D-MAN

Horns seem to be like wine. Some years are better than others, and some people have strong opinions about what they like or don't like. I have read that the "most preferred" Khorns are from the 1970's. Like Gil said, probably the one thing that changes the sound most notably is the crossover network. Not much else has changed since then. DM

Short of a total failure, and if you cannot actually hear a degredation, then only a visual inspection can tell if the spider, cone and surround are in proper operating condition, that is, no holes or worn spots. An Ohm-meter check will verify the nominal resistance of the voice coil. Once you have ensured that the speakers are physically ok and the voice coil former does not rub on the magnet structure (if it does it is probably already toast), then you are good to go. Unless you have rubber or pressed foam surrounds on the woofers which tend to oxidize and otherwise deteriorate (like turning to dust), speakers tend to last a long time, especially with a cloth surround. Since the voice coil/magnet structures do not actually touch, there is no physical wear there. The wear actually is on the spider and the cone surround where it moves. Time and constant heating and subsequent cooling will eventually weaken the insulation of the voice coil but until total failure, there is nothing that can be done unless pre-emptive replacement is done. Magnets also tend to lose some flux over time but unless it is 30 years or more old, I wouldn't worry about it. Others may take umbrage at that. I would say in general that upgrading the network will most likely NOT have an adverse effect on operational drivers, they do not tend to weaken like tubes and other electronic devices; instead most of the time the environment has more to do with the condition of the drivers. Additionally, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the reduction of any "insertion loss" due to a higher quality network will be of such a value to allow excessive current to be passed to the driver(s). Unless said drivers are ready to die already. DM

The only reviewers that you can really trust are on the sides of your head (preferably). All of the rest are simply after money in one way or another. Hey, come to think of it, the 2 on the side of my head are just after money, too... waitaminute! this isn't right! DM

Perhaps I was a bit harsh. It's just that I remember Klipsch in the old days when you could not find any of their products in any department store, or the GOOD GUYS, etc. They used to be "high-end" with the what is now the Heritage series. Now they are low-end (are they in WALMART yet?). I suppose that its a lament, not a rant. Nuff said... DM

I'm with you on the strength of the soldered splice, but my thinking is that the splice itself would be more inflexible than the rest of the wire, and the wire next to the splice becomes the weak point...seen it before like musicians cables which get rolled up and such alot. That was my thinking... DM

---------------- On 1/30/2004 5:11:33 PM Mr. P wrote: I am totally astounded by this subject!! As a former Klipsch Engineer, and a Materials and Processes Engineer in the aerospace field for the last 24 years, my first response has to be what Paul would have said to me after that question. BULL****!! ---------------- I swear, IT'S ALWAYS THE ENGINEERS! Welcome! DM

even when soldered the splice will be a weak point if you are going to be flexing, rolling up, pulling, etc. I agree that you would be better off to get a single piece of large diameter stuff the correct length to prevent possible "issues". DM

I actually have no idea as to the level I normally listen to except for the wattage meters on the amp, which are probable wildly inaccurate (McIntosh MC300). Normally, I listen to 1/3 of a watt on each channel according to the meters. I can handle peaks of 3 watts if they are only peaks. To show off I turn it up to 10 watts, but only for less than 30 seconds or so. I'm not THAT old that I don't rock out, but JET ENGINE volume is downright painful... take it easy dude, or you'll hurt yourself permanently! DM

APPLES vs. ORANGES; speaker differences using price points as an example: Dollar for dollar they are all about the same, perform about the same and compete with each other in the consumer market at the same "price point". Mass market consumer-level speakers are all alike; some perform worse than others, some have better "gimicks" but even the "best" of breed cannot compare to more expensive speakers; but that is another ball game. When you up the dollars, you change the market "price point". Then things get different. So you really cannot compare apples to oranges in a meaningful way... BOSE vs. KLIPSCH? does BOSE make anything like the KLIPSCHORN? negative, but Klipsch makes speakers as BAD as BOSE for the same $$.

