mikebse2a3

For those interested here is I believe a late 1989 brochure matching the previous khorn brochure showing what looks to be a lower resolution measurement which looks alot smoother than previous graphs. Please don't look at this wrong, even if it is a lower resolution. To me klipsch is like all manufacturers who have to choose how best to present their products considering that the average consumer isn't going to know exactly how to read these graphs other than to think one looking more flat and smoother is better when in reality most the competition isn't giving you the resolution that klipsch has been. I believe klipsch has been one of the most honest and least bullsh*t manufacture of speakers out there from all the dealings I ever had with them. mike PS: I might have some of the other brochures asked for earlier if someone still wants them posted but I need to go to bed now(man sometimes I get really caught up in this great forum thanks klipsch) so I'll check in tomorrow.

here is another khorn brochure I believe made in late 1989 notice how this freq. graph is even smoother than the other ones. I believe the meaurement resolution was lower which causes a smoother looking responce. believe it or not but klipsch actually published higher resolution graphs than most speaker manufactures I've seen. bottom line don't take these types of graphs to seriously because they are very limited in what they can tell us. graphs only hint at what a speaker might sound like because once you put it in a room the responce is so altered by the room. thats why the room its installed in is so important because most rooms drastically alter the responce that you see in these measurements. You are for better or worse always listening to the speaker/room system and not just what you see in these graphs. mike

here is a copy of the equal loudness curves. mike

here is a graph I made years ago with the lascala(red) imposed on the khorn(black) graph. these where from different brochures than ones previously posted. notice both are referenced to 0db but are the same otherwise to the previous post. notice how the lascala shelves down quicker than the khorn starting at 60hz. doesn't look much different to the eyes but as anyone who has heard lascala versus khorn their is a definite decrease in lower bass to our ears. it just shows how these kinds of graphs can't tell us everything about how something is going to sound to us. if you look at a graph of the equal loudness contours my understanding of the way we percieve sound levels is say at 1khz a 10db increase in spl will sound approx. twice as loud to us where as at say 30hz about 5db increase will sound twice as loud to us. to me the lascala sounds great but because of the shelving effect its perceived as less bass than a more flat responce across the freq. spectrum. mike

hey jdm56 Glad you found something that fills your needs so well. The B&W speakers I've heard sound really good and I can see why someone would like their sound.For me its klipsch number 1 for the sound but also the quality of their products and support(simply a great company/people). Enjoy and stay and continue to join in this forum because its important to have all opinions. mike

shiva thats good info from tony so try some of the contacts he suggest I wasn't able to connect to the address for Jon soderbegt for some reason. also checking for the class operation switch is a good idea. I do remember forte building a class AB version of this amp so I'm thinking there want be a switch though. good luck mike

hey shiva one thought that did come to me although if both cannels changed at different times it couldn't be the problem but check if you haven't yet. Some componets have a switch to reconfigure the pwr supply transformer to except different AC voltages so lets make sure (if yours has one) that its not gotten accidently changed and is in the correct position.look around where th AC cord comes into the amp on the back and if your inside follow the wiring to the transformer.Most likely I would guess you want have a switch but I wouldn't want to overlook such a simple possibility. AS far as locating the bias circuits by site that would be difficult because most of the componets will look the same as others on the boards. If it does have a control to set bias you might recognize that on the board but it might not even use a control depending on how the circuit is designed. If you have a digital camera and want to try to take some pictures of the boards and amp so we could see more what you see but its probably going to be difficult to solve any problem without a schematic/specs. If one channel was working correctly a tech could compare the channels and maybe find some problem but with both the same thats probably not possible. Sorry wish I could be of more help but without information avaible to you it would be very involved to try to trouble shoot this problem and you still would need to know what levels to set the bias if its adjustable by you. mike

Thanks shiva, Sorry but I live in East Tennessee. From your description it sounds like this could be a dual mono design on one chassis in other words two completely seperate amps in one box.If thats the case and they did cool down at different times then it looks even more likely there might have been a change in a componet in the bias circuit. Since both have the problem the same way it would be possible that there is a componet that fails more commonly in this design. Sometimes a manufacturer specs a componet's tolerance (like say a resistor) to closely and over time they can fail.When componets fail in a bias circuit it would be possible for the amp to run cooler or to over heat( which if the amp has some fail safes built in will cause the amp to shut down to protect itself (like a Hafler DH200/DH220 design. I believe Nelson Pass designed some of the forte amps- if my memory is right. Do you have any literature on the amp at all? Are they still in business? I haven't seen any in a long time. I was just trying to think how we could maybe see/get a service diagram to maybe help track your problem down. If I can think of anything else I'll try to get back with you or if you get more information let me know. mike

