D-MAN

You definately are running some clean gear. Judging by that equipment list, do you really expect us to believe that you will ever settle down with one set of speakers? The important difference in comparing Khorns against other speakers is this (IMO): With Khorns, you are listening to the room with Khorns in it. With other speakers, you tend to listen to the speakers in the room (due to dynamic compression inherent in the design(s)). This theory is seemingly born out by the recommended placement of the other speakers in question; typically they are placed well away from all walls to prevent reflections, etc. I think that Khorns mate to the environment in a way that forces some requirements in the room that other speakers do not. Some careful room treatments may clarify the soundstage for you. It also sounds to me like you are not getting the bass output from the Khorns that the design is capable of producing. Frankly, I have never heard better bass than I did from a friends Khorn setup; I can't seem to achieve that in my listening space either, but I know that it can be done but unfortunately it is a room-dimension issue, not easily resolved... The Khorn's wide dispersion angles of the mid and high frequency horns (especially the mid) also promote reflections that IMO need to be more controlled if imaging is more important than overage coverage. This can again be tamed by approprate room treatments. Having heard the big Magneplaners and other electrostats, I can say a couple of things about the comparison with Khorns. The Khorns produce a bigger soundstage and are subject to more room reflections (and modes) than other less efficient speakers. This causes indistinct imaging and apparent soundstage aberations, such as image movement caused by frequency changes, etc. If the environment is tamed appropriately, the effect can be astonishing, the dynamics and clarity can scare a cat (it does mine) and the convincing quality of having performers actually in the space with you (and the sense that the space is quite a bit larger than it really is). Khorns can give me chills up the spine, something that no other speakers have ever done. The Magnepans image like SOB's but the soundstage only appears between them and they tend to be in the "middle" of the listening space, so it ain't that big, typically, whereas the Khorns seemingly will "disappear" in a seemingly enlarged space. Also, the life-like quality wasn't there. At least, it didn't convince me. So I agree with your choice. There are "sound" reasons behind it. The room and associated tweaks will either make or break a Khorn setup. The design itself is truly world-class and is hard to beat at its price point. DM

I don't know where you got your information, but I got it from a former employee of Speakerlab in its heyday (the time when all of this supposedly occured). There were NO SUITS filed. DM

I would think that you would like the Yamaha. It is technically a better piece of gear with better build quality than either Denon or Onkyo for the money. I own a Denon, and wish I would have got a Yamaha. DM

Proko03, Ok, Bruckner's 8th is on my list! DM

I'd still take them. DM

P.S, I forgot to mention that there were NEVER any lawsuits instigated by Klipsch against Speakerlab. Foundless rumor. Won't die. DM

CWM, The Klipschorn patent expired in 1965, well before Speakerlab was ever in existence. There was no patent infringement and also no agreements between the two "institutions". I dealt with Speakerlab (being located in Seattle) back in the "old" days, and my best friend used to work there back then, too. DM

The upload looks good to me! Congrats, I wish I had them. DM

The 50yr anniversary (sp?) edition Klipshorn looks pretty good. That would be my candidate for future collectors. I have heard that some people prefer the 70's Klipshorns as they use phenolic drivers. I have heard that referred to as the "classic" and therefore preferred sound. DM

I have not really noticed a "burn in" type of improvement in my tube gear after changing out driver tubes. But that is not to say that there isn't one... I would not think that there is any harm to doing what you are thinking about. If it was me, I wouldn't turn the volume up very much, as the current has to go somewhere and I think it would be in the form of heat (in a no-load situation) from the xformer resulting from the lack of current flow on the secondary winding (the speaker side) which was what I originally heard long ago. I am not sure if it is really correct or not. DM

I dated a Cornwall once. But it didn't work out. DM

That is a good question, I have HEARD that one should not operate an output transformer without a load somewhere in the very distant past. This of course is assuming some amplification is happening. However, your question is referring to an amp at idle with no signal. There is no reason that the amp would be bothered as long as it is not amplifying anything, and thus, no current through the xformer. But that being the case, what would you be accomplishing in the tubes themselves other than applying some hours to the heater elements. The other elements (grids, etc) will not be subject to "burn in" without a signal... at least not enough to make a difference, I would think... DM

Tom, your description reminds me of an old tube-affair that I had back in the late 70's. Somebody gave me an old stereo Bogen amp that used 34's on it, if I remember correctly. At any rate it sounded FABULOUS on Khorns using a Dynaco PAT-5 preamp. It was everything that I have ever heard people say about tubes, before it smoked an output transformer. I then threw it away. If I could only go back, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT! DM

You can't go wrong with a Mc! DM

For the finest of what a full orchestra, massed choir, and in the requeims a pipe organ, get ahold of the following: 1) Deutch Grammophon "Beethovens Symphonie #9"(but of course) 2) Telarc cd of "Fuare and Durufle Requeims" (a must own) 3) Deutch Grammophon "Ravel - Daphne et Cloe / La Valse" (awesome) Add a set of Klipschorns and that's what heaven sounds like, dude... DM

I HAD a Panamax. It's dead now. Just stopped dead in its tracks. Won't turn on and its not a fuse problem. Get the Monster ONE-EYE instead - it lasts longer and sounds better. Unfortunately it also costs more. DM