generally, as I cannot inspect the thing and even then, I can only guess, so here's my guesses: 1) if the tube is shock damaged to the point that it fails, it usually fails for good like a lightbulb. it would not fix itself. That is not to say that it is not damaged, we are only making some estimations here... 2) intermittant failure is probably from another source, such as a connection or even a single pin with a less than effective electrical contact. I would go there first. 3) capacitors would be my next guess as tolerances change due to age ; this can cause an intermittant discharge for who knows what reason and the tube loses bias, and signal goes bye-bye. it then comes back when the cap recharges. 4) tubes can be finicky as we all know, so who knows?! Good luck! DM

are these bi-wires? Otherwise, I don't understand the question... however, I will proceed on the assumption that they are... If they bi-wires then the single pair of connectors (+, -) connect at the AMP, and the double pair connects to the speakers. If the speakers have 4 connects, unlink the "uppers" from the lowers and connect the double pair, typically the "thicker" pair to the woofer (or low frequency) connects, and the "thinner" pair to the upper frequency connects (this labeling depends on the speaker manufacturer). Ensure that you maintain the polarity between the amp and each respective speaker connect (+ to +, - to -). Good luck! DM

Holy underwear, Batman! Your'e in college and have 4 grand to drop on a stereo rig!?? I lugged around KHORNS when I was in college! sold 'em when I needed money AFTER GRADUATING! ...took me another 20 years before I got another set. 4000 bucks to spend, eh? Here's my recommendations: 1) always a good call- get separates ; preamp and amp 2) buy McIntosh pre and amp of your choice - used is great 3) check out Meridian CD players, they are build like the proverbial BRICK ***T-house and sound EXQUISITE 4) get SILVER INTERCONNECTS to lash it up ; use XLR whenever possible but RCA silvers are better than any non-silvers That ought to about eat the $4k. DM

---------------- On 1/28/2004 9:33:14 AM Colin wrote: Of all of the modern receivers to mate with big ole horns, Yamaha is often said to be the worst match! ---------------- Where did you hear that? I would doubt it, however, the same buddy mentioned above wants to test his Yamaha amp on my horns just to make sure how it stacks up... I'll let you know... DM

Your'e right. Sure looks like a Klipsch "Shorthorn" to me... Not a copyright infringement - you mean a patent infringement...( of course, we know what you meant). I believe that the SHORTHORN was indeed patented by Klipsch, but don't know if Jensen was ever licensed to produce it, and even if not, whether PWK ever sued anybody over patent infringements or not (please fill me in). I've heard that SpeakerLab in Seattle was supposedly sued by Klipsch for producing the SpeakerLab "K" - the infamous Klipschorn knockoff, but I can assure everyone that IT NEVER HAPPENED. The original Klipsch patent expired in 1965 long before SpeakerLab ever existed! Copyrights apply only to published materials, patents are used to protect the manufacturer of commercial products or methods or processes used in the manufacture of commercial products for the usual period of 20 years. Designs and product appearance (known as a "design patent") can also be patented but usually for more limited period (typically from 7 to 14 years). DM

Thanks John, Didn't know that. DM

Holy cow! You people even argue about "interconnects" and what to call them! Here is the absolute TRUTH: Patch cords are what you buy at Radio Shack, Interconnects are what you buy anywhere else. Nuff said! DM I KID BECAUSE I LOVE...

For me, it is an application-specific question, so I have 2 anwers: 1) My opinion is that bi-wiring is a waste of money for non-critical listening as with a movie soundtrack where who really cares if the explosion is reproduced as accurately as possible... how in the hell do they record an explosion anyway? here's a clue: THEY DON'T - it is usually synthesized. So you wouldn't know a good explosion from a bad one no matter what wiring you use - so why spend extra money for better wire in such a case? 2) Now for critical listening such as stereo music only, you may enjoy a noticable benefit that you feel is worth the money by using bi-wiring. Just another opinion and everyones got one.... DM

Good thread, you guys... Again, you have brought up ample things to think about that I have not run across before... When I built my DIY horns, I took the approach that every obstruction in the exponential channel(s) was to be avoided. I've even read that some designers/builders even recomend painting the interior of the horn with high-gloss enamel for that reason (which I did NOT do, but again, it SEEMS REASONABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND). The occurence of a 90 degree "naked" channel corner is unusual from that mindset... seems like an cause of turbulence to me. It may be pointless, but I am afraid that I would want to "fix" it if I were building them... The question that I am leading to is this: Is there anything to this point of view or is it just a waste of time? DM

Yeah, I WAS thinking horn... I was not aware that the K33E was used in other things... WARNING: THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN AN IDIOT! DM

I've got horns and a 300watt McIntosh that never gets past 3 watts on the meters and thats WAY too loud... Not promoting wattage, just CLARITY. I've never owned a piece of gear that I consider a reference before but now I am absolutely convinced. But I have never been happier with an amp or have any desire to get anything else (I had tubes, but they are boxed in the closet). They don't do anything the Mc don't do. The Mc can definately do horns right at any volume. Bad mouthing McInstosh!! SHEESH!! DM

