Jump to content

HornEd

Regulars
  • Posts

    2504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HornEd

  1. Sanman023, RC-7's are a great speaker in their own right. Seven of them make a truly fine timbre matched set and they can be set vertically for the Left and Right Mains. Having six (or seven) identical timbre-matched speakers eliminates the Doppler Effect (phase shift) when a sound moves from one speaker to another. -HornEd

  2. Yep, it's not only possible it makes for one of the finest HT systems I have ever built. I have found no substitute for getting the most out of DVD's than having six speakers... one for every discrete channel in a 6.1 system.

    The key to the Main DVD speaker (e.g., the front center channel to which over 75% of the sound is directed) is to build a new motorboard (or baffle board as some refer to it). For the front center I build the new motorboard with the tweeter and mid-range horns stacked and the woofers as close together as possible... this makes a tighter center channel for linking screen action. The "horizontalized" KLF-30 sits nicely atop a 65" Mitsubishi RPHD television... the upgrade quality of the HT is in an overused word, "AWESOME"...

    I also use horizontalized KLF-30's for the rear array... only I place the woofers as far apart as I can. This tends to make the sweet spot much wider. -HornEd

  3. As I understand them to be, both the RB-25 and the RC-25 are front ported so the issue of room behind the speakers is not a concern. In general, I would prefer the RC-25 over it's RB cousin because a horizontal arrangement with two woofers provides a larger sweet spot when used in side/surround or rear effects positions.

    When customizing floor standing speakers to horizontal rear array applications, I spread twin woofers as far apart as the cabinet allows... thus creating a wider cone of ambient sound. In effect, the angle of the woofer cone on each side of the horizontally mounted center speaker creates a zone of sweet spot benefit. Tracing those angles for each rear array speaker will indicate the size of your rear array sweet spot.

    Clearly, a single mounted woofer such as is in the RB-25 would not achieve as wide an angle. However, I have not had the opportunity to check out the respective speaker characteristics of these particular Klipsch speakers. -HornEd

  4. HDBRbuilder... I thought by now you would be "Klipsching" from Kabul or maybe Baghdad... especially Baghdad-by-the-Bay... a Herb Caen euphemism for San Francisco.

    Where ever you may roam... stay in touch. Andy, you bring a dimension to this Forum like now one else has been able to do. Thanks from all you have inspired... until you are better paid! -HornEd

  5. Well said Strabo and Frank Speaker. This is a great Forum that tolerates a broad spectrum of opinion.

    Admittedly, I have earned the resource set in my 65 years of economic struggle to have whatever speakers, equipment and building to put it in that I desire. Call it lucky, elitist or surreal, the fact remains that I have earned the opportunity to probe acoustic frontiers and share it with those on this Forum that find it useful. I was fortunate to be exposed to PWKs Klipschorn as a monaural loudspeaker over a half-century ago and my horn-loaded and PWK oriented no BS philosophy has endured.

    I appreciate Strabos comment and, yet, I know that quality six-channel excellence can be had for less money if manufacturers would build a system that makes the most of five or six channel fare. They dont unless one has the capability of spending megabucks and that is wrong! I mean that I dont have a problem with those who spend mega bucks I just dont buy into the audiophile excess that goes beyond natural sound.

    Over the three years that I have contributed to this Forum, I have tried to make acoustic sense at every level. I realize that not everybody has the opportunity to build a perfect Home Theater room let alone a perfect stand alone Home Theater or two! Thats not important what is important that Forum members can learn from the experience of other Forum members and that their aural lives will be enhanced in the process.

