AltmanEars

One can activate Khorns but in practice I think you'll find the Jubilee active solution to be ultimately better and cheaper. For optimal performance you tend to need a very good crossover and 3 way xovers are typically twice as expensive as 2 way. To blend the drivers it is significantly better to have the same amps meaning you will be buying 4 really good single ended monoblocks. I know this is different than what you have read in the audio press but trust me it is absolutely true and it really speeds your design time.

Crude tends to be lower in Dec. due to inventory adjustments. In addition there is the beginning of yen repatriation and the stronger seasonals of the YEN carry trade with the yen tending to be weaker in Dec.. Statistically the yen trade is more reliable than the Oil trade. As you guys might know there are no position limits in the YEN trade so for many of us OIL has become less relavent. But I love Colin's no nonsense approach to building a system... As far as triple double bottom stuff --- its not that significant and I've gone to a non linear, non optimized quantitative approach which has worked well over the last decade. Nothing spectacular but it pays the bills and the partners are happy. BTW over the next few days you will see a nice spike in the carry trade against a beat up currency... There are two that are interesting --- consider this a New Years present... (one is a synthetic) (obviously this is just for fun since if you know how to create a synthetic cross you dont need my help)

I am looking at the Korneff and the Yamamoto I also tried to buy the Loesch amp that was floating around on Ebay a few weeks ago. As far as what I have now --- I have no amp I consider appropriate. I have a bunch of good sand amps and a nice futterman but I am more of a collector than anything else. A 45 fits in with the collection.

Thanks for all of the chatter guys --- I was looking for a new amp also and I'm glad at least one of you are using the amp I am considering.

Thanks for the nice note --- I recently became somewhat disfigured so I no longer eat in public....

The tickets are going like hotcakes... I always considered SMP one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, but I like Notorious BIG and Bill Evans also --- so go figure... I'll be there but for those who have more experience with this venue --- Out of the tickets that are left, where would be the best place to sit???

Thebes interesting comment I agree entirely --- but it would appear the Palladiums are somewhat of a closed architecture speaker so I would ask is there something which costs less than $10K that one can do to a Khorn which substantially betters a Palladium. It would surprise me if the answer is no...

Truly awesome salesmanship --- The right way to approach this is to pack up the sub and bring it to your house for an audition. Otherwise it sounds like --- "hey we are totally incompetent sorry the demo was crap --- we will give you another opportunity to lighten your wallet...stop by " Plus in the final analysis an in store demo of a sub is useless...

I bet I'm in the minority again --- but it is perfectly OK to ask for amp reccomendations but it is kind of fruitless unless you state what preamp you are using and what you liked and disliked with your current and previous setups. Actually I have found that all humans hear pretty much alike. It is the ego and non audio related things that separate you from a truly good system. To avoid this completely you should enlist the help of non audiophiles as you listen and make sure you are not trying to steer their taste by making silly audiophile comments.

I still have a 1/2 track a77 with Mark Levinson boards... I havent heard it since 1987 but it is stunning. I bet you could buy an a77 for the price of a steak dinner at Morton's. I also doubt anyone at Levinson even knows about the boards. BTW the a77 with the boards sounds marginally better than a Studer a700.

Cut--- I've always loved Audio Note's approach to the industry so I'm disappointed you didnt like their room. The only thing about Audio Note is they have a somewhat odd value curve. Their cheap DIY kit stuff has the best price performance. The more expensive stuff is mostly for ego gratification but it sounds better than the cheap stuff. To my ears the stereo 300B amp kit sounds better than any of the current Levinson amps -- but I like the ML2...

