Why so hard on KUBUKI's???

[Bill Ferris]

Dayum Billy.

Those are the largest analog meters I've ever seen,

Yes Sir.
Them`s some big cyclops eyes on those amps !!
I`m kind of glad that their in the adjacent sunroom, though I never turn on the meter lamps anyway, the Mac faceplate LED nomenclature might be distracting if those big boys lived in the living room whilst watching a movie, or listening to music with no lighting engaged..

The original & primary reason that the big amps ended up in the added on sunroom, was before I purchased those "Mac Daddy Big Boys", their previous 240 volt converted high powered Crown amps with their fans made too much noise when originally sited in the living room, so it was necessary to remote them to the 1997 built sun room add on.

The house`s original outside two windows & door were retained after the sunroom was added for other reasons, and I could close off the living room from the 2 1,500 watt mono configured Crown amp`s fan noise, after taking a 4" hole saw and drilling wall pass throughs, utilizing 2 separate, and spaced apart( high level & low level) PVC pipe couplers that were caulked on both sides of the wall for passing the amplifier`s L/R input`s speaker, and power cables from one room to the next with fiberglass insulation packed in the PVC pipe after running the cables.
By that time, there was no room in the living room for the fan-less Mac MC 1201`s, when they were purchased in 2006, so they were relegated to the sunroom, which I`m happy with anyway, being watching meters is not important to me while running the system.

Thank you BigEICat for your interest, and compliment, Sir.

 

[motorstereo]

Dayum Billy.

Those are the largest analog meters I've ever seen,

Yes they are pretty big at 4 1/2'' x 9 1/2''.

 

[drumbum]

I don't get the whole "kabuki's lack bass" thing.

My Techniques SB-G800's are only 20db down at 25hz.

Remember, before you judge, it accomplishes that with only a 16 1/8" woofer

 

[FluxT]

The "too small of a cabinet" thing about kabuki speakers is one of many shortcomings. Another is the cabinet itself in that it is almost always made of thin material and unbraced internally and has a weak baffle. Another is that they have multiple drivers covering the same directional frequencies AND have the same coverage pattern. Not good and that is the problem with the 6 speaker 5 way you describe. It's one thing if they do not share the same coverage pattern, but if they do and the frequencies are directional you get all kinds of response related problems.

Not sure where you are coming from with your "who says 3 speakers is magical" thing. I don't think anyone said that. But, the fewer crossover points, the better from a sound quality perspective. And it is not about quantity of drivers per cabinet. It is about how many drivers cover the same directional frequencies and share the same coverage pattern. That is the issue, and most kabuki speakers have problems in that arena. Not to mention too big of woofers with low output below 80hz. Not to mention substandard, underengineered cabinetry. Not to mention poor quality drivers.

Pretty much this. And while some of them did have good cabinets with good bracing and good drivers, they still suffer in terms of having multiple drivers share frequencies. While the crossovers could be better optimized by using more orders (sharper cutoffs), you wind up mucking with the phase, as each "order" shifts the phase by about 90-odd degrees or so. This leads to a less "real" sound, even if it measures "flat". Even if you were to pour money into the perfect crossovers, you'll still wind up with old speakers that aren't worth a whole lot and get roundhouse-kicked sonically by simpler designs of the same vintage, to say nothing of modern designs.

 

[Bugetnirvana]

The "too small of a cabinet" thing about kabuki speakers is one of many shortcomings. Another is the cabinet itself in that it is almost always made of thin material and unbraced internally and has a weak baffle. Another is that they have multiple drivers covering the same directional frequencies AND have the same coverage pattern. Not good and that is the problem with the 6 speaker 5 way you describe. It's one thing if they do not share the same coverage pattern, but if they do and the frequencies are directional you get all kinds of response related problems.

Not sure where you are coming from with your "who says 3 speakers is magical" thing. I don't think anyone said that. But, the fewer crossover points, the better from a sound quality perspective. And it is not about quantity of drivers per cabinet. It is about how many drivers cover the same directional frequencies and share the same coverage pattern. That is the issue, and most kabuki speakers have problems in that arena. Not to mention too big of woofers with low output below 80hz. Not to mention substandard, underengineered cabinetry. Not to mention poor quality drivers.

So by your logic we might as well all find contentment in one way speaker systems. No thanks. You do realize you are literally lumping hundreds if not thousands of different speaker designs into a single, "substandard, under-engineered" category. Right? That could pass as the definition of a negative bias. Ive seen a lot of cheap, substandard speakers that are clearly the product of the bean counter brigade. I get that. But there are so many others as well that should absolutely not be stereotyped as such, ever! Another thing is most "Kabuki" designs were from a different time, and are now outdated in many ways. But, a lot of the technology we enjoy now was developed in that time. So you might consider giving a little credit where it is due.

