mikebse2a3

YES! 2A3 push pull amp sounds great with Khorns. It will be very hard to find a Brook 2A3 but you might want to try one like this or similar models by them! mike[]

Thanks Shawn I was editing my last post (figuring you might respond tomorrow) while you where replying to me. I will definitly check this other information out and thanks for taking the time to list it all for me. mike

Thanks Shawn Who is the designer of the Lexicon(AND Model?) you mention and If not to much trouble can you direct me too a few sites? Can I assume these are pretty expensive units also? mike Edit: I did some Googling and found this site on the Lexicon http://www.lexicon.com/products/details.asp?ID=15 The Designer is Dr James Muller To quote part of the article: The too-slow decay of a resonance mode can be corrected only by applying the proper filter. The severity of a resonance mode is defined by its "Q" value. The higher the Q of a resonance, the bigger its amplitude and the slower its decay. The presence of a resonance with high Q is not a desirable condition in listening rooms. Proper treatment of a resonance requires a filter with not only the correct frequency and depth, but also the correct Q. Graphic equalizers offer neither a variety of Q values nor a fine enough frequency selection. In addition, the typical bandwidth of a graphic EQ is 1/3 octave, which is not precise enough to be effective. A good parametric equalizer might work, but you would first need to have the time, expertise and equipment to measure the room's resonances. Our analysis is capable of identifying problem frequencies to within 0.732Hz ñ 10 times more precise than a graphic EQ at the low frequencies under consideration. ------------------------------------ From what I've read so far it can get you within .732Hz of the problem frequency center but nothing is mentioned about how high the Q(Narrow The Bandwidth) capability is. Also from what I'm reading here they are using the decay rate to locate the most severe room modes for treatment but it appears to me by this information that it is basically acting as a very good auto analyzing Parametric EQ. What was most interesting to me in some of what I have read on the unit is how they mention by cleaning up these modes that clarity is improved at frequencies above the 250Hz limit of the EQ adjustments and that many listening positions will hear improvements when controlling these modes which corelates with the perception I have had with using the Behringer in Three very different Rooms/Systems that I've used it in. This has been very interesting Shawn and any more information/articles describing the design features of the Lexicon would be appreciated. mike[]

Interesting Shawn. Have you actually seen resonances that sharp in normal/average rooms in the home enviroment? What was the room construction/material like? I'm sure the more substantial construction of all room walls/floor/ceiling (Concrete for example)would setup sharper resonances than say wood studs and sheetrock type construction. I would be very interested to know what the situation was that exhibited this and how it was dealt with. I haven't really seen anything this sharp in any enviroment I've dealt with. I believe average construction methods and materials seem to have enough inherit damping to broaden most room mode resonances beyond 1 or 2 hz. I also read in F. Alton Everest (The Master Hanbook of acoustics that a typical studio room modes exhibited a bandwith of 5hz. A 1Hz wide resonance that you mention would be very difficult to deal with electronically or acoustically/which from my understanding would take extrodinary means to make a bass absorber/resonator with this sharp a Q. I have read of resonators being made of ceramic or concrete to acheive high Q values. mike[]

Shawn said: And depending upon what you are looking to EQ you need very fine resolution measurements and controls too. For example room problems in the bass. To go after them *well* you need to be measuring at 1hz resolution with EQ having the same precision too. And to really do it you need to be looking in 3d (time) , not 2d like a RTA shows you. ----------------------------------------------- Dean has this ability to make adjustments in 1 to 2Hz increments using the PEQ section of the Behringer at low frequencies as well as small as 1/10 octave bandwith. Unfortunately as Shawn said we can't see or adjust the time factor but still the ability to do such high resolution adjustments with the PEQ with frequency selection and bandwidth is still a great benefit in the low frequencies. mike[]

Deang said: Shawn -- the responses are being shown in 1/3 octave segments. Think I should tighten things up a bit? --------------------------------------- Hey Dean the 3rd menu screen your showing on the RTA is measuring at 1/6 octave. The numbers at the bottom correspond to 1/3 octave but if you look closer you will see measurements in between those frequencies. mike[]

