| Romy the Cat wrote:|
|I do use some vintage elements in my playback but I use them purposefully. I recognize their strengths and weaknesses and I capitalize on the strengths only. I think this is the only sane approach I see; when some vintage uniqueness of my choosing serves the purposes that I dedicate it to serve.|
I would like to expend a bit on the subject of the above shown Klangfilm. What this Klangfilm owner did was what exactly complies with my vision of a prudent audio. The owner recognized in the Klangfilm sound what he line and do not like and by the virtue of own design he indicated what he was trying to accomplish. What is interesting is that when you see the efforts like this, targeted to the right direction, then to predict the result is very difficult because you know that somebody purposely worked with Sound and did not treated Sound “as is”. In many cases I made judgment about sound with any needs to listed a speakers and the judgment in most case is surprisingly more accurate that an opinion of somebody who own the speaker for years. However, in the case of the efforts like the above shown Klangfilm I would not dare to predict how it might sound. Sure, it will have the dipole lower bass, something the I never liked, but it is about all the I can say.
The “msaudio” above was questioning if the speaker is Klangfilm attempt as the MF driver does not look like Klangfilm. The MF driver is in fact a special homosexual version of Klangfilm, the “msaudio” won’t hear or understand the driver anyhow as it would be too emotional for him. There is however a deeper educational layer in it. The final acoustic system shall not comply with Klangfilm label or with anything else. I can see people like Joe Robbers who would sit behind the panel of the speaker and polish the s bolts that join the baffle, claiming that the bolts were make from melted WE tube sockets. Joe Robbers is very much not alone: there are many people in audio for whom enslavement to “vintage obsession” has became a dominating force of sensibility and judgment. What that Klangfilm owner demonstrated is a radical departure from the Vintagtism ™.
I have to note however that “msaudio” might have a point: the Klangfilm MF driver might be more interesting then the X driver (I do not know what it is) that was used. But again, thanks for Klangfilm “collectors” we do not have knowledge about the quality of Klangfilm MF drivers. I need to point out that this is very seldom moment for me what I use phases “we” instead of the phases “I”. I never do but in this case I find it appropriate. The point that I try to make is that “we” and “I” do not have a lot of knowledge how the Klangfilm MF drivers sound. I did listen the Klangfilm MF drivers, both perm magnet and electromagnet, I even took the perm magnet Klangfilm MF driver apart and was studying how it was made. However, it was all in context of inferior in my view original Klangfilm installations – something that would do audio archeologists Joe Robbers to lose his mind and made me to make ugly faces. The point is that I did not hear and did not even see a lot of custom, tailored efforts (like above) to make interesting sound using the Klangfilm elements. It is very possible that the author of the above speaker went for his alternative to Klangfilm MF driver intentionally and if so then I would not care if the MF driver was there “original”.
So, the speaker above might not be the “Klangfilm”. The baffle itself not the original Klangfilm, which is perfectly fine as it is properly made with perpendicular siding and I hope doe not resonate as much at 60-40Hz as the original Klangfilm baffle.Rgs, Romy the Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche