Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

Arkytype

Regulars
  • Content Count

    434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Arkytype

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NW Arkansas

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    arkytype1947@yahoo.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Chief bonehead wrote: Constant coverage...chhhhh....oops. Not a klipsch designed horn so not the same. So, you've measured an Eliptrac 400? If so, please share your data. Lee
  2. Wonder if Speakerlab got good deal on those toilet wax rings?
  3. boom3 wrote: So, yeah the rest of the exponential horns are being slowly obsoleted, but the proportions of the Klipschorn seem to restrict that system to the K-401 for the foreseeable future. Dave Harris' Eliptrac 400 horns fit nicely in my Klipschorns. K400 upgrade? Check. Tractrix expansion. Check. 2" driver throat. Check. Lee
  4. Let's hope Stereophile doesn't request a pair (CW IV) to review. If they do get a pair, Chief Bonehead should be present when the measurements are taken. Better yet, fly John A. in with his test gear and oversee the measurements in the listening room and the chamber. Lee
  5. If you live in the Mid-South, you'll soon learn that cardboard boxes are a residence of choice for the Brown Recluse spider. Klipsch used to sell the cardboard shipping boxes for their Heritage models. Lee
  6. Thought I posted this version of the 8 cardinal points from a 1976 full-line Klipsch brochure. Lee 8 points brochure.docx
  7. garyrc wrote, I believe there were 8 principles when PWK first stated them. I searched for them, but couldn't find them. Looks like Zim. just posted the link to one source. Here's one that Gil posted a few years ago. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/46835-article-eight-cardinal-points-by-pwk/ Note that these are the "Eight Cardinal Points in Loudspeakers for Sound Reproduction" (emphasis mine)---not the top 8 loudspeaker design goals. I think PWK wrote this IRE Transactions on Audio paper in 1961 to complement the audio research of Bell Laboratory, William B. Snow's ground-breaking 1953 paper, Basic Principles of Stereophonic Sound and others allied in the field of sound reproduction.
  8. https://www.klipsch.com/our-technology Scroll down to see The Four Principles of Klipsch Sound. Looks like Roy's "response" to Stereophile separated Principle 1 (High Efficiency/Low Distortion) into his "sound principles" 1 & 2 and left out Wide Dynamic Range. ¿Qué pasó? Lee
  9. Chris A wrote, One of the great missing links to the loudspeaker engineering repertoire (IMO) is a ranking of loudspeaker performance attributes by measurement type--not based on someone's opinion of what is important, but rather by subjective preference by listener groups on particular loudspeaker types (by listening group preferences), and then an analysis of how the most preferred loudspeakers actually performed, i.e., an approach that is reversed from the engineering literature on loudspeaker measurements. The person who is perhaps the most responsible for quantifying listener preferences in a loudspeaker is Floyd Toole. He has conducted hundreds (if not thousands) of blind listening tests at Canada's National Research Council with participants ranging from professional musicians to volunteers. I won't spoil the resulting findings. His latest book is well worth the investment. Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents) 3rd Edition He also is on several informative YouTube videos. Lee
  10. Where we are: Our power amplifiers (solid state & valve), preamplifiers (passive or active), CD players, DACs, turntables, integrated amplifiers & AV receivers all have one thing in common: Their “sound” is not affected by a room’s “acoustics” which include the dimensions, shape, dimensional ratios, reverberation time, standing waves, etc. That leaves the loudspeaker which, for the most part, is at the mercy of the above “acoustics” for its “sound” and whose measurements we often question. Where we’ll never be: In a perfect world, all reviewers in the audio magazine bidness would have identical listening rooms with the size (ratios, shapes) and acoustic treatment taken from the experience of notables such as Floyd Toole, Peter D’Antonio and the like. Then, maybe at least the objective measurements would be in closer agreement with the manufacturer’s specs. The subjective assessments would, however, be left to the whims, prejudices, and “golden ear wax” of the reviewers. Where we could be: If my memory serves me correctly, the factory listening room in Hope has four square corners but splayed side and end walls. I think it was constructed about the same time as the anechoic chamber. Shameless Aside: When the chamber was under construction (late 70s?), I visited the plant and found PWK spinning the revolving corner at maybe 40-60 RPM! I can still remember the whoosh of air as each partition went past. He quipped that he was testing the door’s bearings which were from a pair of truck axles. JRH probably was there as well as he drove a lot of the door’s unique, patented construction. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4387786?oq=klipsch WWCB (Cont’d) Anyhoo, I propose that Klipsch get a qualified acoustic consultant and outfit that listening room (Indy's as well) with the proper wall/ceiling/floor treatment that any manufacturer in the loudspeaker bidness should have to highlight their products. The present wall “treatment” at Hope is just sad. What we are striving for is an “ideal” acoustical space using proven solutions; not a few pieces of “acoustical” foam and wall-to-wall carpeting. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/177136-klipschorn-new-build-introduced-to-pilgrimage-attendees/ Next, starting with each Heritage loudspeaker, measure every electrical and acoustical parameter known using state-of-the-art, calibrated gear, not a laboratory microphone adapted for entertainment use and the decades-old MLSSA testing software John Atkinson uses. Audio Precision not only manufacturers top-of-the-line measurement gear but also has some powerful, easy-to-use loudspeaker measurement suites. One can make more than a dozen accurate, repeatable acoustic measurements in a few seconds with a single mouse button click. https://www.ap.com/electro-acoustic-test/ Just think, you could start with a pair of Cornwall IIIs in the corners with the tweeter axis pointed at the microphone (at the listening position); take a slew of measurement; and then gradually move the CWIII toward the center all the while taking comparison measurements. Of course, these comprehensive measurements would trickle down the product line as warranted. As a “reference” each loudspeaker would be tested in the trihedral corner of the anechoic chamber to compare FR curves and those pesky sensitivity specs with those taken in the listening room. Finally: The end result of these measurements would be to, a) have a baseline for each loudspeaker model which could (should?) be used in product advertising, and b) could (should!!) be used to refute/dispute an audio magazine’s poor measurement results. In the case of the AK6 review, if Roy was privy to the poor measurement results prior to publication, he should have (at the least) moved heaven and earth to get those measurements re-done indoors or used the Manufacturer’s Comment section to strongly contest the AK6’s poor measurements. Lee