Joe from what I'm reading in your post it sounds like you have done a good job EQing your low frequencies(I'm assuming you use one listening position in this size room) if you are mostly taking out peaks and like others have advised watch out trying to fill in dips especially if they don't show improvements with small amounts of boost. Its not clear to me but are you also EQing above the low frequencies you have mentioned? Anyway I have dealt with rooms close to the dimensions you have and they are difficult to get a good tonal balance and clarity in because as the room dimensions get smaller the very intense early(time wise) reflections appear higher in frequencies than larger rooms and this is one of the main reasons smaller rooms are more difficult to deal with and use acoustical treatments in. It is very easy to over do the absorption option in this size room especially if carpet is used on the floor. To much absorption just eventually wears on you and ultimately sounds unnatural even though you might notice some improvements in say imaging you don't want that at the cost of a natural tonal balance and life like impact and transients which again to much or the wrong placement of absorption can cause. I personally like diffusion in smaller spaces but again because of early reflections due to small room dimensions you must listen and decide if what and where your placing the diffusers are causing coloration just as absorption can color the sound. I personally have used diffusers about three feet behind my listening position on the back wall with a thick pillow behind my head to block the early reflections from the diffusors thus giving myself a clean early sound but a much more diffuse soundfield in the room which goes a long way to adding clarity and good tonal balance without sucking the life out of the music as absorption can do. Anyway have fun experimenting and learning about room acoustics and smaller rooms like this can be a real challenge getting corrected but you can get some very wonderfull sound if you are willing to work at it and show alot of patience!! mike[] By the way the EQ is a valid tool just as absortion and diffusion and when used correctly I believe can improve your enjoyment of your music in your unique enviroment.

flamminifra said: Now, I would like to know what are the factors that significantly influence the AUTO EQ function of the DEQ2496 and how they should be set: 1) listening volume: is it influential and, if yes, how must it be set? 2) dithering and sampling frequency of the pink noise 3) lower frequency (<100Hz) equalization: is it always affected by measurement errors or can it be activated? 4) mic positioning: does the mic have to be positioned vertically at about the ear level of the listening position or at the midrange level near the loudspeakers? Im asking this because I obtained slightly different equalizations for the same system in the same room in different measurement sessions, and I would like to undestand what parameters that I changed (except for some, I think negligible, picture or carpet repositioning) have influenced the output of the AUTO EQ. Moreover, does the speed (slow, medium or fast) influence the results of the equalization? And what about the other RTA options? --------------------------------------- First welcome flamminifra This is my experience/opinion with some of the questions you have asked. Hopefully others will offer their thoughts/knowledge on this also as they get time. No 1: I believe its a good idea to set the Pink Noise Level a minimum of 20db to 30db above the ambient noise level of the room your testing in to prevent the ambient noise level from interfering with the measurement. My thinking is though that the closer to my normal listening levels that I set the Pink Noise the better because any changes in the speaker/room response at these levels could be taken into account by the Auto EQ Test. No 2: I'm not sure what your asking here but will look into it more when time allows me to. Maybe you can elaborate more on this question? No 3: The manual definitly warns of possible measurement errors if these frequencies are left operational and I really prefer to adjust these manually while looking at the RTA Pink Noise Response and by Listening to Music that I feel is recorded well in these ranges. It is also advisable to know your speakers electrical/mechanical limits before boosting in these low ranges. For Example if a speaker is not capable of response at 30Hz but you used the Auto EQ Function with this Frequency Band active it would try to use its maximum boost to bring the 30Hz range up which would actually not help since the driver couldn't handle it and the Amplifier would be wasting power trying to reproduce this boosted signal. While talking about this I also personally prefer to control the frequencies above 5000Hz Manually since again of possible abnormal amounts of boost by the Auto EQ Program could cause damage to a tweeter and also like the bass I feel this range is better adjusted by ear. No 4: The answer to this question really depends on what your trying to measure and correct with the EQ. If your trying to do some equalization of the individual drivers of a speaker then close MIC(YES SHOULD BE VERTICALLY MOUNTED) Placement makes good since to help minimize interferance from close objects to the MIC. If your goal is to equalize the sound at your area/areas of listening then My Thinking is you must measure where your ears are going to be because this is the only way to know what corrections are needed for the area/areas we will be listening from. Also some speakers are designed to be listened at from a far enough distance for all the drivers responses to blend properly. In the case of the Khorn I have read and noticed test have been run at a distanse of 3 meters for this reason I believe. As far as the speed (slow, medium or fast) if your talking in the Auto EQ Test I prefer the slow mode because this speed seems to give me the results I want best which is more of an average of the wildley swinging peaks and dips of some of the frequency bands due to room interferance. These have been some quick thoughts because I'm kind of pushed for time this week but I did want to give you some feedback to your good questions. mike

