Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

Chris A

Heritage Members
  • Content Count

    7818
  • Joined

Community Reputation

2462 Legendary

About Chris A

  • Rank
    Music Enthusiast

Profile Information

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://sites.google.com/site/dbremaster/

Recent Profile Visitors

33625 profile views
  1. They look like they will work based on your descriptions of the mating elements. I don't prefer using cable adapters myself, rather it's more reliable to use a cable that has the correct connectors on each end for the job.
  2. You'll need something to convert your third channel (a.k.a., subwoofer channel) into analog output to drive your subwoofer amplifier. If you look, you can find DSP subwoofer amplifiers that can do those two functions (DAC to convert from AES3 [XLR] and a provide power amplifier for subwoofer) in one box, such as the miniDSP PWR-ICE125. You probably don't really want to go down the road of an analog summer from your left/right stereo channels to drive a mono subwoofer channel. I wouldn't prefer that approach. Chris
  3. You can also consider Dirac or freeware, too: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=87538.0 https://live.dirac.com/overview/ Chris
  4. Your discussion sounds like a JRiver-type setup, i.e., not having a DAC in your "DSP device". I've not used JRiver, but several people that I know and respect do use it, with two in particular that come to mind: etc6849 on this site and wesayso on diyAudio. With JRiver, you can also flatten the phase of the loudspeakers and subwoofer(s) using digital FIR filtering and the power of your PC or an AES card, like Ellery (etc6849) used: Here is a link to a summary of what wesayso has included in his (powerful) PC-based stereo line-array setup: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/330741-preference-direct-radiators-27.html#post5731388 Knowing that these are probably well in excess of what you were thinking for "DSP devices", I think that it is worth your while to read on these setups and think about them (i.e., JRiver-based) to provide future growth capabilities in your approach. This also dovetails with your wish to integrate streaming, etc. It seems to me that the flexibility will be greatest using a PC-based system and a good AES/EBU interface or other type of soundcard of audiophile quality that wesayso used. Performance/cost with these devices is extremely high. My current setup (fully horn-loaded 5.1) is based around an AV preamp/processor that I've used for the past decade or so. But if I had it to do from scratch again, I'd probably go a PC-based direction, assuming that I had all the codecs available for not only two channel audio, but also all the various flavors of video/movie codecs that are heritage formats for video/audio recordings (i.e., the reason for me to hang onto the AVP presently). Chris
  5. I would recommend keeping the subwoofer within 1/4 wavelength at the crossover frequency, e.g., that's 3 1/2 feet of each bass bin if you're crossing at 80 Hz. Unless you're in a very small listening room (i.e., less than 13--14 feet in width or depth), I recommend using two subwoofers and keeping them within 3.5 feet of the Forte III bass bins if crossing at that high frequency. Chris
  6. The suggestion about taking full-range REW measurements with and without the open leg stands is important. This just happens to be one of those cases where you can take an objective measurement and see the major effect that's occurring. PWK didn't equivocate on this particular subject. I independently found that his observations were right on. The Forte III has very similar bass performance relative to a Cornwall prototype, which was the loudspeaker's low frequency response that was plotted in the article. Chris
  7. I recommend taking full-range REW measurements in-room with and without those cavities under your loudspeakers. You may be insensitive to bass extension loss. For me, the effect is very audible. Chris
  8. See the following: https://community.klipsch.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=54362 If you have issues with tweeters being shadowed by furniture, etc., move all those belongings out of the way and tilt the loudspeakers back a bit, making sure to keep the gap underneath the loudspeaker as small as possible to prevent a cavity being formed underneath. If you're crossing over to subwoofers above 60-70 Hz, then you can raise the Fortes up to ear level (about 43-48 inches above the floor level) without total loss of bass below 60 Hz. If you build a solid box to mount the Fortes on to raise them up to ear level, you can reduce the effects of bass loss, but not totally avoid bass extension loss. The worst thing that you can do to incur bass extension loss is to raise the Fortes on open-leg platforms. Chris