    It just isnt that big a deal to find an economically viable alternative that brings your aural experience beyond the limitations of vinyl two-channel constraints. HornEd

    PS: No one gave me my advantages in life I went out and got my nose bloody in the process of learning how to succeed. Ive had my fifteen minutes of fame and then some now I just want to pass on to my fellow Klipsch enthusiasts a piece of the cost-effective aural pie that I have been privileged to enjoy. -HornEd

  6. What's wrong with your system... it's dishonest! It's cheating you of the sound that you could have had. Your room layout is far better suited to two-channel or three-channel stereo than it is for a legitimate 6.1 system... and too narrow for a 7.1 system (7.1 merely repeats the same sixth channel information to two rear center speakers).

    You would do far better to have three RC-7's on your rear array... two flanking the sofa and one directly behind the sofa. The sofa would do better scooted out a bit from the wall as m00n has done in his HT. The side/surrounds should be more in line with the ears in the prime listening area.

    Putting four "sound sprayers" on your side walls will only create a false ambience of overwhelmingly unnatural sound that, hopefully, you will soon outgrow. In your sketch, you show a rather large equipment area in what seems to be a closet behind the screen. If it were my room, I would probably mount a sound permeable screen and position another RF-7 behind it. As good as an RC-7 is (and it is good), it just doesnt have the cabinet volume and components to equal the grandeur of an RF-7 and the front center speaker needs to be the absolute best in your rig if you are going to get the full benefit of multi-channel movie sound where upwards of 75% of the total sound comes from the front center speaker.

    Three RC-7s will deliver more natural ambience from the current state of the art in DVD mixing that the six hodge-podge arrangement on your sketch. I have been where you are and have found acoustic excellence a step beyond. Obviously, it is your ears and what they perceive at this stop in the never ending journey of sound enjoyment.

    So my vote is for six RF-7s and failing that six RC-7s and failing that three RF-7s in the front array and three RC-7s in the rear array supported for DVDs with an adequate subwoofer array located in the front corner of the room to double its efficiency. -HornEd

  7. Sorry Avman... I was off in the acoustic ethers and missed your post. I am afraid that I have gotten insensitive to big black things on the wall that are quite a bit smaller than the four big black KLF-30's horizontally arranged on my wall... with only two left standing on either side of the screen.

    In my experience, Avman, few people have arranged their sprayers as you have... for you allow one side of the bi-pole to target the sweet spot... and therefore convey directional information while the other side of the bi-poles bounce around the back wall and contribute a more nearly honest ambient effect. Sadly, most folks set up their sound sprayers by the book... and they are clearly less honest that way.

    In this particular case, there is a redeeming aspect in that most 6th channel info is coming from sampling the discrete content of the left and right side/surrounds and the sprayer would be throwing its dipole aspects to bounce off the left and right walls with only the under 2 kHz content being aimed at the sweet spot. Granted some folks like this gimmick rather than having a big black thing on the wall but maybe the answer isnt lowering ones audio standards just, maybe, the answer may be coming up with some cosmetic cover up that would make it an acceptable black (or white) thing in a piece of custom furniture on the back wall.

    For whatever its worth, when it comes to loudspeakers they should say it and not spray it IMHO. -HornEd

  8. Whoa, jephdood... don't forget front-to-back as well as side-to-side. "Saving Private Ryan" does a good job on both... particularly in the German tank scenes where non-timbre matching speakers do a "Doppler effect phase shift each time the majority of sound comes from a different speaker. And sound sprayers just create an effect that the tanks are everywhere in the room... which looses a good bit of the positional excitement of impending doom (or joy) that honest directionality brings.

    Better receivers and set-up disks have a provision to run "pink noise" sequentially around the room. While this might not be as exciting as a movie portion... the "phase shift" effect stands out dramatically... as does the unnatural forced ambiance of sound sprayers.

    As you think of cost cutting approaches, remember that for multi-channel sources, the front center is the most important loudspeaker in the room and the subwoofer array is often the second most important consideration then one should consider the flanking left and right speakers then the full-range side/surrounds and lastly, the rear center.