  11. Because of the Klipschorn AK6's bulk—each weighs 220 lb—I drove my test gear the 177 miles to Art's place and measured the speaker sitting on a furniture dolly in his driveway. So, rather than measure them in situ, Atkinson and Dudley manhandled an AK6 out of the house and onto the driveway? Surely the DRAA MLSSA could gate the room reflections.
  12. According to my architectural manuals a 17 foot room dimension is the worst for sound reproduction that you can use for any speaker system. JJK Say what?
  13. Deang wrote, I'm having a hard time believing that Roy didn't shoot for flatest response possibe. I'm inclined the blame the testing methodology. You have to give John Atkinson credit for making consistent, in-depth loudspeaker reviews. The measurement gear is reliable and gives repeatable results. He's made well over 1000 loudspeaker reviews and his in-depth methodology can be found within the Stereophile archives. Yeah, I'd like to see some I.M.D. tests as well as polars but while those tests would be welcome to fellow Klipsch forum members, I doubt they would be appreciated by most Stereophile readers. garyrc wrote, I wonder if Klipsch wrote anything in the Manufacturer's Comments section of Stereophile (conveinently buried toward the back of the magazine instead right with the component tested)? I'm curious to know what Roy Delgado would say about this review. Roy? @Chief bonehead. Perhaps he would contest some of their findings, or talk about important qualities they didn't mention. I would assume Roy was privy to Dudley's review and Atkinson's test data before he responded. His response did not address the review or test results directly but was a curious reiteration of PWK's "four sound principles in order of importance: High efficiency Low distortion Controlled directivity Controlled frequency response PWK actually had published his 1961 "Eight Cardinal Points in Loudspeakers for Sound Reproduction" which Gil posted back in 2004. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/46835-article-eight-cardinal-points-by-pwk/ There is a huge disconnect between Roy's praise of the AK6's tweeter and the actual measurement results. I see Chris A posted the review link and an ugly on-axis frequency response. Maybe Roy would like to post some Klipschorn "dirty pictures" for us to see. Maybe it's time to rethink the politics of the inflated sensitivity specs, eight-foot bass horn BS and the Heritage "re-styling" decisions. Lee
  14. http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Dope_610220_v2n2.pdf http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Dope_720200_v12n1.pdf http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Dope_751205_v15n5.pdf
  15. The September 2019 edition of Stereophile has a long-awaited review of the AK6 Klipschorn. The only word that comes to my mind after reading both the Measurements section and the review by Art Dudley is----disappointment. First the measurements: Once again, a Klipsch loudspeaker does not meet its sensitivity specification. That's odd for a Klipschorn as I would assume its sensitivity was measured in the trihedral corner of the Hope anechoic chamber (see grainy image). You'd think there would be less of the "room gain fudge-factor" Klipsch uses than the 3.9 dB sensitivity shortfall John Atkinson measured. For logistical reasons, the AK6 was measured out of doors sitting on a driveway. The AK6 frequency response specification is 33 Hz--20kHz + or - 4 dB. For a premium-priced loudspeaker, that spec should be + or - 3 dB or better. Atkinson measured the AK6 frequency response using nearfield (bass horn) and farfield (squawker/tweeter) measurement techniques. The AK6 frequency response measured: 33 Hz -20kHz +8 dB minus 15 dB (my interpretation of the FR curves). The +8 dB peak at 10kHz is as disappointing as the overall tweeter level which appears to be 3 dB too hot relative to the midrange. I won't comment on the bass horn measurements only to say that even though the back is enclosed, corner placement is, IMHO, the only location to measure the bass response of a Klipschorn. Second, the listening test: It wasn't clear from Dudley's review how the Klipschorns were located in his 17' x 12' x 8' listening room. Were they on the long wall or short wall? Dudley writes, I began with the backs of the Klipschorn AK6s a short distance from the front wall--their front surfaces, measured at the centers of the cabinets, were a little more than 3' from that wall, and a little more than 8' apart from each other--and with the the speakers slightly toed-in toward the center listening seat. Really? Where's my horsewhip? Who in their right mind would listen to Klipschorns eight feet apart and three feet away from a wall? In 2006 Klipsch turned down Dudley's request to review the 60th anniversary Klipschorn because his (Dudley's) listening room at the time couldn't accommodate corner placement. Did the current Klipsch marketing department considered asking for dimensions and images of Dudley's current listening room? His current listening room would IMHO be marginal even locating the AK6s on the 17' wall. My listening room was designed around my Klipschorns/Belle and is 24' wide, with 11' high side walls and a 23' vaulted ceiling. The sound quality and imaging is magnificent and is a system not tolerant of poorly recorded pablum. Unfortunately, I cannot scan the AK6 review and post it----my trusty Epson scanner is refusing to power up. Stereophile will post it soon enough on their web site. Gosh, you'd think Klipsch would have posted the past two Stereophile Klipsch loudspeaker reviews on the web site by now. Lee
×
×
  • Create New...