There is a technical reason that the analog vinyl is "better" than digital, as the digital signal is not a true analog (it has some gaps somewhat like "steps") and subsequently gets "filled in" during conversion back to analog. Nontheless, this is a real distortion of the true analog signal. Regardless, I dumped my vinyl in the 80's and never looked back. Now at least I have truly DUST FREE listening... DM

Mike, let us know what you learn... This is extremely valuable information for all of us. DM

Well, you can't go wrong with a McIntosh. I have the MC300. A friend of mine bought the little Mc that's 150 watts integrated and that sounds pretty good, but I don't think that it has an output transformer... Also look at Classe and Krell amps. Consider buying used. The above mentioned amps are all class acts. On the tube side, take a look at Audio Research Corp (arc). DM

Ray said it best... he gives a well-reasoned explanation. Here's my opinion based on personal experience, for what its worth... There is alot of hype and overpriced stuff out there, it doesn't matter whether its an turntable, amp, or cables or whatever. The controversy in cables seems to come from the engineering crowd who have been taught that there is no measurable difference in wires. For electronics design work, this is probably true, but when listening to a quality audio system capable of reproducing the nuances of any signal such as one would expect with Klipschorns and some good gear, differences in wire types such as copper and silver and other variables such as design and manufacture can be ascertained by ear. There is a definite difference in interconnects. However the problem is much like that between an buying an ok amp and a really outstanding one, that boils down to price. Now how much the performance to dollar ratio is really worth is up to you. In the case of interconnects, the improvements are noticable, but not all encompassing. They won't make the gear into something that its not, but they can remove some of the "veiling" that you may not even notice until it is suddenly gone. The worth that you put on that will determine whether the connects in question are "worth" the price. My experience it that once you hear the difference in clarity, you won't be happy without it. I am a big believer in thinking that interconnects are just as important as the source components in a sound system. I have several thousands tied up in my gear, so connecting them together with cheap-and-cheesy wires means that I'm an even bigger idiot than normal?! Why buy expensive gear just to trash its capabilities with less-than-effective cabling? I recommend and use SILVER interconnects. Expensive, yes, but not anywhere near what I paid for the gear being connected. Having A/B'd the cables against all comers, and even convincing my most hard-to-please audiophile friends by demonstrating the differences, they too have become sold on the silver interconnect approach. My personal favs are the pure silver Alphacore XLS connects and Kimber RCA for their respective performance at a "reasonable" price point. I tried Monster (ok for video and what I would term "non-critical" listening connects) and AudioQuest coppers of various sorts - pass on the silver AudioQuests, they do not stand up to the favorites listed above and they cost more to boot! As an added note, for longer runs, I do not use silver; basically I use silver on the shortest possible runs at the critical junctures, between the cd and pre-amp and from the pre-amp to the amp. I don't "waste" silver on my AV or video gear. That's where I have the Monster and AudioQuest copper interconnects. DM

You assumption is correct. Having any protective circuit in the chain does have an insertion loss associated with it. In the case of the tiny wire inside the fuse itself which is resistive in nature so that it generates heat in order to overload itself and cause an open at the expected current level and the somewhat tenuous pressure connection in the fuse holder subject to the environment, there is quite a bit of difference in having a fuse/holder and associated solder joints inline or not. Personally, I would ditch the fuse. The fuses tend to open long before the current exceeds the capability of the woofer which in turn serves to protect the midrange and tweeter drivers from excessive current. Keep the fuse only if you think you might have twitchy gear or might overdrive the speakers beyond their respective design limits. I believe that the tweeter is supposed to be protected by a diode bridge in some crossovers. I would bag that to for the same reasons. This is only my opinion, and reflects what I have done on my system. DM

Yes, old wires do tend to oxidize and that does cause problems... copper and its alloys eventually can turn green and get crusty. So it seems like you've got a good handle on it! Happy listening! DM

---------------- On 3/8/2004 9:52:49 PM Maron Horonzak wrote: Why does everyone bring up cost when improveing Khorn. You spend more money on gas for your car in a year. ---------------- I think that cost potentially carries some important "unlisted" information such as possible or probable quality, availability and reasonably expected level of performance. Most of us operate within some budget constraints. It is also part of being a man to accomplish the most with the least expenditure of WHATEVER. Women would probably be more pragmatic about it, should they ever upgrade a Khorn! I would wear a parka in Hades first. DM

If it was a stereo interconnect or was otherwise intended for critical listening, I would say ABORT: do not exceed 1 meter in length and get something good! However, it is only a subwoofer, is it not? The real bottom line is threefold: 1) The subwoofer is powered 2) subwoofers ain't about fidelity, they're about raw low freq SPL 3) decor and/or placement issues overules other concerns So relax...

As stated previously, DO NOT make speaker cabinets from hardwoods. They can be veneered in hardwood of course, but they are NOT furniture (although they might look like it) and must be constructed in such a way as to prevent structural vibration. Virtually all speaker cabinets are made of thick multi-ply or MDF board due to the non-regular grain structure. Also the thicknesses involved of at least 1/2 inch would be better served with a veneered ply of some sort. The joints must be air tight, solidly glued, preferably screwed, and the structure must be free of vibration. The use of solid hardwood is to be avoided as it has a single grain and is subject therefore to sympathetic vibrations at specific frequencies somewhat like a guitar. DM