    Most music rarely gets down below a K-horns 35 Hz potential as PWK envisioned the essential sound that should come from his speaker design. So, the subwoofer constituent is primarily for more naturalness in movie tracts. Most people do not realize that a fairly normal sound my contain elements that reach 121 dB at 20 Hz for a fraction of a second. Not long enough to hurt your ears but certainly important enough to make a difference in the naturalness of the sound! -HornEd

  9. John, the essential sound from your amp is 6.1... because there are only six discrete channels (and usually the sixth is made up in the receiver from data contained in the side/surround channels). 7.1 is kind of a sales rip off concept since all it does is split the sixth channel into two identical signals to spread the same sound on two rear channel speakers. This is useless unless you have a very, very wide room.

    I use six identical speakers in a thirty-foot circular room and tested it in six and seven speaker configurations and determined that the seventh speaker was a total waste and reconfigured the room to six primary speakers plus two front effects speakers... and an adequate subwoofer array.

    Six speakers more nearly identical should beat a hodge-podge of smaller speakers in creating natural sound and ambiance from modern DVD's. Going to a sound sprayer is committing yourself to a shortcut "gimmick advantage" that will color every sound... even when that's not what the sound engineer intended when he mixed the music or movie.

    Use an SPL meter from Radio Shack (or better) and a set-up disc (like Avia) and make your monopole choices agree in timbre as best as you can... and you will have a home theater that only a lot more money can improve... 3.gif -HornEd

  10. Thanks Rob... your eloquent amplification of my pre-stereo Klipschorn encounter contrasted with my first anemic stereo record rig (I was in the Army overseas) was filled with intrigue and shameless excess in the way early stereo recordings shamelessly flaunted stereo effects.

    Further, your take on the Bell Labs multi-channel innovation that excited PWK is spot on! Both stereo and quadraphonic sound had their weaknesses and strengths rooted in the technical challenges of needle and groove dynamics. But, for me, there is a greater concern than just replicating the music I want to have the acoustic experience of a given concert brought into my listening area lock, stock & barrel organ!

    As one moves up from transistor radio, to boom box, to become totally tubular or sail the musical sea on the $$ Multi-Grand Receiver the quality of the music improves dramatically but much of the being there aspects dont quite make it. Some receivers, Yamaha comes to mind, have dozens of simulated effects based on actual acoustic measurements of famed listening environments in an attempt (mostly grating I would say) to deliver more of the theater, bistro, or stadium character.

    While, most of us have two ears many think that there is somehow a relationship between having two ears and recording with two mikes. Of course, recording is done with many more than two microphones even our live concerts at my place use multiple mics that are processed through a multi-channel board and $10k worth of processing gear before being sent to 3,400 watt power amps that feed the left and right speaker arrays. Inside concerts, dance bands and DJs sound a whole lot different than outdoor concerts on the lawn. And while all the sound gear is pro gear it is nothing like the upscale sound system that is slated for the new amphitheater.

    The point is that sound is sliced, diced and otherwise manipulated, sometimes shamelessly, BEFORE it makes it to your input source even if that input source is your ears at a live concert. We dote on electronic representational music whether we are audiophiles locked into an esoteric groove standard or savage beasts up for a sooth job.

    So whether for movies or music, two distinct, yet somewhat inseparable factors emerge unless, of course, your listening room is an anechoic chamber. There is the INITIAL sound of music (or Private Ryan ricochet) and the SECONDARY and successive aural clues that allow humans to determine direction, timbre, and spatial characteristics of sound.

    In a two-channel environment, as lovely as they can be, the effect is still a bit gimmicky to my mind since two sound sources (i.e., loudspeaker positions) are too few to adequately connote the full sound experience as noted decades ago be Bell Labs and sustained by listening to a modern 6.1 DVD mix in a full-range (121.5 dB @ 20 Hz 20 kHz). The big difference is that a circle of identical full-range speakers for each discrete channel allows a closer approximation of the ambience of the original recorded environment or more likely an idealized synthesis that is even better than could have been heard in the original recording environment.