  9. Thanks for the reply, Gary. That red curve that I drew on top of the 1996 Chapman JAES article Programme Material Analysis, was done freehand and was notional to illustrate what a typical mixdown track would likely look like before mastering EQ was applied for the genre of music noted. I reposted that figure here for illustrative purposes only for those that might not not be aware of the degree of EQ and that it changes between different types of music genres. That mastering EQ is neither subtle nor "hi-fi", but rather is typical for all genres in stereo format. The problem, of course, is that the the dotted black curve in the figure represents a statistical least squares error fit to the ~29 hours of "heavy" music genre tracks. There are significant variances from track-to-track (and album-to-album) within the genre, so that pre-EQing loudspeakers to compensate for mastering EQ will frequently be significantly less than optimal, i.e., one size fits all EQ doesn't really work all that well. I've found that it's usually much more successful to correct the music tracks individually (for each music genre), and then set the loudspeaker frequency and phase response to be flat. Your comment about the Harman direct radiating bass below horn-loaded midrange and tweeters does present a curious dichotomy in Harman's thinking about its loudspeakers--and in fact I find a lot of rationalization, i.e., trying to talk to themselves out of using horn-loaded bass. (referring to the discussion on Lipshitz and Vanderkooy). There is a way to achieve flatter phase response out of your loudspeakers, but generally it will require a DSP crossover to take out the time delays inherent in multiple-horn-aperture loudspeakers such as the Klipschorn. We've talked about this subject in the past, so I'll leave that discussion as is, since it is probably even farther away from the OP's intent. If there is any interest in that subject, I'll be happy to discuss it more. I've been listening to the difference in the Jubilees and the other three surround loudspeakers (center MEH and surround ESS AMT-1/Belles) after discovering Danley-style crossover approaches over the past few weeks. All I can say is that all my views on demastering and using flattening EQ and phase via use of different crossover filter approaches has been significantly affected. Chris
  10. Generally, I think you'll find a good position about 6-9 feet from the narrow wall position of Khorns (shown below from the REW Room Sim facility): You can run REW measurements, moving the microphone position back in one foot increments, about on centerline of the narrow axis (but not exactly on-axis between the two long walls), and run 10 Hz to 300 Hz sweeps to see the trade offs in null and peak frequencies. It's always less severe than in these room sims. Chris
  11. There are points that I believe need to be said about these typical "room curves": First, just about everything that I've read about room curves fails to mention the reverberation times (RTs) for the listening room under consideration. Remember that these curves show RT as a function of frequency, not a single value as a lot of people seem to want to collapse the conversation down to (which is the same problem as talking about "loudspeaker impedance", which is always a function of frequency and not just one single value, and can vary within the listening bands by more than an order of magnitude). Second and perhaps most importantly, these room curves all assume that you're using the same type of direct radiating loudspeakers having the same issues with directivity vs. frequency around the most sensitive listening band of the human hearing system (1-7 kHz). These type of loudspeakers splash their higher frequency energy around the room unevenly vs. frequency and generally more freely in the upper registers than what is actually desired. The better the Klipsch loudspeaker type used in-room, the better and more consistent the directivity in this critical band (1-7 kHz), which also happens to be the exact region where most "room curves" are making their most visible changes from flat on-axis response. Third, I've recently found that the phase response of the loudspeakers (i.e., phase vs. frequency) has a lot to do with how they sound and how much "room curve" they need in order to not sound harsh. Generally, the flatter the overall phase response of the loudspeaker in-room (including near-field reflections from the room), the smoother the sound and the less the need to "compensate" for the room and loudspeaker deficiencies in reproduction. Fourth, we now know that popular music (...basically every genre besides classical, orchestral, opera, chamber, and perhaps jazz...) typically boosts the higher frequencies and attenuates the lower frequencies, as shown by the deviations from the red line in the bottom figure, below. All you're really doing by introducing a "room curve" to your typical stereo system is to partially offset this mastering tendency: So when you say that you're using a "room curve", you also have to state (in the same breath) what genres of music that you're listening to, the degree of control of early reflections in your listening room, and the directivity and phase response performance of the loudspeakers that you're using. Generally, I recommend fixing the room acoustics issues (usually near field reflectors), loudspeaker directivity and phase response issues, and then de-master the recordings having the most egregious mastering EQ loaded into them. Then flat loudspeaker response on-axis is the best choice, and the stated harshness problems just disappear. Chris