Hi shiva I'm not familiar with the design of the Amp you've asked about so maybe someone will respond that has actually some experience with it but to try to help you out some I've got a couple of questions. 1st question: Did both channels start running cooler at the same time? 2nd question: You are saying that as far as sound everything sounds OK to you? I would run test on the power supply voltages if both channels went cool at the same time. (this assumes the pwr supply is common to both channels) If the amp still sounds ok but runs cooler than normal then I would think the output transistors bias points have changed and for both channels to be like this at the same time would make you look for things that are common to both channels like the pwr supply if the channels share a common pwr supply. If one channel started running cool first then the other one sometime later then I would look at the Bias circuity of each channel for problems. Some designs use a bias control that can become dirty or bad after years and cause a shift in the bias settings as well as other componets in the bias circuity could have failed. To really start to check this out properly you really need a service diagram and specifications to know if the bias is really off and what value to set the bias when the problem is located. Again without a diagram of the amp its hard to help more and what I've said is some general thoughts based on some common ways amps have been designed. Again hopefully someone will respond that is more familiar with this amps design and can offer more specific help. mike

kuisis Like Gil said this could be a real safety issue and you should get it checked for how much AC voltage to earth ground exist. If the power transformer(internally)or AC wiring has developed leakage(short) to the scott chassis it would be possible to get shocked when touching the chassis/faceplate. Any good electronic repair shops should be able to run an AC Leakage Current test for you. Its a test that should be ran on any equipment after being serviced. Also never use a cheater plug on a television if it has a two prong AC cord with one blade thats wider because alot of TV's have what called a Hot Chassis and by reversing the AC plug you can put 120v AC on external points like Antenna terminals and audio input/output jacks! mike

Bob I hope this drawing came through OK I'm still learning how to post images. anyway this is a drawing I had made of the AL network in the lascala I had owned. The resistor is missing in the drawing because I drew it after klipsch had modified it for me.It was located between the tie point terminal (next to the 30uf cap mounting screw) and (negative input) return connection which goes to the Squawkers (+) terminal if you look at ALK diagram. If you trace the wire going from the autoformer to the 8uf in series with a transformer marked 2133 you will see the tiepoint terminal I'm talking about.Sorry its not a picture but its the best I can do for you now.Also notice the Zener/Bracket next to the 2uf and air coil in the tweeter circuit in the bottom left of the drawing. the lascala's I owned had a cabnit problem and klipsch exchanged my lascala cabnits for some belle klipsch cabnits free I just had to buy some squaker horns and they used my componets and modified my crossovers by disabling the coil/cap/resistor network across the squawker for best measured responce in their lab at the time.This was done to keep me from having to buy the belle networks hope this helps and maybe someone will post an actual picture for you of one like this. mike

Bob Sorry: for some reason I can't get the drawing I made to upload so I'll have to try later. All I know to tell you is mine where bought in 5/1988 and where marked Type AL they definitly had the Zener protection also. I do know that klipsch was starting to change some of the belle klipsch networks around this time from some conversations I had with Jim Hunter at klipsch and I would think they where looking into the Lascala networks also. So by 1990 it wouldn't suprise me if they had been changed. mike edit: I said 1989 in my earlier post but should have said 1988

Bob mine where type AL and the componets where just as the diagram ALK posted. I can't read the values of the caps in the diagram ALK posted easley but both are actually 8uf in the squawker circuit. I'll try to post a drawing of the network I made back then. mike

Hey Bob The diagram that ALK gave you is correct. I owned a pair of Lascala in 1989 serial nos.(8825960 & 8825961) and looking back at my drawings of the crossovers that is exactly the way mine were and they were definitly type AL. mike

J.4Knee What level setting for the squawker are you using now. I'm using the 5-2 setting(KHorn) in my system/room setup. Definitly use very good recordings to get a good feel for where you want to leave it set. Variations in Recordings and room/setup can definitly affect your preferance. mike edit: I see you have found a problem with the woofer section hope its just a bad connection or something simple for you.

Hey D-MAN Just a thought. If your listening of axis of the tweeter then it looks to me like the path length would be different depending on which orientation your using because of the sound wave having to travel past the cheeks of the horn in one orientation and not when in the other orientation and maybe this could cause some interference with the Squawker around the crossover freq. and some lobing in the dispersion pattern of the speaker system that your hearing and noticing in the imaging.Again just a thought? If you are listening on axis of the tweeter then the path length wouldn't change due to horn orientation. As you mentioned maybe its just a matter of the way the horn is dispersing the sound to the room that your picking up on? I know I played with the polarity of the T-35 in my Khorns on the ALK network and I can't say I could really hear a difference if I swaped the polarity but If I used the ETF computer test program then I could make the responce look better around the crossover frequency by using different polaritys for on axis listening versus off axis listening. How are your tweeters setup compared to the squawker? Are they verically aligned with it or are they off to the side of it? When you change orientation of the tweeter are you keeping the path length to the listening position identical? If you are doing this then it seems to me the difference would be more in the way the tweeter disperses the sound in the different orientations. mike