    Multi-channel (whether for music or movies) is still in its unsettled phase like the early stereo equipment and records the essential standards are still emerging and blatant gimmickry has not been fully identified as being as crass as it really is. Sadly, truly good multi-channel sound is not available in the local movie house and, generally, not available in the local sound system supermarket.

    Its people like my hero, Q-man, who separate the bull from the horns and build a better cabinet around them. The closer one comes to having six identical speakers fed by through six discrete channels with adequate sound amplification and source material and bolstered by an adequate subwoofer the closer one comes to digging out all the material available on a DVD. The Eagles Hell Freezes Over is an outstanding example of a DVD that is exquisite on two-channel and beyond exquisite in a properly set up six-channel theater.

    The neat thing is that one can build a properly set up six-channel theater that will blow away custom audiophile rigs costing tens of thousands of dollars more! I know first hand because I live in a very affluent part of the country and have the opportunity to listen to many great sound installations of friends and acquaintances and they indeed have great systems especially those who are two-channel and totally tubular in there audio passion. But, they all pause in awe with the naturalness of being automatically transported into a differing acoustic space with each new DVD or CD they experience on the experimental Legend Theater in which the whole free standing theater and all the custom equipment cost less than the typical high end system compared in this paragraph!

    The future of home theater (if we can have enough living space to afford one) is to replicate an acoustic experience previously recorded and minimally altered by the electronics or the room in which it is reproduced. For my ears, two-channel just doesnt have enough locations to get the job done bi-pole, di-pole, and tri-pole are, at best, gimmicks that fool the ear whether the ear needs fooling or not and six nearly identical speakers with positional modifications (as I have devised) are simply not available from any manufacturer. And, frankly Forum friends, nothing else cuts the mustard gas of sales hype and brings out the full value of the current crop of multi-channel technology. -HornEd

  11. Ah, yes, and when you blend "eargasm" with "eyegasm" you have vaulted over the everyday consumer electronics into the world of multi-channel magic.

    I was fully tuned to "HiFi" when that meant monaural... and then some cheap boxes with two mains came into vogue... and I wondered why anyone would trade one great channel for two marginal ones... but that was back in the 1950's and it was time to move on... then decades later there was "quadriphoney"... then came the wimpy sound of ProLogic's narrow range surround clues... and, finally, multi-channel sound has the potential to mean something. Oddly enough, while the money paid for killer multi-channel HT is not cheap... the main issue is understanding how to get the most out of a DVD.

    The purpose of a movie is to transport you to another time or place... and nothing makes that journey quite like a full-range system that can handle every sound form 121.5 dB @ 20 Hz... up to 20,000 Hz! Every week, dozens of hardcore two-channel types get blown away by multi-channel excellence in my free-standing 30' circular theater with low bass porous walls that prevent standing waves. It is a mind-tonic experience! -HornEd

    PS: But if I had to get stuck in some high fidelity nook... being stuck in two-channel may be the place to be. However, we pioneers will still be looking for the eye, ear, nose, & throat "gasms" the future will bring.

  12. Thanks soundx for standing up for audio reality. RF-7's front and back provide the same potential "voice" (e.g., timbre) for the same sound recorded in a sound track. When that "same sound" migrates to another speaker... it ought to sound the same. It's not "overkill"... it's an approach to reality that not everyone can afford. That doesn't make it "bad" or economically "wasteful."

    Of course, for movies, it is far more important to have an RF-7 in the front center position because that's where upwards of 75% of the total sound on a DVD movie will emanate. What this world needs is a factory option horizontal RF-7... and an enlightened customer base that can appreciate it.