  12. Of all the answers that I've seen thus far, perhaps few if any have identified the specifics of "why it is the way it is...nowadays". I also agree with you on the objective: it's all about improving the experience of listening to the music. Perhaps it would be instructive to look back to 2005 when one Klipsch engineer in particular joined the forum--Roy Delgado. He's an engineer in Klipsch's professional products (cinema and business-related loudspeakers). His handle back then was "Bodcaw Boy", and nowadays it's "Chief Bonehead". I believe he in particular made a large difference in a significant number of forum members' viewpoints on the subject, and likely a presence whose influence spread across all portions of the forum. His sustained presence in the forum for several years--particularly with the "Jubilee" crowd early on (from my knothole) I believe had a large effect on attracting people willing to learn more about real loudspeaker design--not BS that you see almost everywhere in the industry and in "audiophile magazines". This is particularly true of horn-loaded loudspeakers that have significant inherent fidelity advantages over those typical direct radiating loudspeakers that fill the rest of the home hi-fi loudspeaker marketplace. Roy's presence--along with several other Klipsch engineers over the years--has slowly educated and informed a lot of long-term customers that frequent this forum to this day. Many customers have come and gone but there remains a dedicated group here that have adopted a much greater amount of real engineering knowledge of acoustics and loudspeaker design--in place of the commonly found audiophile memes (i.e., knowledge that wasn't learned first-hand) that seem to infest other "audiophile forums". Note that there are probably other factors for the forum culture arriving at what it is today: reasonably consistent and effective forum moderation over time and the type of typical socioeconomic status of most of the participants also played a very big part. Initially I believe that the K-forum looked a great deal like the other audio forums on the web when it started in 1999, but over time I think that it has coalesced into an even better informed group of customers--that as a group don't put up with what I'd call "audiophilia" (the type of memes that pseuds and prigs associated with audio reproduction espouse freely...which are analogs to the type of ostentatious and vocal wine tasters that value mostly the price of the beverages they consume). To be sure, this forum also had its fair share of those types that passed through--sometimes very quickly. If you've ever actually traveled to southwest Arkansas where the original Klipsch plant is located, I think that you would begin to understand the "down to earth--no BS" attitude of the typical customers...and has also formed a core set of the people that have worked at the company as engineers and technicians--as I believe that this has also influenced the corporate culture as much as the founder himself did (PWK). Mr. Klipsch instituted an engineering culture of sound reproduction and reinforced it through his favorite polemic device: the yellow BS button that he wore to conventions and trade shows...and flashed many times to those that began to believe their own BS: I find that there is always a peculiar focus on amplifiers in the "audiophile" world, but curiously a systemic and generalized ignorance of room acoustics and loudspeaker interactions with room acoustics. Perhaps this is due to the typical story of people with electrical engineering/technologist backgrounds that understand amplifiers and wiring, but are really quite oblivious to room acoustics and the physics and psychophysics (how people hear) of acoustic drivers in assemblies we call loudspeakers. Perhaps what's important is the type of owners that value how something sounds in excess of how it looks--playing recordings that are actually good quality recordings, instead of the over-processed pablum that you typically find playing on top-40 radio. I suspect that the "country hicks" that tend to be associated with Klipsch loudspeaker ownership do know something that those "refined-taste city folk" haven't figured out yet: accuracy of reproduction is the most important single requirement that underpins listening enjoyment. PWK was an unwavering disciple of accuracy of reproduction (a fact that I believe actually limited his fully deserved recognition of contributions within JAES and other societies, even though he was presented lesser awards from them in his lifetime). His company became a cultural island of devotion to that standard of accuracy in audio reproduction--contrary to the stories that persist that oppose that fact. Many here apparently still do not know these facts--and may in fact deny that they are important, but nevertheless still enjoy the benefits of that original engineering-focused culture based on reproduction accuracy that persists in the company's product lines. Chris
  13. This is an almost unbelievably bad story. The more you read, the less you like "record companies". Really bad stuff: "The Day the Music Burned" "It was the biggest disaster in the history of the music business — and almost nobody knew. This is the story of the 2008 Universal fire." Let the lawsuits start... Chris
  14. I thought that you didn't drive west of the Collin county line. "...It's tooo far..." was my recollection when I last had a get-together many moons ago. Oh well, "too bad." 🤣 Chris
  15. This has been my observation, too. The folks with good ears can hear the difference, and want that "power, detail and emotion". I actually suspect this has always been true since the 1940s when PWK first started making Khorns (2-ways) when home hi-fi really started to be a pastime--the higher end market for people that can hear the difference has always been there. While PWK said that he eventually would have gone bust if he kept on doing only that--I rather suspect that he was really talking about growing the company into a sustainable organization that could support his personal aircraft habit (and a steady salary)... Chris
×
×
  • Create New...