Gil and all, I ran across a reference that explained the benefit of bifurcating the horn as having to do with a limit on the location of bends in a folded horn as having to occur before the expansion reaches a certain ratio to the frequency (waveform) being transmitted. More or less (I haven't got it handy) the foldings need to occur close to the throat and should not occur after that (i.e., where the horn dimensions meet or exceed the value). Bifurcating the horn at the throat keeps the ratio from being reached compared to a non-bifurcated horn in that the respective horn dimensions are reduced in physical size in relation to the waveform which, of course, doesn't change. I've also read somewhere that most designers take the "center of the channel" approach to horn path length calculations. As I stated in my previous post I understand that a straight conduit does not harm the waveform - however the 90 degree turn in the LS has no expansion qualities that I can see but also that no attempt was made to accelerate the waveform around the bend using a triangular outside brace as is the usual practice (like the Khorn) and others, I am wondering why PWK decided that it wasn't worth the effort... perhaps just a manufacturing shortcut? DM

Modern SS receivers recommendations based on a buddy of mine selling this stuff: Modern Yamaha gear undisputably has the best build quality and best sound for all of the Japanese/Asian consumer-level electronics audio SS gear. I tend to agree with his assessment in that: 1) Pioneer is probably the worst for the money in quality and performance (I've owned a Pioneer - ONLY ONCE and NEVER AGAIN!) 2) Sony audio products are quite mediocre at best, however video products are excellent 3) Panasonic audio receivers fry when overdriven ; demonstrating a subwoofer on the showroom floor it smoked right out of the box ; not a good sign of effective quality control - so buyers beware! 4) Denon is slightly better at audio than Sony (that's my opinion) but again quite mediocre ; my 6 channel is a Denon. Still going with no problems after 6 years. I MIGHT buy another if I couldn't find an equivelant Yamaha product for the same money. So if you want the best of the Japanese/Asian crowd of SS receivers, ect, go for a Yamaha. Doesn't cost any more, either... go figure! Also he says that the Yamaha gear doesn't come back for warranty repair. DM

Name some names, dude. Otherwise, it is a generalization. If a generalization, I would have to say that virtually ALL older or "vintage" or first generation SS amps basically suck when compared in general to most tube gear available at the time, and they certainly suck when compared to the current SS amps (again depending on the BRAND(s) which we have not named). So I will name some names: Did my old 1977 Marantz integrated compare to my "modern" McIntosh MC300? NEGATIVE. Did my Phase Linear 400 compare with my MC300? NEGATIVE. Did my 1980 Crown IC150 compare with the MC300? NEGATIVE. Did Mintosh make equivelent quality gear in 1970 that compares with the "modern" gear? Probably, but have no experience with that. That is the extent of what I have experience with... DM

There aren't any easy answers for this... I am suggesting the following as a possible solution on the basis of mid-and-upper horn alignment first followed by room treatments (they are inter-related) and have had the most success with it (also, it is the cheaper of all of the routes to go down, I think). At least, this is what I did... One of my gripes with the classic Khorn is the top cabinet having the horns being hard-mounted to a baffle board. When the top cabinet is aligned to the bottom, which is aesthetically pleasing of course, the horns probably are not pointing directly at the listening position (at least in my place as it ain't that big of a room). This caused me endless grief as all of the upper-end horns were off-axis and sounded pretty "peaky" and/or shrill at some times. So I fixed this by replacing the top cabinet so that the "new" cabinet remains aligned with the bottom but I can adjust the horns' orientation independently within it. I feel that they sound better on-axis, others may prefer off-axis. Could the upper horn axis alignment be the issue rather than a network problem? In the right space, this issue may not come up, but so far, I haven't had the right space... I would not recommend modifying the original Khorn top cabinet - I would say make a replacement cabinet to play with. That way no harm is done. DM

Marvel, I have read that a waveform suffers virtually no ill effects when going through a column or a pipe of unchanging geometry and especially of short lengths compared to the wavelengths envolved, such as that occuring at the 90 degree corners between the two expanding channels in the La Scala. As far as I can figure, it's use is to keep the outside (and back chamber) dimensions within the desired values. It has no additive effect on the length of the exponential horn(s) themselves. Anybody check me on this? DM