    RC-7's are a well put together alternative for your rear array... in fact, they are better in your rear array than they are as a front center IMHO. Three RF-7's in front and three (or four) RC-7's in the rear will make a startlingly awesome Home Theater. Add a worthy (121.5 dB @ 20 Hz) subwoofer array and you will be set to transport you and your guests into a whole new world of home theater ecstasy! -HornEd

  13. Smilin... it's time to hook 'em horns! (As they used to say at the University of Texas)

    Most upscale receivers will provide you with a unique sixth channel... failing that, look up on the Klipsch Archives the connector that Paul W. Klipsch used to power his center channel on the Bell Labs three-channel stereo approach. I'm stuck for time now and have to run... but setting up a sixth channel in the rear array by hooking the leads up to the side/surround channels should increase your ambience to a "Corndelicious" degree. -HornEd

  14. Granted that 5.1 is the current DVD "standard"... but there are a few 6.1 DVD's since the first "Gladiator" hit the home screen. Lacking a sixth channel on a DVD doesn't phase many upscale receivers... they make a sixth channel by sampling the content of the side/surround channels. For those who prefer ambience with "monopole honesty" rather than "dipole deception"... adding a sixth discrete channel provides a decided boost in ambience with enhanced directionality. And, of course, six timbre-matched mains make the same sound sound the same no matter which speaker it comes from.

    The reason that I modify floor standing speakers to become horizontal rear array speakers is that spreading the woofers to the extreme ends of the cabinet allows a greater angle of coverage... which translates to being more people fit in the sweet spot. Obviously, the Cornwall doesn't qualify on that score because it has a single woofer... ah, but what a woofer. I actually bought a pair of Cornwalls to build a 6.1 All Corn Theater... when a sudden fluke brought me access to six KLF-30's, three KLF-10's and a pair of KLF-C7's.

    I have been using the KLF-C7's as Front Effects speakers... a task for which they are far better suited than as centers for the KLF-30's! The three KLF-10's languish in storage with four or five Klipsch subwoofers, the surplus oak corns and an Academy. The Heritage Home Theater is going together with six Khorns and four Belles.

    So, find another corn and stick it on your back wall and feed it with a synthesized sixth channel... and be ready to be amazed at the ambience in your All Corn Theater Extravaganza! -HornEd

    PS: I must have been fiddling with this reply when BBB shot his latest arrow in the direction of my BVD's... now that really marks me as a true pioneer... 6.gif Actually, BBB, I keep getting questions for which the experts have answers that aren't always as plausible to me as it was to them. So, as long as I have the time and resources... I'll continue to send up smoke signals... at least when my efforts crash and burn! Your humor has never offended me, BBB, so have at it my friend! -H.E.

  15. Popbumper... it's great to have another Forum Member probing the frontiers of ear candy. Avaman & BBB always have a good word to say and lend a hand to thorny problems.

    Avman... I can't believe you are going to get a proper KLF-30 in the center of your Belo action. There's something about a three KLF-30 front array for Home Theater that makes movies come alive!

    Nothing makes movies better than six identical monopoles with a Klipsch label on them! 16.gif -HornEd

  16. ----------------

    On 4/13/2004 10:14:11 AM TBrennan wrote:

    Ed---Nice post. A minor bone or two though.

    Most of Houston's army at San Jacinto was infantry, not cavalry. And he had a pair of cannon.

    And the Mexican army in Texas was pretty fast moving, Santa Anna had energy if nothing else. His energy is what got him in trouble. Though on the afternoon of San Jacinto his energy was, ah.., misdirected. Know what I mean?
    ;)

    ----------------

    Thanks, coming from you that is high praise indeed. And perhaps the "Yellow Rose" could be thought of as a "Miss" direction! Also, granted the issue of infantry at San Jacinto, but my point was intended to reflect tactics leading up to the battle in which Santa Anna's plodding route was along the seacoast... and Houston's irregulars could buy time by riding away from potential battles. Thus, the "buying time" argument for the Alamo defenders had little tactical effect... for which the local San Antonio area paid for in blood and lost provisions that were consumed by the Mexican troops.