The other tubes are 6sn7 and 5y3 rectifier. ----------------------------------- The 6SN7 is a good driver tube for the 2A3 but it has less gain than say a 6SL7. I have a early version of the Cary AES SE-1 2A3 amp and it is designed with the 6SL7 for the input tube which works pretty good with a creek OBH-10 I have but even this setup benefits from a good pre-amp to drive it instead of the creek. Later versions of the AES SE-1 have a 6sn7s for drivers and first gain stage which increases its sensitivity while benefiting from the 6sn7's better ability to drive the 2A3 also. A friend of mine uses the Wrights with RCA 2A3s with a Peach Preamp and Khorns with plenty of volume. Using a passive puts all the pressure on the source to supply the drive required by the amplifier. The Wright is a good design but I would say it is best used with a good quality pre-amp or say a CD player with a strong output section. mike

What is the other small tubes on the wright? It could be that the wrights are a lower sensitivity and just need more to drive them than what your creek/source can provide. mike

Sold Scott its yours!

But, of course, I get out of patience with the "improvements" that some of the brothers claim to have made to Klipschorns. You can trust me on this, when improvements were needed, Paul made them --and never mind the cost. DRBILL ----------------------------------------- I'am so glad you mentioned this DRBILL! It has bothered me also when people say PWK was building to a price point/compromise. In all of PWK's writtings I have gotten the impression that he was always searching and open to improving the Khorn and when there was a measurable or audible improvement deemed worthy he had it implemented in the design but my impression is HE WAS ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE THE KHORN THE BEST HE POSSIBLY COULD NO MATTER WHAT THE COST IF IT REALLY WAS AN IMPROVEMENT. Seems fine to me for people to experiment with their Khorns as PWK continued to do for as long as its been in production what I don't agree with is saying PWK compromised his design for cost savings. mike

I picked this Dynaco Pas 3 up years ago and have just had it setting around. I used it a couple of months ago and I must say it sounded pretty good with the Khorns but again I just don't need it and would like to see someone from the forum have some fun and use it. Of course I can't guarantee it since its old and stock except the old selinium rectifier has been replaced. I could probably e-bay and get more but I really want someone from the forum to have it and I'll just take what I gave for it years ago. Price is $50 plus shipping Just E-mail me (Mention Dynaco Pas in subject of e-mail otherwise I might accidently delete it) through the forum and I'll get back to you. mike

---------------- On 8/21/2005 2:53:40 AM William F. Gil McDermott wrote: I would say you should go for the K-Horn. I've never really agreed with the theory that the size of the speaker should be matched to the size of the room. Or that small speakers sound better than big ones in a small room. It is generally true that larger rooms lead to better bass boost at low freqs where the K-Horn needs help. K-Horns in a big room do sound grand. But exactly what works and what does not is tough to predict. It is tough to do an A-B test. OTOH, a CW or any direct radiator bass is going to be more predictable. My thought is that a K-Horn in even a compromised setting (if your room is indeed that) is such a gem that you should not forego the opportunity to give it a try. You'll always wonder, "what if . . ." Gil ---------------- My Experience agrees with everything Gil has said!! I've had my Khorns in rooms from very large to small and with some proper room treatment/and EQing I have been able to acheive very satisfying reproduction in Clarity,Tonality and Imaging. No small room will give you the wide soundstage that a larger room allows but I have been able to achieve life size vocals and instruments for the most part I just don't have the full width and depth that a wider spread allows. The speaker size really isn't the issue the real problem is that a small room gets into trouble sooner than a larger room because of it's room dimensions/volume and this really has nothing to do with the size of the speaker but with the ability of the speaker to play full range at higher SPLs showing up the limitations of a small room. The real question to ask yourself is what are you willing/able to do to deal with your rooms limitations? If your looking for the best sound you can achieve then any speaker will require this. The Khorns will be in the room corners thus energizing all the room modes of the room so depending on your individual room these would have to be dealt with by various methods such as (Bass Traps, Seating Position and Possibly a very good Equalizer(1/3 Octave or even better for room modes a Parametric Type). Also Diffusion(Very Important In Small Rooms)needs to be considered because it is very easy to have to much absorption in a small room. A Heresy, Cornwall or Lascala would allow you to move the speaker in relation to the walls and possibly not energize some problem room modes but in any small acoustical space they also would benefit greatly from proper room treatment. Diffusion in the room would also benefit them or any system if used properly. I personally believe the Khorn can sound as good as any speaker in your room if you work with the room and you will learn alot about what really is the limiting factor in most all situations which is the room acoustics. Sooner or later if you really want to acheive the best sound from your system then you will realize that the room is if not the equal of the speaker in importance to your sound it is at least second in importance!! I would say to you that if you are willing to take the time to learn about acoustics and lots of patience(Remember to enjoy this journey) then Khorns are a speaker that will always be able to give you the most in any room your in. In other words they are a great investment in your Sound Future!! Something you can really grow with!!! mike