Do I want to see a review? IT DEPENDS I remember reading in some of PWK's papers that because of the incompetent ways some reviewers had shown he wasn't interested in having the speakers reviewed this way. I'd guess PWK's "Yellow Buttons" got used alot for the ways of some of these magazines/reviewers. I wonder how the review in Audio by Richard Heyser came about. "Maybe" it was that Mr. Heyser had shown that he could and would do a high quality review and properly install the KHORN.It would be interesting to know the background for this review. Anyway I would love to see a good review of the KHORN so that alot more audiophiles could see that the path PWK set us on in 1945 is still just as true today and like no other speaker it has definitly stood the test of time! But the real way for people to learn about the KHorn is to be exposed to the musical reproduction it is capable of and they will be hooked like all of us!!! What I wouldn't want to see is a review where the reviewer didn't take the time or steps to properly setup the KHorn which seems to happen in some of these so called reviews we see like on the internet. "This happens alot and not just to the KHorns" yet some people will read these reviews and think they know the product. If a magazine/reviewer can't properly accommodate the KHorns setup/needs then I would have no interest in the review because it would be useless. One other thought! Where where these magazines when PWK passed away? I was so disappointed and think they should be ashamed that they didn't cover this true pioneer's work and legacy!!! mike

Hey artto thanks for recommending John Lee Hooker "Chill Out" Buddy Guy "Blues Singer" Man I really like these!!! This is what I'm talking about cause both have great music and sound which is hard to find. TBrennan said: I like "Some Kind of Wonderful" by Buddy Guy. The song is actually more Soul than Blues and it really cooks, I mean smokin'. I didn't spot this one today but I'll be looking out for it.Do you know the title of the CD its from? Again thanks everyone for the suggestions and any more will be appreciated. mike

Just wanted to say thanks to PWK and Klipsch and Associates for the Klipschorn and Belle Klipsch loudspeakers and Muddy Waters for the music I listened to tonight. Tonight I was trying some new tubes in my pre-amp and started listening. The next thing I knew I'd listened to 4 CDs all the way through no skipping tracks just drawn into the music.The Khorns/Belle just allowed me to connect to the music/artist in a way that makes it really hard to stop listening."4 HRs to sleep before work" For those who like BLUES two of my favorites are Muddy Waters folk singer Sonny Boy Williamson Keep It To Ourselves these recordings aren't perfect but they have a quality that is very real. Anybody got other Blues favorites? I would love to find more recordings of the style and quality of these two. Thanks mike

Hi Gil I just wanted to say thanks for the information sheets and documents you often share on the forum. I like collecting info like this and really appreciate it. mike

THANKS KLIPSCH I like the new site! Noticed under the Heritage Products a place for the "Klipschorn Jubilee". Even though this section isn't complete I hope its a sign of it being introduced. mike

Hello DrWho: Have you read the book "TIME DELAY SPECTROMETRY" it's an Anthology of the works of Richard C. Heyser on measurement, analysis, and perception.It was put out by the Audio Engineering Society in 1988.I admire Richard Heyser's and Paul Klipsch's works. They were Giants in my book! Here is my thinking at this time from all I've learned myself and from others works. (1) What we are doing "recording/playback" is just an illusion a trick if you will or as PWK called it stereophoney.When we record a solo vocalist for example even if you played back the recording on a 2 or 3 channel stereo system in the same room as the recording was made you still have a simulated vocalist created from 2 or 3 speakers located in different locations from the orginal vocalist with a different dispersion pattern than the orginal vocalist in that room.Maybe at best we will be fooled by this "tricking" of our ear/brain system. (2) The ear/brain has to be the final judge for now because no test can tell us completely what we are going to hear. Richard Heyser was great at tying in some of the measurements methods he was developing(TDS) with the way we perceive sound but there is alot of work to be done to nail down what measurements are going to result in a certain perception of sound. (3) Basically we have no set standards for recording methods or playback systems.How can we ever expect to achieve great sound from everything when recording equipment and methods as well as playback equipment and playback rooms completely vary from one to the other.It looks almost hopeless that we will ever be able to have recordings that will play on every playback/room system! (4) The room though necessary(like you said who would want to listen in an anechoic chamber)to me for the most part starts to impair the speakers responce as it was designed.It alters the amplitude and timing of the frequency responce which except for some special circumstance I don't see how they can be corrected but with knowledge of how we hear we can maybe fool the ear/brain into ignoring it or at least liking what we perceive.I see no way we can totally replicate a recording when there are so many uncontrolled variables in this whole process. At best at this time it looks to me like we just as well need to assemble our playback system/room to create that real illusion that connects us with the music thats important to us and except that it simply can't play every recording at this time(Who Knows When If Ever). (5) I guess my personal preferance is to buy the best equipment I can and treat the room acoustically to do the least damage to what I believe are recordings of the highest quality avaible in the kind of music I chose to listen to. For poorer quality recordings I've attempted to make them listenable by altering there tonal balance through a path not as pure as the one I use for the best recordings which depending on the problems the recordings have this may help but some things just can't be helped.My ultimate goal is to be connected and drawn into the music and to me the recordings and playback rooms are the two weakest links to overcome.Time is to short and I really don't spend much time listening to bad recordings when I've got really good recordings to listen to in this system.Those recordings are better in the car or somewhere their compromises aren't as noticable. Its late and I've got to go but I would really like to talk about what you had to say when I get a chance.But I do believe the Energy/Time /Frequency as perceived by our ear/brain explaines why you perceive one thing as an improvement or problem even though most measurements may not show any significant difference.We are simply looking in the wrong place for what we are perceiving. mike