    Actually, Santa Anna had an elite cavalry that had distinguished itself in battle many times. Houston's rag tag "army" hesitated in making the attack on Santa Anna's tired troops... and allowed 500 reinforcements to join Santa Anna... and the Texians lost their small numerical superiority. It is interesting to note that Houston's irregulars fed on captured provisions intended for Santa Anna.

    As a combat vet who survived behind enemy lines, I have up close and personal memories of the often senseless slaughter and waste that is war... and I know the patriotic zeal deep within that pushes gallantry beyond reason. As long as mankind is in to wars, it's too bad more of them cannot be as quick and decisive as that twenty minutes at San Jacinto... without the after battle excesses to get even for Goliad by killing more Mexican soldiers than the Mexican soldiers had killed Texians that had surrendered days earlier.

    Knowing that some of the technology in Cruise missiles fired on Iraq includes my innovations keeps the ravages of war all too near to me even now that I am retired. Although two-channel has had its share of flames... the cool restraint with which most Forum members engage in dialogue is indeed encouraging... especially in OT subjects.

    I am a confessed horn addict and enjoy this Forum for its horn aspects but a timely off topic historical jaunt with TBrennan is always refreshing. -HornEd

  17. Well, here goes another HornEd off topic historical foray... while I am a native San Franciscan and though all my grandparents were born in Europe, I did spend over thirty of my most productive years in Texas... and I, too, have a passion for history. And, oh yeah, I'd rather see a movie that gives me another perspective of history for two hours... rather than one whose claim to fame is exercising my considerable subwoofer array for a few minutes.

    First of all, check out the names of those "Texians" who lost their lives in the Alamo and you will find a larger number have Spanish surnames than you might expect... as you will find in many other skirmishes between Santa Anna's army and the local population of "Tejas" (my son's middle name is Tejano... and he was born, raised and lives in San Antonio) were a protest against unfair taxation, less than full right for "Texians" who immigrated from the U.S. and the requirement of embracing the Catholic religion when most "Texians" were Protestant.

    In the 1830's, Mexico City was the hub of Mexican government, and the farther you lived from Mexico City, the more taxes you paid and the less government services you got. Tejas was the furthest province that had grown from a population of 7,000 prior to Stephen F. Austin's efforts (sanctioned by the Mexican government) to recruit U.S. immigrants... to over 50,000 by 1835. Generally, the history of the time reflects that the local, historically Mexican, population sided with the Texians in the protest. Thus, the struggle was that of an over-taxed and under served province of Mexico with the Mexican government in Mexico City.

    At best, the Alamo incident was a travesty... a waste of men's lives on both sides for thirteen days... a fiasco that had little to do with establishing Texas independence other than supply a secondary war cry for a 20-minute battle at Buffalo Bayou (later San Jacinto) in which, surprisingly, only nine Texians lost their lives... and six hundred thirty weary troops from Mexico City (about half the Mexican force with Santa Anna) were slaughtered... most by Sam Houston's 830 ill trained but revenge thirsty Texians after the battle was over.

    Had Santa Anna, disguised as a Mexican private, not been captured making his way to thousands more of his troops garrisoned nearby... the Texan struggle for independence may well have been lost... and the second most populated state in the U.S. would be flying a Mexican flag... and the site of the Alamo would not be the eighth largest city in the U.S.

    Sam Houston was the designated leader of the Texian forces. Sam Houston ordered the "heroes" of the Alamo to join him in a retreat to East Texas where they might have a chance to defeat Santa Anna. Houston saw the old abandoned mission warehouse called the "Alamo" as an indefensible site that would only cause Santa Annas army to detour from pursuing Houstons main force and subject what was the Texians largest city to be raped and pillaged.

    Defending the Alamo was one of the biggest bonehead tactical blunders ever glorified and the defenders of the Alamo were not heroes they were irregular fighters who disobeyed their lawful commander (Houston) to do their own stupid self-serving thing.