Thanks Bob I should have read a little closer. The phenolic does seem to hold its own. Did you do listening test also? If you did were you able to perceive any differences between the diaphrams? mike

Hey Dean What are the differences in your and Bob"s test setups besides equipment? I believe you would have to setup the K77 test the same as Bobs to actually compare his and your test. Also using different resolution measurement systems can be tricky comparing results.I also couldn't tell what the graduation lines of yours or Bob's test are but looks like both are +/- 5db? Looks like your K77 measurement includes the response of the K55 also and if thats the case that and any differences in setup like if your K77 has grille cloth in front of it and any crossover differences that were used between your and Bobs measurement setups could effect the readings also. I would be curious to see your measurement made with the K55 replaced by a resistor to eliminate its acoustical output while leaving the electrical crossover response undisturbed as much as possible. Then we would see the K77 response without any interferance from the K55 for comparison in your test. mike

Paul said: Hmmm . . . you beat me by 2 seconds! ------------------------------------- I wonder if I beat Paul because I use Single Ended? mike

Glad for you Joe The woofer section measures 38.75" tall Two Wing Nuts hold the top section on. Two wing Nuts also hold each side grille on Good Luck on your trip!! mike

Coytee said: Perhaps I used the wrong word. It was not a void, but a spike in the curve. We toned it DOWN, as opposed to trying to fill it up. Interestingly, Mike gave me the same commentary you did about filling the hole, as opposed to cutting the tree. ------------------------------------------------- Thanks Richard I had a great time and I really appreciate you letting me try the Behringer in your setup. I've been trying to see how it works in as many situations (ROOMS AND SYSTEMS HAVE VARIED ALOT BUT EVERONE OF THEM HAS SHOWN A VERY IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT IN CLARITY WITH THE EQ AND NOT ONE HAS SHOWN ANY PERCEPTION OF DEGRADING THE SOUND WITH THE EQ) as possible and I've yet to have it not give a very important improvement in any situation yet. To make sure its clear Richard's listening position that we where using showed a sharp peak at aroud 89Hz and when we removed it with the (PEQ)module of the Behringer the clarity and quality of his sound improved dramatically. What we also noticed was actually anywhere we chose to listen had improved which I didn't expect but it was very obvious. For anyone interested this is how I did the EQ setup. So we put the Behringer in and I wanted to keep it simple since we didn't have a lot more time but I believe I found a good way to use the Auto EQ in some situations. First I placed the MIC at the listening position at ear level and removing any frequencies from 100Hz down and Above 5000KHz from the Auto EQ Function and with Room Correction On I let the Auto EQ run its test. By doing this it cleaned the response up enough for me to see that he had a serious room mode at 90Hz so next I reset the GEQ to flat and went to the PEQ Mode and made a notch at 89Hz 1/6 octave wide with -11.5db cut (He HAD A Pretty Sharp Mode Here). Then with the PEQ Module Active I again ran the GEQ Auto EQ function like before and thus letting the PEQ deal with the room mode at 89Hz and the GEQ doing the rest of the correction. What was very obvious was when you bypassed the Behringer the sound became muddy and the highs seemed to be lacking due I think to the muddy low range which I have begun to notice when you clean up the low end the perception (By Myself And Others Also) is also often made that the highs are better. So after this Richard mentioned that he had a DBX auto analyzing EQ setting stored away and wondered if it might work also. Luckily the DBX EQ(Very Nice Unit) has 14 Bands per channel and one was right at the 90Hz point he needed so he installed it and ran the Auto Analyze function of the DBX and sure enough the unit brought the 90Hz mode down and improved the sound a great deal. I also want to note in this situation as we moved to various locations the sound was improved in every one of those locations and nowhere was it made worse that we could hear. This took about 20 minutes to do and I believe given more time we would have fine tuned things up even more but I have to say the improvement was very dramatic to me and things sounded so good that I really just wanted to listen and really didn't feel the need to tweek the adjustments anymore again it was very natural sound with wonderfull clarity we where acheiving. One other note: Another interesting and unexpected side effect of using the EQ in Richard's system was the Transcedent SE-OTL was able to play louder and cleaner with the reductions in Power Required by using the EQs in his system. Again Thanks Richard for letting me try the EQ in your system/room and Enjoying some wonderfull sound that evening. mike

