's relevance and that it was not lost via the quality of the reproduction which is Soundmind/skeptic's argument.

However, I disagree with what I perceive to be his de-valuing of classical music as an art form or that a stereo ought to be designed to be able to reproduce classical music. Classical music is the gold standard I use to evaluate the quality of audio gear - unlike many - it's not the only one - but it's the main one because it uses real instruments (not processors synthesizers) and generally speaking they are of the highest recording quality in terms of both frequency range and dynamics.

His argument seems to be on the popularity of classical music and he's correct on all his points.

"Give it up. Classical music is an anachronism. It's a dead art form, which speaks to fewer and fewer living people. Some of it may be beautiful, as some Baroque painting is. But, Art is all about change, not stasis. People want to hear music from their time, music that speaks to them about their life experiences, however abstractly. The audio manufacturers who maintained a reactionary allegience to old music were the first ones to go. Ones which embraced healthy creative evolution in the field of music, thrive.

I couldn't imagine being on the proverbial desert island with more than 2 or 3 classic music recordings, out of the dozens of works I want to bring. And live concerts? Yawn. Can humans get more pompous and stuffy? Classical audiences seem to forget that, oh, Beethoven was much like your typical rock and roller.

Audio equipment stopped being made for classical music after classical music lost its audience, not the other way around. Radio stations changed format. Record stores changed merchandising. Gradually, speaker companies got the message.

Classical music accounts for roughly 3% of the music business. What's so hard to understand about that figure? Even that 3% is mostly movie scores. It's dead. Kaput. Mort. This is not a value judgement or a philosophical argument. It's just the facts.

His argument also applies to much of classical literature - taking out the sales by students who are forced to take the subject and read the books/plays/sonnets I wonder how much Chaucer is purchased just for the joy of reading it.

I think where Ken goes off the rails is arguing essentially that because it's not popular with a wide audience it's bad. That can sometimes be true but often it comes down to exposure and while I agree with them that people today want art that speaks to them today what he fails to understand that art written in the past that survives still possess the same message and the same arguments that are fully applicable today. Dickens a prime example. Music pre 1900 that still survives because it was a cut above the rest of the stuff that didn't last.

I think he hit the nail on the head in that quote re classical music. One of the reasons our hobby fails to attract more persons is the very notion of audiophile approved music. I remember too well some of the snotty reactions I got from salesmen when I carried my favorite CDs (of popular music) to do auditions. As much as I respect the artistry in jazz and classical, I'm far more interested in how a system will handle Usher or Michael Jackson since those are artists I regularly listen to.

[Feanor]

I think he hit the nail on the head in that quote re classical music. One of the reasons our hobby fails to attract more persons is the very notion of audiophile approved music. I remember too well some of the snotty reactions I got from salesmen when I carried my favorite CDs (of popular music) to do auditions. As much as I respect the artistry in jazz and classical, I'm far more interested in how a system will handle Usher or Michael Jackson since those are artists I regularly listen to.

Can't say I buy that. Of all the reasons that distract people from good sound, potential buyers' aversion to classical music is the one I observe least often.

And as for hi-fi retailers, it's hard to find any these days that has any selection of classical for audition. At my local emporium, (which I visit very seldom), the attitude towards classical music is overtly contemptuous.

[Ajani]

Can't say I buy that. Of all the reasons that distract people from good sound, potential buyers' aversion to classical music is the one I observe least often.

And as for hi-fi retailers, it's hard to find any these days that has any selection of classical for audition. At my local emporium, (which I visit very seldom), the attitude towards classical music is overtly contemptuous.

1) Audiophile approved music is not limited to classical. It includes Jazz and lots of "old" one of a kind live recordings from way back in the day. It generally excludes anything relatively current and popular.

2) The issue is not that non-audophiles hate classical or other audiophile approved music. The issue is the stink attitude and contempt shown by audiophiles towards non-audiophile approved music.

I've seen persons post questions on HiFi forums asking whether it makes sense to upgrade their system if they only listen to rock or pop. The thought process being spread to them is that unless you listen to certain types of music then you won't benefit from a better system. Which is complete rubbish.

Go to a dealer or a HiFi show and see (or hear) how many of the dealers play any popular music.

The point is that you can't expect to appeal to more of the masses if all you do is insult their music. That spreads the very false notion that only certain types of music are worthy of a HiFi system.

[Feanor]

...
The point is that you can't expect to appeal to more of the masses if all you do is insult their music. That spreads the very false notion that only certain types of music are worthy of a HiFi system.

True, I must concede. And that's a big reason I don't visit the local shop I mentioned. The big honcho there has nothing but contempt for classical music -- and other people's opinions in general.