Mike, PWK wouldn't even put an "L" pad on his creations becuase he didn't trust us cretins(my word not his) to change the sound of them without his instruments. At least that is what I got out of the Dope From Hope Papers. Poor Ole PWK is probably spinning what with people putting JBL311's in his beautiful Klipschorns. Rick ----------------- Hi rick: What I meant by my impression that PWK was open to improvement is that if PWK thought he could make a genuine improvement then he would change it but not for the sake of change. As things like recording technology would (catch up) to the Khorn it would allow him to make improvements in his Khorns but the design was so fundamentally correct and good that real improvements were few over all these years. I never had the impression that he chose to do or not do anything because of what it might cost it just had to be a real improvement to him. I know I read in one of his papers he mentioned if someone thought they had a real improvement they would consider testing it. Now Please everyone, I didn't know PWK and there is no way I know for sure what he thought I just have these impression from what I've read and the way Klipsch as a company always did business with me. They never tried to sell me anything if it wasn't necessary and often you might get an answer like we changed it in production because it measures slightly better but most people probably wouldn't hear the difference. What a great way for a company to treat their customer and no wonder people stay with klipsch. To sum it up if you like modifying your Khorn then great. I know I enjoy seeing the ideas people are trying. But I feel a fundamental truth is unless the room is given proper attention the stock Khorn(or any speaker) isn't reaching its full potential(AS artto's Room Shows so Well) and any modifications want reach their full potential either. mike

edwinr said: I agree with your comment. The room/speaker interaction is not something I fully understand. I know PWK spent most of his life coming to terms with the compromises he had to make to market a commercially viable Klipschorn. In saying that I've no problems in tweaking and tinkering, and I wouldn't think PWK would either ----------------------------------- Hi edwinr: I get the impressions from reading PWK's works that he was always open to a real improvement. I agree with you also. I love to tweak and tinker with speakers, amps, isolation devices and all things audio but to me the room is the ultimate place to tweak because anything we do still has to go through the rooms paths to our ears and nowadays the equipment is so good its even more important than ever that we give the room the attention it deserves and must have if we are to really advance. mike

"...I've been wondering if alot of the problems people are attributing to the stock squawker & tweeter horns & drivers..." DeanG asked "What problems?" ----------------------------- What I've noticed in reading some threads is that people changing Squawker drivers/horns and Tweeters are talking about is improvements in clarity, detail, openness, naturalness,extension etc. Things that artto's Khorns/Room shows the basic Khorn is fully capable of rendering. My own experience is similar to what I've read of DrWho's. Which I believe supports the idea that the stock drivers/horns are very capable of producing very realistic sound and imaging and we need to be looking more at the room first if we are to achieve the best from them. Now please! anyone doing modifications "I'm not saying that its not better or not an improvement" it could well be!(But in a well treated/designed room stock Khorns are (Among) The GREATEST Speakers Avaible).I do believe that there are other things happening because when you change these drivers/horns your also playing the room differently and this could also be where some perceptions of improvements are coming from.I'm just saying that Khorns(and all speakers)would benefit from room treatments and if its possible for a person to do so it should be (IMHO) done before modifying the speakers It would be interesting to hear the differences of these well thought out modified Khorns in the same well treated/designed room versus a stock Khorn. As Mr Klipsch suggested "Since the room is perhaps the second most important or critical entity in achieving good audio, music listeners would do well to expend as much effort on the room as on the selection of the dynamic acoustic elements like loudspeakers". mike