First Maron Horonzak is correct there isn't any real good way to measure the drivers pure response because the measurements will always have the room interference to some degree unless you can use some time gated technique like the ETF program I spoke of in the past and even that is limited in the lower frequencies for smaller rooms (THERE IS D.B. KEELE's close Microphone Measurement Technique for looking at very low frequency response in a room). Also if you move the MIC close to the speaker then you will not see the integration of the drivers responses properly so Again if you have the Heyser Audio review then you will see this form of measurement is the only way to begin to see what all is going on with the Khorn(OR ANY SPEAKER) as far as Anechoic response combined with real world use/measurements and then the real talent is how to interpret the results to what we HEAR. I guess the way I see things, is that using an RTA is always going to be tricky in the fact of it isn't always measuring what you might think it is because it can't show us what is happening to the frequency response in time like a TEF or ETF type of measurement can. I do believe it does give us some good insight into what we are hearing at our listening position because it is a combination of the actual speakers response combined with the influences our individual rooms create which our ear/brain combines in some instances but it is limited in its uses. Some things you can do to see some of what is going on is to move the MIC around some because this can reveal say room mode issues in the measurements. Also you might want to use proper sized resistors to install in place of a driver "lets say Squawker for example so that you can see what happens to the response of the Woofer/Squawker frequency region without the actual acoustical influence of the squawker in this example and then compare that to the actual Woofer and Squawker in operation together measurement in the same region this way you might discover that a dip could be the result of a phase interference between drivers due to path length differences in combination with crossover phase shifts that reach the MIC Position versus say a room mode anomaly". Anyway you can have fun and learn while it drives you crazy doing these kind of measurements. Mike

Michael Sounds like you have it working OK for now. But from what I can see in your pictures the black spot where the resistors are located can normally run pretty warm but sometimes manufactures haven't engineered the PC Board Well enough to take this into account and also if the solder connections to these resistors are beginning to fail the solder joint can heat up and start to burn the board leading to an eventual failure. If you are comfortable working on electronics you might be well advised to look at the solder connections to these parts and possibly resoldering these connections if the circuit board hasn't burned to badly. If the Board has become very fragile then you have no choice but to cut out the bad part of the circuit board and using some good wire to replace the bad circuit traces which is much more difficult and really depends on the individual circuit layout if this is even possible. There use to be some circuit board repair kits avaible but its been so long I wouldn't know where to tell you to find it quickly. mike

Glad to help Coytee now I'm anxious to hear your impressions of how your sound has changed with these networks. mike

Coytee I'll shoot you a picture in an e-mail that will help maybe. What you need to do is unhook the coil wire from the woofer fuse holder(LEAVE IT UNHOOKED) and then remove the (WOOFER'S)red wire from the hookup terminal (where the coil and capacitor and woofer's wire are connected) and reconnect it at the woofer's fuse holder where you had just removed the coil wire from. mike

Another thought about MIC Placement and Using an RTA/EQ Richard Heyser used a 3 meter distance(AS I've Seen Kilpsch Also Use) to measure the Khorn in the Audio Magazine Review stating that distance was needed for the speaker's individual drivers responses to merge and that this was a minimum recommended distance to listen to the KHorn. Now he used Time Delay Spectrometry methods to eliminate the room interference and he also looked at the Khorns response with the rooms influence on his MIC location because this corresponds to what we hear when we listen to the Khorn in our room. This is one reason why I believe with reasonable care we should use our MIC at our chosen listening position(or positions) to realize the full benefits of trying to equalize the Speaker/Room. Its also very important to listen and if an EQ Adjustment doesn't sound good it really doesn't matter what the RTA shows we are probably hearing something that the RTA isn't capable of revealing to us and the EQ probably isn't able to correct properly. I would also encourage anyone to read the many Threads/Post by "dragonfyr" about how best to measure the system/room. An RTA has many limitations in its ability to reveal why some problems are audible because we aren't seeing the Time Factor that is also important in how we perceive our sound in our rooms. An RTA and EQ can definitly help our systems in some very good ways but we have to learn and except its limitations! mike

---------------- On 8/1/2005 5:06:24 PM J.4knee wrote: By all means please continue your EQ inputs some of us are realy paying attention. ---------------- Guys This Was Kind Of Hijacking the Trachorn Thread by DeanG so I Hope its OK but I thought I would copy some of the EQ post to a new Thread: Behringer DEQ2496 Measurement/Use Methods (TECHNICAL QUESTIONS SECTION) mike