 

[Bugetnirvana]

I don't get the whole "kabuki's lack bass" thing.

My Techniques SB-G800's are only 20db down at 25hz.

Remember, before you judge, it accomplishes that with only a 16 1/8" woofer

I have a set of Kenwood KL777's that are very often said to "lack bass". They are a bit of an anomaly. They were the first of that series, and unless they are driven with a pretty substantial system they do indeed lack bass. They would seem to just plain suck with one of todays crap, weak receivers. The woofers are built like tanks and seem to have engineering borrowed from old "PA loudspeaker" design. But when given some substantial power, they wake up and are VERY loud! By the time Kenwood made the D versions of the 777 the woofer design was much more efficient and advanced. As far as I am concerned the 777D's have plenty bass. Big, beautiful punchy bass. But there are lots of threads running them down. Who knows why. Different tastes, different music, whimpy systems, attitude. Whatever. Who cares. I know that a lot people today seek out fat, muddy, boomy bass. Personally I cant stand it. Different strokes mate.

 

[FluxT]

Another thing is most "Kabuki" designs were from a different time, and are now outdated in many ways. But, a lot of the technology we enjoy now was developed in that time. So you might consider giving a little credit where it is due.

It is a bit funny that most of the darling vintage designs-Klipsch Heresy, Dynaco A25, JBL L100, Roger LS3, etc.-all seem to mostly conform to what we now understand as good speaker design, and some of them are still in production decades later! And even then, those big woofers and paper cone tweeters are neolithic in comparison with today's smaller, carbon fiber drivers that can respond to every nuance of the signal with greater speed and accuracy. Subwoofers mean that the bass can be tailored to the listener's preference, every bit as taut or muddy as they like. Modern amps, at least the quality ones (since we're comparing against quality vintage), are far from being "wimpy". When these speakers were in vogue, the average receiver or amp was probably in the 20-40 watt range, and one would have been hard-pressed to find anything cranking out more than 60 on a good day. 100 watters were rare and elaborate affairs. These days, you'd be hard-pressed to find a proper receiver with anything less than 50 watts, and 100 "real" watts aren't too hard to come by. The dark days of the 80s and the 90s, with their chintzy preamp sections and STK modules that pop off like Pogs, are long over.

And yes, not all of it was cheap flash. Those Kenwood KL7080's my brother had when I was a youngin', with their HEAVY cabinets and triamp capabilities, were definitely some serious speakers back in their day. The designer(s) probably made a genuine effort to make the best speaker they could, using the philosophy of many drivers tailored to each part of the frequency spectrum. And they sure did get PLENTY loud on the 100-ish watt AVR they were run with, and met their maker when my brother fed them the 1812 Overture on maximum volume. That being said, thinking back on it, I always thought they sounded awful harsh. I distinctly remember vocals and strings having a "weird" sound, as if they were playing through a tunnel. It wasn't til I heard "Like a Stone" yeaaaars later on some Polks that I realized Chris Cornell WASN'T holding a plastic cup up to his mouth as he sang.

It's a bit like cars, although music and audio are far more subjective. My Honda Accord, with it's 1.5L inline 4 engine, would soundly shame, if not at least hang ten with, some of the classic sedans and muscle cars of the '60s and '70s with their brobdignagian V8's in terms of acceleration, and can most certainly corner without the tires screaming bloody murder or the body rolling like the Queen Mary. Of course, style and aesthetics weigh in favor of the classics (although I'd shudder if landau tops and fake spokes ever came back), but the balance swings riiiight back when you take a look at fuel economy. All the growl and style in the world couldn't sway me from only having to fill up every 500 miles, but I s'pose some folks need that in order to feel like more of a man in the morning.

 

[Bugetnirvana]

It is a bit funny that most of the darling vintage designs-Klipsch Heresy, Dynaco A25, JBL L100, Roger LS3, etc.-all seem to mostly conform to what we now understand as good speaker design, and some of them are still in production decades later! And even then, those big woofers and paper cone tweeters are neolithic in comparison with today's smaller, carbon fiber drivers that can respond to every nuance of the signal with greater speed and accuracy. Subwoofers mean that the bass can be tailored to the listener's preference, every bit as taut or muddy as they like. Modern amps, at least the quality ones (since we're comparing against quality vintage), are far from being "wimpy". When these speakers were in vogue, the average receiver or amp was probably in the 20-40 watt range, and one would have been hard-pressed to find anything cranking out more than 60 on a good day. 100 watters were rare and elaborate affairs. These days, you'd be hard-pressed to find a proper receiver with anything less than 50 watts, and 100 "real" watts aren't too hard to come by. The dark days of the 80s and the 90s, with their chintzy preamp sections and STK modules that pop off like Pogs, are long over.