From a post last August: People often figure that when bi-amping, they need a big amp for the bass, but only a little amp, like maybe their favourite sweet-sounding tube amp, for the treble. If they're tri-amping, that may be the case, but when bi-amping, the mid/hi driver is carrying a lot of the load, depending on the crossover frequency, as shown in this chart found in the site provided by djk on a previous page ( http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm ): X-over Frequency (Hz) Power to Bass (%) Power to Mid+High (%) 250 40 60 350 50 50 500 60 40 1,200 65 35 3,000 85 15 5,000 90 10 With the Jubilee and JubScala crossing over a bit under 500Hz, you can see why it makes sense to use a pair of matching amps, one for bass and one for treble. To put it another way, when the crossover is at 500Hz or a bit below, the bass amp is powering the bottom 5 octaves of the audio range and the treble amp is powering the top 5 octaves. That means the load on both amps is comparable, so the treble amp should be roughly as powerful as the bass amp. Really bass-heavy music may change things a bit, but the chart should give good guidance in most cases. Using matching amps also simplifies level matching between the bass drivers and the treble drivers, plus you're likely to get a better timbre match between the bass and treble drivers, since it removes one element of dissimilarity, even if the drivers are two different types, typically a cone woofer and a compression mid/tweeter. As you can see, it would be wrong to say it has nothing to do with power. Power is not the only factor, but it is an important one. We are saying the same thing---you are saying power can be an issue--- I am saying since power can be an issue you should completely take it out of the equation by testing the crossover with amplifiers which are overspecified. Also I hate to tell you that simplistic chart is a bit misleading. Its just meant as a guideline. Under the dynamic conditions of a high end hifi system you need more power up top. Please understand my perspective --- Every time I have gotten active to work and work extremely well it has been with very similar amps where each amp was capable of running the entire system passively by itself. I think if you go to any of the better mastering studios where they run PMC BB5's you'll see that the tweets are running 300 watt plus monoblocks --- this is probably 10X overkill but it does produce marginally better sound and paradoxically your tweeters dont blow out...

I'm certainly no expert and this discussion is over my head, but I though Impedance varied with frequency, not amplitude? Can you explain this further? Thanks. At some reference amplitude a driver's impedance will vary with frequency ---- This is also a factor for level as follows The results clearly show that the Q of the filter changes dynamically with signal level, increasing with increasing level. The figure show that a peak of 1.5 dB relative to the low level signal. This in itself would be audible. However it is important to recognize that related effects will occur in a 2nd order electrical high pass filter response. The combined effect is a significant bump in the response of the system in the crossover region that isn’t apparent in typical low level measurements. Additionally, this bump way introduce ringing in the response as well, making the system sound aggressive and harsh at higher play back levels while sounding fine at lower levels. Thanks John Kreskovsky

[quote user="Cask05"Link to thread on Heyser's article: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/94684.aspx?PageIndex=1[/quote] Cask thanks a million for the article. Too bad that isnt a 2009 Khorn --- I'm sure Heyser is thinking the same thing in heaven...

From my first 2 days experimenting with bi-amping (not Tri Amping), there "may" have been some marginal (maybe wishfull thinking) improvment in coherency, solidity and definition, total independance of the lows and highs, eliminating FM distortion but then these 3 words that flash so brightly in a review far outweigh any real world improvement, just very slightly if at all, I cant point to any seemingly improvement and say wow it was worth it, its difficult todo an AB test due to the wiring and the ear getting used to the diffrence, we cant remember sound, we can remember what impression the sound had on us at a particular point in time, it wasn't an audio change worth the trouble, but it was worth pursuing as a quest for audio improvement , and to see what happens, and how such a system behaves, there is something to be had by delaying the highs vs the bass, but I don't think its worth the extra effort. You can look at the 1972 dope from hope article where they tried this with the technology of the time, and another article I found on the net http://www.hps4000.com/pages/spksamps/bi_amplification.pdf, The next thing I want to do is replace the high freq amp to a tubed one, that was my original plan. I hear you --- we are coming from two different viewpoints --- I successfully used a number of active systems but --- BIG BUT --- a competent engineer setup the active crossovers and the crossovers didnt perform AD/DA conversions and they were extremely hgih quality. In one case the Levinson x-overs had separate power supplies and specialized connectors. The designers who developed the crossovers were good and had years of experience. I would not begin to think I could replicate their results without quality test equipment over even a period of a dozen weekends...

6l6 Did I really read your response correctly? You tried a bunch of experiments none of which included actually triamping and running the speaker active yet you are convinced active would not sound better?

Islander The engineer's reccomendation was a sound one that works in practical terms --- the reason he does not like disimilar amps is because he wants to design the crossover points, slopes, amplitude, delays etc... without adjusting for the transfer function of amps with varying topolgies. Does that make sense? In fact it has nothing to do with power. Not to say this is what you are hearing but there are many who state as you do and as I thought that you are better off with running a Khorn with SS bass and tubes elsewhere but some of the roughness one hears in the mid and high's are not artifacts of the amps but artifacts of the crossovers. The other factor a really good engineer mentioned to me was that the mid and tweet of a khorn like any other speaker are not fixed resistors but will have varying impedance with amplitude. If used with a passive crossover the speaker may have a slight tendancy to sound brighter as amplitude increases.

