Jump to content

Ask the Historian

Got a Klipsch history question for historian Jim Hunter? Ask here! 

423 topics in this forum

  1. Welcome! 1 2

    • 20 replies
    • 18 replies
  2. Klipsch Cornwall

    • 16 replies
  3. KP-250 1 2

    • 25 replies
    • 3 replies
    • 19 replies
    • 1 reply
    • 7 replies
    • 4 replies
    • 1 reply
    • 9 replies
    • 30 replies
    • 9 replies
    • 35 replies
    • 9 replies
    • 1 reply
    • 3 replies
    • 16 replies
    • 6 replies
    • 1 reply
    • 3 replies
    • 9 replies
    • 1 reply
    • 13 replies
    • 2 replies
  • Recent Posts

    • A sensible post. I feel the same. There are a lot of different ways to enjoy recordings.
    • Come to Lynchburg. I'll convince ya...😁
    • I agree with you on all points. But I still enjoy my Stirling Broadcast LS 3/6 and LS 3/5 V2 for other reasons besides my old LaScala and the Underground Jubilees. I find that the richness of tone and naturalness of timbre for acoustic instruments like a classical guitar or string quartet is very good with these British BBC designs. Even a piano sounds very natural and with attack. But it is and remains (only) a psychoacoustic imagination. They are not more than imagined attacks, perhaps because the stop of the tones also works quite well. That's all I demand from these speakers. Never would they match the dynamics and stage size of the real sound event, as horns achieve this much better. But they have a meaning for me. It is just something different. I would also never think that the very large and very expensive cone and dome designs which use many drivers, such as those from Wilson, KEF, B&W or others (did someone say "Aspen"?🙃) can ever even come close to matching the "natural dynamics and power" of good horns. No, my personal experience is that big loud cone designs always tend to sound too much "electrical" and not natural. Cone designs like this BBC style speakers are no more to me than a good old tube kitchen radio used to be. A cozy fatigue-free nice sound that reminds me of the original only at moderate volume levels.
    • My recipe is a ground bus too. It's something I've done for 20 years and always yields excellent results. I use the solid copper ground conductor (or strip the black/white conductor) from a length of 14/2 household wiring for my ground bus and route this through the amp. One end terminates at the power supply capacitors, the other end at the RCA inputs.   I always ensure my RCA's are isolated/insulated and do not ground to the chassis when mounted. The RCA's are connected to the ground bus at one end. I also connect the chassis (earth) ground to the RCA end of the ground bus through the below circuit to keep the signal ground and earth ground paths separate. The essentially turns your metal chassis into a big shield to keep EMI/RFI out of your circuit, which is why I like a full metal chassis.    The ground bus is connected to the amp circuitry as the Captain said; power supply caps at one end (since this end of the bus has the most ripple) then subsequently less "ripple sections" attached to the bus toward the RCA end of the bus.    An X or Y safety cap can be used or a mylar one as well. I came across a bunch of X caps for free and I use them. 
    • Actually, that has been my thought. Which do you think sounds "better?" Mind you, Shaky has not yet convinced me to go back to vinyl, so CDs through LSIIs are the usual path. Thanks in advance.
    • A little rambling about tubes. The coating of the cathode in the tube is what separates a good tube from a not so good one. Something the old maker of tubes did so well. What makes Western Electric tubes so sought after and highly prized. It was their highly guarded secrete sauce they perfected back in the day when tubes ruled. The late Roger Modjeski said he once went to a European country that made what he thought was excellent sounding tubes. He saw the vat they mixed the ingredients in and they let it sit overnight every time. He said he did not know what was in the vat that made the tubes sound so good. He said it could have been the janitor urinating in the vat overnight that made them sound good.  This was said in his lecture at a Burning Amp Festival held yearly. Made me laugh. 
    • About a year ago I bought a small pair of British monitors to play around with. I was impressed by the smooth response, wide soundstage, and even dispersion of sound throughout the room. However, the speakers are now in storage because ultimately they sounded like speakers and not like music. As a musician, I know what live music sounds like; if I was led blindfolded into a room with music playing, cones-and-domes would never fool me into thinking it was a live performance.  A blindfold and some Khorns; well, it is startling how well they can approximate a live performance (Dave Brubeck, Take Five at live levels, anyone?). I think a lot of the issue with even some of the quite well designed, non-horn speakers is the lack of dynamics that is ever present in a live performance.   (I do realize IM distortion is also a factor, but that issue has ties to efficiency and in turn dynamics…)   Interestingly, getting the dynamics right when playing a piano score is very important; it has a tremendous impact on how good the piece sounds during a performance. The same goes for speakers.   Reproducing music that is not faithful (“fidelity”) to the live performance from which it was recorded is “non-fidelity” and therefore a form of distortion per Mr. Paul Klipsch. 
    • I glanced over the article this morning and I like it. Looks like an excellent little simple circuit and easy to build with a good write up on how to. Great find Hanks. I like to find articles like this one. New one for me and I am looking forward to reading the article more closely later. I like these kind of things. 🙂
  • Create New...