And yes, not all of it was cheap flash. Those Kenwood KL7080's my brother had when I was a youngin', with their HEAVY cabinets and triamp capabilities, were definitely some serious speakers back in their day. The designer(s) probably made a genuine effort to make the best speaker they could, using the philosophy of many drivers tailored to each part of the frequency spectrum. And they sure did get PLENTY loud on the 100-ish watt AVR they were run with, and met their maker when my brother fed them the 1812 Overture on maximum volume. That being said, thinking back on it, I always thought they sounded awful harsh. I distinctly remember vocals and strings having a "weird" sound, as if they were playing through a tunnel. It wasn't til I heard "Like a Stone" yeaaaars later on some Polks that I realized Chris Cornell WASN'T holding a plastic cup up to his mouth as he sang.

It's a bit like cars, although music and audio are far more subjective. My Honda Accord, with it's 1.5L inline 4 engine, would soundly shame, if not at least hang ten with, some of the classic sedans and muscle cars of the '60s and '70s with their brobdignagian V8's in terms of acceleration, and can most certainly corner without the tires screaming bloody murder or the body rolling like the Queen Mary. Of course, style and aesthetics weigh in favor of the classics (although I'd shudder if landau tops and fake spokes ever came back), but the balance swings riiiight back when you take a look at fuel economy. All the growl and style in the world couldn't sway me from only having to fill up every 500 miles, but I s'pose some folks need that in order to feel like more of a man in the morning.

I guess I am a bit guilty of stereotyping myself. Manufacturers watt ratings of amps and receivers mean little to nothing to me anymore. Ive had modern receivers rated at a supposed 200 watts per channel that didn't hold a candle to a vintage Radio Shack receiver rated at a meager 25 watts PC. Seriously, that's not an exaggeration. Obviously one meant RMS and the other, who knows. Ive had too many of the "me too" receivers with the big, bold 100-200 WPC stickers that just plain sucked to fall for that schtick anymore. Im sure there are some fine modern units out there, but none that I can afford. I have a Marantz NR1403 that does a fine job for home theater, but it wont keep pace with my vintage audio gear. Its not even a contest. Ive never heard KL7080's, but they look real similar to the old 777's. Not the best vintage Kenwood technology, but they were well made and a pretty good bang for the buck at the time.

A friend of mine has a 2005 Shelby. The best of both worlds. No suspension issues there. I think that would be more like the modern audio gear you are talking about.

 

[drumbum]

I have a set of Kenwood KL777's that are very often said to "lack bass". They are a bit of an anomaly. They were the first of that series, and unless they are driven with a pretty substantial system they do indeed lack bass. They would seem to just plain suck with one of todays crap, weak receivers. The woofers are built like tanks and seem to have engineering borrowed from old "PA loudspeaker" design. But when given some substantial power, they wake up and are VERY loud! By the time Kenwood made the D versions of the 777 the woofer design was much more efficient and advanced. As far as I am concerned the 777D's have plenty bass. Big, beautiful punchy bass. But there are lots of threads running them down. Who knows why. Different tastes, different music, whimpy systems, attitude. Whatever. Who cares. I know that a lot people today seek out fat, muddy, boomy bass. Personally I cant stand it. Different strokes mate.

I think you are on to something. I also need to apologize for posting miss-information; the G-800's are 25db down at 35hz (I suffer from CRS). But I don't listen to specs,...my ears don't lie like the manufacturers and their mics do.

I have only been feeding my 98db 1w/1m, 250w rated music power G-800's with a 75# dual mono amplifier rated 375w@ 8ohm.

I think I should take my CS-4080hz (1250w @ 1khz 8 ohm, but more like 950w 20-20) downstairs to the shop and power these techniques loudspeakers properly.

That should wake 'em up and get 'em flat to 20hz I bet.

I agree that the 16-1/8" woofers produce PLENTY of bass for most music, except for those obscure recordings that have frequencies below 90hz. What the hell are some people thinking with that crazy music. Must be an ethnic thing.