Lemme ask this to clarify some of my own confusion. (my reference point is a Khorn so perhaps another reference point might change the answer?) I thought the woofer was the longest horn therefore it would be the reference point that all other horns would be delayed to match? In other words, the woofer would have zero delay and the K400 would have 'some' (exact amount unknown to me) and the tweeter would have a little more than the K400. This would in essence, shove the MR/HF back to meet up with the woofer. Am I misunderstanding something? We are talking past each other on the thread. To answer your question ---with an active crossover you can correct for the delay and as far as it goes what you are saying is correct.. In practice the dynamic performance of the speaker at the various listening positions requires more work. When you say "I'll loan my pal a crossover and with the idea that we will determine whether we want to go along this path to improve his system" is tantamount to saying I'm going to loan my pal a gallon of rocket fuel to determine if he should fly to the moon. In fact the most important thing you can do at this stage is to define a process for evaluating and testing the system. Here is a good quote from a speaker designer --- A Brief Digression about Crossover Design: There is misinformation promoted in some Internet news groups that all you need is the currently fashionable expensive driver and an off-the-shelf active crossover to equal $1,000 to $10,000 commercial designs. This, to be blunt, is just plain wrong. The most exotic and advanced drivers are notoriously hard to integrate into a speaker system, and professional designers know this. The best people in this field take anywhere from 6 to 18 months to design a system that is ready for sale, and that's with years of design experience and daily access to advanced test equipment. If you found some unusual drivers on eBay, good for you, but now it's up to you to find a professional designer and pay them for their time (I am not volunteering). To give you a idea of what this might cost you, I generally charge US$20/hour for design services, and the XXXX took me 6 months to design (pretty fast for me), so by a quick reckoning that's $20,000 of my time, at least 80% of which was spent refining the crossover. Matching the crossover to the specific drivers in the XXXX took 25 years of experience, $16,000 of hands-on time, and $5,000 of test equipment. That was with drivers that were very easy to work with. Here is a bit on process ---- Since speakers are electroacoustic transducers and antennas at the same time, they have complex behaviour that cannot be reduced to simple graphs or curves. Even the most sophisticated instrumentation only hints at what's really going on, so careful listening is still an essential part of designing a speaker system. I use a combination of listening to music and pink-noise, and measuring the speaker with several different MLSSA test modes, such as impulse response, group delay vs. frequency, frequency response at different angles, and the cumulative decay spectra. Careful listening to pink-noise is a very sensitive way to discover resonant colorations (more so than music, and much more repeatable), but it can fail to detect notches in the spectrum unless they are very sharp and deep. So you have to be careful when you tune a system so you don't inadvertently create broad depressions. In addition, pink-noise testing tells you nothing about dynamic qualities, so you can end up with speakers that are smooth and inoffensive but don't sparkle and sing on real music. Still, pink-noise testing lets you quickly detect and remove resonant colorations; just alter the crossover and add or remove cabinet damping until the speaker really begins to sound like an actual waterfall. MLSSA, FFT, LMS, or 1/3 octave measurements provide an essential cross-check to make sure that you're not subtly skewing the spectrum as your ear gradually adapts to the sound of pink-noise. (Adaptation is a serious problem with pink-noise testing. Listening and tweaking sessions should be kept under 10 minutes so your mental reference point doesn't begin to shift.) All tests have their blind spots, so cross-checking is very important, especially when you listen to music. You may have to choose between a sense of verve and directness and a tuning that is relaxed and neutral; this is your call. The drivers in the XXXX are exceptionally flat, which makes the system tuning easier. If the drivers had large peaks like metal-dome tweeters, Kevlar, or carbon-fiber drivers, the tuning process becomes far more difficult, and requires a lot of experience in knowing what to equalize and what to leave alone. In practice, subjective tuning results in a 3-way round of testing, using pink-noise, measurements, and music listening. This is the sequence I use: Aim for the intended acoustic target slope (4th-order Gaussian or whatever) by using computer optimization with LEAP or XOPT, or use old-fashioned cut-and-try with many repeated measurements made at 2 meters distance at 0 degrees, 15 degrees, 30 degrees, and so on. (WARNING: Do not make system measurements at a 1 meter distance. For all multiway speakers, not just the Ariels, the crossover radiation pattern doesn't fully "gel" until you get at least 2 meters away. If you fine-tune the system at a 1-meter distance it will almost certainly be wrong at 2 meters. Fortunately, the measurements at 2, 3, and 4 meters are very similar, so the 2-meter measurment is valid for greater distances.) Fine-tune the new crossover in half-dB steps by ear and repeated MLSSA, LMS, or IMP measurements. Keep doing this until you are satisfied with the overall technical and subjective performance. Record the measurements, crossover description and topology, and the version number. Have music-listening sessions using several amplifiers and a wide variety of sources. Instead of listening critically, ask yourself if you're enjoying what you hear. Do you feel the music? Does it move you? Focus on the emotional qualities, not just the usual audiophile sonics. In other words, what does it do well? Go back to Step 2 until you feel genuinely satisfied that the whole system has reached its full potential. For example, crossover on this Web page is actually the 15th go-round using this multi-step procedure above. So don't expect perfection the first time around, and don't expect music-listening or measurement sessions to do it all. It takes both. HOPE THAT HELPS