[RGA]

I think he hit the nail on the head in that quote re classical music. One of the reasons our hobby fails to attract more persons is the very notion of audiophile approved music. I remember too well some of the snotty reactions I got from salesmen when I carried my favorite CDs (of popular music) to do auditions. As much as I respect the artistry in jazz and classical, I'm far more interested in how a system will handle Usher or Michael Jackson since those are artists I regularly listen to.

Well I had some of those reactions - at a store it is simply easier to quickly rifle through gear on music in 3-5 minuted chunks than a classical piece. If it can't do the dynamics of a "simple" rock recording what chance has it got on anything else? Well that was when I first started - now I always carry a CD case of about 40 albums from Beethoven (cause ever since a Clockwork Orange - I've been a fan) to K'NAAN.

To much myth and not enough listening in this industry. While Peter was here in HK I asked about the decision to play metal - Slipknott, Nightwish, The Evil Nine. He started this because on forums people said SETs could not do rock. Ie; hard hitting high level music. Having a teenage boy and the brilliantly knowledgeable Martin Grennel on staff who is very up on all the Indie underground bands in the UK (I suspect because he was a DJ) they began to play at ear splitting DB levels at audio shows - the chagrin of their competitors. Oh wait SET and "modestly" efficient speakers can in fact do that. Peter owning the most rare records on the planet and in high numbers and being a classical guru I was happy that he wasn't like those stuffy dealers who play nothing but strings at low levels.

The problem with doing that though is that a big chunk of the target market over the age of 50 (you know the audiophiles who have money) will be driven away from the room. You won't be taken seriously by your target market. I do because I like a room that will play any music at any volume level with no fear. (it's very uncommon).

I tend to listen to different things at different times - in the car I would usually listen to pop or Lady Gaga/Madonna type stuff - at home I would listen to jazz and classical - largely because most of the cars I owned had far too much noise of one sort of the other which really hurts classical's need for low ambient noise. Maybe if I had a Bentley things would have been different.

The thing with the synth is that it has unlimited dynamic range and unlimited frequency response. Some of the current artists will use it and few high end stereos are designed to cope. Soundhounds carries many brands but they'll tell you which ones suck at doing what - you'll notice they are now selling the Cerwin Vega CLS 215. A younger market needs a speaker that can handle what they listen to and it sure isn't the Quad 2905. That's not a slight - it's simply fact - the Quads do other things better but those other things don;t benefit any music at all except for the 3% of music Ken Kantor was talking about. If you listen only to that 3% then they're a good way to go - otherwise the CLS 215 for 1/15 the price is a better loudspeaker.

I never really understand why people get defensive over the obvious.

I think Audiophiles like myself have the biggest problem with buying audio gear - with one stereo system it needs to be able to do Slipknott to Sophie Milman, to Daft Punk, to Itzhak Stern, to Yo Yo, to Madonna, to AC/DC, to Jackson Browne to Beethoven's 5th, to Mahler, to Evil Nine - They Live (Original Mix) - YouTube

Ie; an all-rounder.

So most systems that can pound sound pretty terrible on classical music - speakers geared for pop/rock often have the JBL hump. A boom and sizzle quality that can be fatiguing in classical or jazz. Or to a lesser extent just unremarkable.

Speakers like the Quad which have all the hi-fi sound in the midrange just sound so very bad on anything amplified. I can excuse the speakers with the slight boom and sizzle since they tend to cost what the CLS 215 does. At $1k I can live with a lot of issues - and it has less than you would think. I remember the old D9 and the 215 actually sounds like a quality speaker more than just a boom and sizzler like the D9

Then to try and find a speaker that does both - well horns can do the scale and transients and impact of both classical and rock but most of the time I took issue with their treble which seems to blare at me - it's good and all but it's not good for long listening sessions and as much as I enjoyed listening to the Klipsches recently I wonder if I could listen to them for a whole hour and if I could relax to them. Perhaps that's not the point of them - since nighclubs use horns and they don't want you to relax.

Nothing against these horns but what is good for one venue may not be the ultimate at home - Lawrence Lok of Dagogo pointed out to me that he finds good speakers are the ones that have the ability to allow you to do something else while not being irritated with them in the background.

So now we want a chameleon that can be highly energetic and alive, can play anything top flight, can also be great as background music, can rock the house, but can have you fall asleep to them. Jeez.

The small panels simply don't cut it - small cheap horns tend to blare and don't cut it. Then there is the mainstream LE high mass variety that stores energy in the box with damping. They sound dead. They only come to life when you turn the volume way up - partly due to negative feedback amplifiers which simply cover their distortion tracks error correction ( a time smearing reactionary fix). You always know it's not quite right. Again on the cheap it's fine enough but far too much of this design is over $3 and it doesn't compete.