    Houstons forces were an ill-disciplined lot on horseback a mobile fighting force that could easily outpace Santa Annas large number of foot soldiers and slow moving artillery. Neither the time taken by Santa Anna to crush the Alamo forces nor the Mexican soldiers lost in that skirmish had any decisive role in the lucky defeat and capture of Santa Annas advance party at Buffalo Bayou.

    The John Wayne version of the Alamo was a tragic parody and Remember Goliad was a far more motivating battle cry. Goliad was where Santa Anna executed 500 Texian Federalists (under Col. Fanin) who had surrendered after a battle and while they were on their way to join Houstons forces. Santa Annas order to kill defenseless Texian rebels imprisoned at Goliad rallied Federalist sympathy. Defending the Alamo meant creating a target that threatened Santa Annas supply lines from Mexico City and had to be eliminated even by modern tactical standards.

    The Federalists (including the Texians) were supporters of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 which granted more political autonomy to the Texian dominated Northern Territory of Mexico. Santa Anna, who gained the Mexican presidency a year or so earlier, headed the Centralist government that concentrated power in Mexico City marched on the Federalists to consolidate Centralist power over all of Mexico.

    So, just like the American Revolutionary War started out as a protest against taxation without representation and second-class English citizenship for colonials that grew into a war of independence the Texian Federalists (including those that fell in the Alamo) were fighting for political ideals that had been granted in the 1824 Mexican Constitution and changed by Santa Annas Centralist policies.

    If freedom were the true issue at the Alamo it is not likely that Texas would have been admitted as a slave state a decade or so after the fall of the Alamo. When I first settled in Texas in the mid-sixties the public toilet in front of the Alamo had separate (and not equal) facilities for white and colored Texas citizens. The white facilities were labeled in stone Men and Women while a crude, unpainted, wooden sign with an arrow and the term Colored scrawled upon it served second-class citizens at the Shrine of Texas Liberty.

    Make no mistake, there are many, many things that I like about Texas its land and its people and the equal opportunity companies I built there companies that did not make the distinction of gender or skin color as being automatically inferior employees. I not only watched, but was politically active in bringing equality into the functional realm of Texas heritage. And, by the way cowboys were looked upon as the dregs of society in their supposed heyday. It was lonely, tough and ill paying work work that was often taken by former slaves freed by the Civil War. Theres even a monument to the black cowboy who popularized the sport of bulldogging as I recall, his technique was to lean over and bite the bull on the lips. A bronze statue celebrating Bill Pickett, "The Dusky Demon" who invented bulldogging, is in the touristy Fort Worth Stockyards area.

    History is often the reflected bias of the winners and historical movies tend to take even more liberties to enhance the neo-classical box office bias that sells tickets and DVDs and maybe that is a good thing. For the real history was often steeped in brief blood baths on a background of hardship and boredom that would have a hard time passing for entertainment and, thus, the critical bomb of the latest Alamo may be just the incentive for me to buy the DVD. -HornEd

  18. Wow, that fini guy will do anything to avoid putting his "new" Khorns in the corner! I mean he's got a Corner Avoidance Syndrome that's as big as all outdoors!! fini GO HOME and stand in the corner!!! 15.gif -HornEd

  19. Congratulations Audible Nectar on a job well done... and welcome to the wonderful world of Klipsch AIM-HT (All Identical Monopole-Home Theater)!!! 16.gif

    As a Forum member whose Klipsch Heritage addiction began before two-channel stereo was popular... or Paul W. Klipsch opted for three-channel stereo (a pair of Khorns and a WAF taming Belle), there is NOTHING quite like the audio reality of a properly set up AIM-HT!

    Timbre-matching provides the key to cinema ambience as intended by the audio engineers of a modern full-range multi-channel music or movie source. Timbre is the "voice quality" of a loudspeaker. When the same sound on a sound track sounds the same from every speaker... the quality of the listening experience is "naturalized."