djk --- While english is not my first language I thought the word agree means harmonize or in accord. If you are looking for someone to disagree with you probably need to take it up with LV not me...But it appears even LV agreed with the technical premise you discussed. In addition manufacturers often state some technical issue they can't surmount doesnt make any difference in listening tests. On the other hand there is room that they (LV) are being completely candid.

Yes you are absolutely right... I'm not sure you read the whole post --- the engineers did not think the mid woofer transition was that important --- at least as far as the listening tests were concerned. In the design phase they assumed it would be critical. On one hand thats a neat looking speaker --- on the other LV has embodied virtually every high end cliche and put together an ambitious product --- who knows if it will sound good...

What I'm beginning to find by reading a bunch of the responses in the forum is that many people go down the active path, do it poorly and decide its not for them. A few things I've learned in my travels: 1. At the inception of your active project it is probably better to use the same amps. This simplifies the setup process and allows you to perform a basic passive triamp test. The triamp passive test will tell you if the additional amp to speaker and amp to preamp cabling is an issue. Please note I have no experience with cheap y cords etc.. Ive only used preamps with multiple amp outputs. 2.Using the same amps sounds like one is suboptimizing but it helps with the listening tests. You have to get the critical crossover points correct by ear. 3. Always use the same speaker cables and interconnects - at the beginning of your process. 4. I've only used the really expensive spectrum analyzers but there may be software and the beringer 5000 test microphone which will allow you to take measurements in the listening room. This in and of itself takes experience since the flatest smoothest response doesnt sound the best. 5. In the cases I've run the passive settings for slope and crossover point are never the same you would use in your listening room -- but you need to start somewhere. 6. I have not experimented with time delays but in theory you may need some tailoring even if you align the acoustical centers of the drivers in your Khorns. As an aside it would appear that people can disagree on what time alignment actually is. In my odd world you need to begin with the acoustical centers of drivers to have some shot of time alignment. There is another school of thought that as long as the front of the drivers are flush with the motorboard the system is time aligned. (Apparently this is a belief held in some parallel universe) For reference, the attached picture is of a Living Voice horn where the designer paid attention to time alignment. The designers of the living voice claim the tweeter to mid alignment is significantly more important than bass to mid... (go figure) Please note as far as listening is concerned, arranging the speaker so the acoustical centers of the drivers are correct, works in concert with having a crossover which has been engineered to be transient perfect meaning you need to run a series of impulse tests. At this point we still have not addressed the power response of the loudspeaker or other very valid aspects of performance.

ThanksTony I have heard the DEQx and a number of better analog crossovers. I still have not hooked up all the amps I own but a pattern is forming and it looks like it would be best to consign the speakers to what is termed the revolving oddity service. This is a win for Klipsch cause it means too good to sell but not good enough to listen to on a regular basis. The mixed amplifier idea I had seems to have some running into technical issues which my better tech oriented friends dont think can be easily addressed. In short, it would appear the best multiamp passive or active implementations would be with the exact same amps. A few of the better low powered amps I have are no longer in current production and never come up for sale, I envy you if you were able to hook up 3 prs of Levinson ML2's to your Khorns as I only have one set left. Similarly I only have one Linn Klout, one Linn Klimax and one pr of Futtermans. I'm considering a Yamamoto and a set of Sophia 300B monoblocks just for fun... Passively these amps cannot address one of the major issues with the Khorn but they can improve the midrange. I am exploring your Altec ideas through Yamamoto and Shindo who will build with these drivers and custom low order passive crossovers. This would give me the dynamics of the Klipsch with the refinement of the better drivers and allow me to use a single low cost amplifier. The attraction to Shindo and Yamamoto is due to an error I made on another totally unrelated project where I had to hedge some YEN risk, I made a slight error and ended with a small imbalance which covers either a pr of the Shindo's or a custom set of Yamamotos.