I recon I'll do my testing with some VERY demanding music like dark side of the moon, aja, and brothers in arms


Don't get me started on them FAKE AVR watts!











B.S.

 

[quiet]

I too have Kenwoods. The KL777A. Yes it does roll off at 80. Most noticeably the last few keys on the piano. But it does play them. No there's generally not a lot of every day music under what it plays. But there is enough that I notice when the 777a doesn't play it. Think pipe organ. Much like the Pioneer CS99A, the 777a is a fine sounding, well built speaker. The mid driver is the weak link. Have spares handy. Next would be stiff woofer cloth surrounds. It's the fastest drum speaker to come through here. And yes, they play loud. I just don't talk about them so as not to invite the inevitable bashing that I wont stick around to participate in.
On the other hand I've had some other speakers that looked like this sound useless.

These many driver 1965 to 1975 bookshelf speakers work well. But tend to be slow, and big deeper.

 

[Bodyblue]

but I s'pose some folks need that in order to feel like more of a man in the morning.

I was with you till that last bullshit line. Really, really shitty.

 

[Bodyblue]

The biggest surprise I had in a long time was when I bought my Dyanco A25s. No way they should have as much bass as they do if one compares woofer to cab volume. It seems when one lives by a rule, something comes along to tear up that rule. The big woofer to cabinet size is a decent guideline but hardly a rule written in stone. Another speaker like that is the Small Advent......no way should it go so deep and yet it does.

Also I have never seen a Pioneer CS series or older Sansuis that were not built like furniture. Just extremely heavy wood and bracing. I think the main problem with them is not the bass but the smearing of sound.....

 

[quiet]

It would be disrespectful to criticize the humble Dynaco for it's worthy efforts.
No smearing with the CS99a. And the build is over the top. But the price...…….

 

[Bugetnirvana]

But I don't listen to specs,...my ears don't lie like the manufacturers and their mics do.

Amen to that. I traded a set of KL777D's to my brother for some "Modern" Klipsch RF7's. That was a huge mistake. They can bag Kabukis and their 15" woofers all they want, I dont care, I know what I heard and those Klipsch's werent even in the same ballpark as the Kenwoods. I felt like I went from major league to amateur hour. I dumped them for some Quartets and am much happier now. If there is a replacement for displacement, I havent heard it yet.

 

[quiet]

I would have expected better from the RF7. Maybe they do something the Kenwood don't. My complaint with the rest of my speakers is the drums don't hold up with rock like with the Kenwood's. It's just no good when the drums get drowned out.

 

[Bugetnirvana]

I would have expected better from the RF7. Maybe they do something the Kenwood don't. My complaint with the rest of my speakers is the drums don't hold up with rock like with the Kenwood's. It's just no good when the drums get drowned out.

The RF7's are good speakers. They sound good and are very articulate for a 2 way 3 driver systyem, but my point is, to my ears the 777D's sound better! Way better! The RF7's would fill the room, the 777D's would fill the HOUSE!

 

[quiet]

Mine fill the neighborhood.

 

[Bodyblue]

Mine fill the neighborhood.

I like my CS 88 enough to have them recapped. I tried and tried to find a way to like them. I finally decided they just needed more room than I had. Before they left I ran them with the Kenwood KR 8010 and 125wpc lit them up like crazy but they did not sound that great at less than concert levels. I have heard the CS99s but not the "A" models and they sounded nice with no smearing. The Sansuis are the ones that smeared the sound to me. The SP 1000s I had did it as well.

 

[quiet]

The SP-3500 here was a clean sound, not clean enough. The SP-1000 was not. Both gone.

 

[FluxT]

I would have expected better from the RF7. Maybe they do something the Kenwood don't. My complaint with the rest of my speakers is the drums don't hold up with rock like with the Kenwood's. It's just no good when the drums get drowned out.

I had the bookshelves from that line, and I never liked how the drums sounded, particularly 80s drums (think "Take Me Home" by Phil Collins). Too hollow, too lifeless.

I like my CS 88 enough to have them recapped. I tried and tried to find a way to like them. I finally decided they just needed more room than I had.

In my experience, large multi-way speakers just don't work in small-to-normal sized rooms, and that's when the interference and smearing rear their ugly head the most. My 'suis could feel like a collection of drivers sounding off rather than a cohesive whole, but they came into their own as soon as I set them up for my friend in his listening space, which was a rather large basement with the speakers a good 20 feet apart. Can't speak for imaging or other critical factors, but he was immediately taken with them and they sounded quite pleasant spinning electronic music through his 90s AVR and nifty little reverb unit.