    Let's face it... no loudspeaker is "perfect"... so no collection of five or six loudspeakers is "perfect"... but no audio system is more nearly perfect in its class than AIM-HT whether it's based on a Synergy, Reference, Legend or Heritage full-range loudspeaker. I mean if the movie calls for a mosquito buzzing around my head, I do not want to experience a simulated "Doppler Effect phase shift" each time the buzz emanates from a different speaker in a 6.1 system!

    I mean if the star of a movie sits on a whoopee-cushion... I want it to sound the same no matter what direction the audio engineer intended... and I certainly don't want an OWC (Overwhelming Whoopee Cushion) effect sprayed around the room by some artificially induced wide-dispersion side-surrounds... any more than I would want the star to be depicted on the center of the screen with a WWC (Wimpy Whoopee Cushion) effect caused by my Main Center speaker (which carries 75% plus of the multi-channel movie load) being less than my Left or Right Mains.

    Whoopee-cushions deserve equal opportunity audio without aural prejudice!

    After the stunning success of the six KLF-30's... I picked up a pair of oak Cornwalls from Jackson Hole, Wyoming for my first attempt at a 6.1 Heritage Home Theater... but then I switched to Belles just in case my former "WAF induced bachelorhood" turned out to be less than permanent. 15.gif

    At four Belles and counting... I realized that I wanted to sing, "Mine ears have heard the glory of the coming of six Klipschorns"... in this lifetime! It all started when my beloved Swiss Miss Fiancé 12.gif fell in love with me during "The Sound of Music" in my Klipsch Legend AIM-HT... and continued when she bought a pair of Klipschorns and a Belle as her donation to my current AIM-HT project. Wow, talk about a keeper!

    Hmm, maybe my favorite ex-wife was right... I do need a keeper! 3.gif -HornEd

    PS: To all Klipsch Forum lurkers... whatever your ideal main speaker budget or ear preference indicates... guzzle your multi-channel sound straight as nature intended... aim high, AIM-HT! 9.gif Cheers to Audible Nectar and YOU! -H.E.

    PPS: LURKER ALERT... upscale Klipsch loudspeakers are exquisite when you feed your AIM-HT good source material 6.gif ... but suck big time on lousy source material! 14.gif

  20. Geewillicans! Imagine a "Cluless/Agent 99 Repair Shoppe"... where you got serviced more even if you cared less! What self-respecting-duh-respecting-duh-respecting record stuck, ball bearing male-strom would check his Heritage Klipsch fliver into a non-sexist Audio Repair Shoppe? Hmm, since I met and will soon marry the "Swiss Miss" of my heart's desire... and she stepped in for the maintenance man who left without notice... and ferreted out his mistakes... I'm ready to drive my six Khorns into the "Cluless Agent 99 Repair Shoppe and Model Tea Room." -HornEd

  21. WoW! TOC_op, its nice to see so many MonopoleCats on the same thread!

    Having multiple Khorns, Belles and Cornwalls to play with... plus an 8 Klipsch Legend Theater, I would agree with having 5 or 6 Cornwalls in a 5.1 or 6.1 system. 5.1 is the standard... and 6.1 the rare release... as far as discrete channels go. 7.1 is just 6.1 with a fatter rear.

    As I understand it, the vertical Cornwall was intended to be a lower horizontal center between two conventional Cornwalls. Although the original Cornwall was devised as a three-channel stereo center between fully horn-loaded Khorns the timbre match is a "close... but no cigar" approach.

    It should be noted, however, that putting your strongest speaker in the front center facilitates an enhanced HT experience... since upwards of 75% of the total sound of a DVD is directed toward the front center slot. Treat your ears to excellence with identical monopole Klipsch in each position... and feed it with a quality 6.1 source... and you will enjoy the best that particular speaker can deliver. -HornEd

×
×
  • Create New...