Time-aligning a loudspeaker system physically does not necessarily mean that the voice coils are in planar alignment. It means the sounds hit ones ears simultaneously. BTW, unless the drivers are coaxial or are part of a "synergy horn" system, time alignment is exact for one listening height. Exact for only one vertical height, but improved everywhere. Klipsch cannot say that their speakers are "time aligned" because that term has been copyrighted by another manufacturer. Signal path refers to parts count between the source and the speaker. An analog xover has more parts involved than a passive one, usually including several amplifiers, commonly IC op-amps. Some active analog units do use inductors in their filter circuitry. If the active xover is digital, it would have an input ADC, a processor, and an output DAC, per channel. Then multiple interconnects, multiple amps, multiple speaker cables. This is not a simple signal path. Come on Don--- I'm not sure I understand --- I say time alignment refers to the arrival time at your ear of the audio signal and you say that it is when the sound "hit's" your ear and this is some massive technical difference??? You stated the Palladiums are "time aligned" --- not me... I'm not a lawyer but it is common knowledge one can use the terms time aligned or time coherent when referring to some aspect of loudspeaker design. The common usage of "signal path" in audio really has taken on a few meanings: 1. Routes the signal has to traverse from source to destination. This has real meaning in the recording industry. Where folks are used to seeing signal path diagrams. 2. Some audiophiles refer to signal path in terms of physical length with long being bad. 3. Most folks add up devices such as resistors, transformers etc to constitute a definition of signal path within a component as amp A is better than that amp B which has a less complex signal path since it is an OTL amp... (This is pretty close to your definition, AOK cool) If I understand you --- a passive system only has one set of speaker cables and is really simple since the leads from the passive crossover to the loudspeaker drivers don't count. They only count for those of us who have active loudspeaker setups. As you know the vast number of active speakers sold have only one set of interconnects to the loudspeaker with the crossover and amps within the speaker or attached to a plate on the back of the speaker. This is the Linn, ATC, PMC/Bryston and Harbeth approach. Beyond this I know you are pulling my leg --- I appreciate it... I would like to expand on a point you made and that is of the active digital crossover. I always thought it would be crazy to introduce a needless set of conversions but in practice it doesnt seem to matter. The benefits of the signal processing seems to compensate for the additional conversions. When I first heard it I couldnt believe it... I guess the proof is really in the pudding: I've heard extensively, owned or still own --- The HQD system, the top of the line PMC, Westlakes, Naims, Linns , ATC's a few custom Altec systems, numerous active Magnepan's of various vintages, all highend Martin Logans except the CLS's(I have an early pr). Lyngdorf/Steinway All good --- all active. I'm actually willing to accept that you would think the above systems are all trash or are good in spite of the stupid decision the designers made to complicate the signal path.

You may have this reaction because this is a very overated piece of kit. Home theatre has confused the market and brought about the wide acceptibility of so so subs. One of the subs in my collection is isobaric and it sounds great but not quite loud enough for movies. My sub uses the large KEF oval driver in an isobaric loading. On the other hand, the larger Wilson subs are really very fun. Two should satisfy almost anyone and you arent talking ridiculous money either...BTW some of the older Wilson's require a crossover and amp. Old used McIntosh superamps make some of the best woofer amps going... Finally the best solution is to hire a competent engineer to design a "built in" subwoofer system for your room...This is often the most cost efficient.

ok, understand. stereophile did run this receiver with $45,000 wilson watts and they were mighty impressed. many paths lead to nirvana, hope you find yours. qnat --- trying to save someone money is truly unamerican[6]. Most audiophiles never learn money has little to do with sound. Stereophile was pulling a fast one ---- Wilsons are really not that good and $700 integrated/receivers can be extremely good.