Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'klipsch'.
Found 2 results
I tried to get earpads for the Klipsch Image One headphone, and opened a support ticket. Today, they sent me an email asking if my address listed was correct. I replied YES. Then I got a rejection that their email was a "No Reply". So I called Klipsch support and waded through a hellish bunch of button pushes, many redundant, before I got a rep. I told her about the email, and she gave me a tongue-lashing about how stupid I was to try replying, instead of reading some very tiny print way at the bottom that said "no reply email". And then she hung up on me. This was possibly the worst tech support I've ever called, rivaling the Apple supervisor who hung up on me after lying over and over again insisting that Apple does not force-download iOS updates (they do). So there you are - Klipsch - very hostile and arrogant support.
Why is the sound of one device better than the other? Is it because it has more detail? Less distortion? Better frequency balance? Something else? That is a much tougher question to answer than it would seem to be on the surface. In one of the threads I have been reading, SAL1950 posted: Dynamics and low distortion = detail. God is in the details. Paul Klipsch had it 90% right by 1946 That resonated with a lot of people. Personally, I don't like the sound of Klipsch speakers, and have not since around 1977 when I first heard them. (Okay, they did and still do sound great in movie theaters...) But the point is, to me, whatever KlipschHorns do to the sound - for me, it does not make the sound better. But it is not arguable that for a lot of people, Klipsch horns do produce much better sound. Then there is Chris' review of the Aurender W20 has engendered discussion of what makes for better sound. I am still considering his findings on that one, though I am sure they are both accurate and torturously honest. Listening to Doug MacLeod's There's A Time at 24/176.4 from the Aurender W20 enables one to hear this recording to the fullest. The recording space, air around Doug's voice and guitar, and sense of realism that can be heard in this wonderfully engineered album are astounding. Chris points out in his review that the Aurender W20 shows up the limitations of the C.A.P.S. music server as a source. Given that the C.A.P.S. is not only good as a music source, it is very good, that is saying something. I am not sure exactly what he is hearing that makes the W20 sound better though. Finally, Paul McGown published an interesting take on voicing equipment in his blog today. Coincidentally or not, it echoes a lot of the subjects being discussed on CA now. One point in particular resonated with me. In talking about a PreAmp they designed, they accidentally discovered that putting a bigger power supply in it improved the sound. Exactly how it improved, I do not know. In later years we discovered it was the lower impedance of the thicker wire that made the improvement to the sound, but even to this day we’ve not been able to measure anything performance wise that displays a difference. It certainly resonated with me, and made me ask once again, what makes the sound better? Feel free to post your thoughts on the subject here, and certainly there is no "right" or "wrong" answers about what makes you like or dislike a particular sound! -Paul