edwardre

Hi Colin, just going through the same thing as you are. I first called Klipsch's 800 number. Was told no way Jose. They do not have any heritage cloth for any price. Strange I thought because I purchased 2 yards about 2 years ago, for like $20/yd. Then I called last year and the price had exploded to about $60/yd, so I tried the Wendall fabrics road. I'm not as wise as others here, I bought it sight unseen.....it was black but that's where the similarities ended. Like was made out of plastic string. The stuff unraveled just during the unrolling. I'm stuck with crap. Fast forward back to Monday of this week. Based upon the testimonials from others on this BB, I ordered 4 yards of the latest black cloth rumored to be the exact match. Awaiting shipment, but it sounds to me like it's the right stuff. I'll let you know if it is not right, but I am very hopeful that it is correct......Wendell Fabs # DA-3555-21 is what I ordered. Why would you need to 'raise the roof' on your top Khorn section to accomodate the 511b's? Mine are nestled comfortably within, just had to fabricate a different grille cloth frame to accomodate the wide mouth of the 511b, essentially so that everywhere you see grille cloth it is open rather than the small rectangle hole for the Klipsch straight horn, and the even smaller hole for the little K77/EV-T35. I mounted my tweeter - a University 4401 - within the mouth of the 511b.

Ha ha ha.....not a guest mattress (please excuse the mess, but the HT seems to be in perpetual 'tweak mode') but rather the missus' reserved movie watching spot. Yes, the same missus who complains non-stop about 'those big boxes' in the corners and other HT 'inconveniences'. Watching her jump out of her skin or throw up arms during scenes that look like things are leaping out of the screen is almost as entertaining as watching the flick itself.

"The early mid horn is just so much warmer and detailed sounding compared to than the later plastic and metal horns." Not to mention the thing that sets apart the 50's era Khorns from the newer ones......the wide dispersion of sound that the K5 fiberglass/wood has over the 'toilet paper tube' mid horn found in the later models. No need to sit directly in the firing path of the horn, the whole room is a sweet spot. I haven't heard of the practice of removing the mounting motor board, but I call tell you that neither of the 4 mid-50's Khorns I have suffer from a lack of bass over current models. I have had a pair of '71's as well as a pair of '85's. Got rid of them both. Couldn't listen to them for more than 10 minutes per sitting. Strident. Sibilent. Almost.....e-gads....raucous. Absolutely, without question, less bass output as verified by my heatkit audio sig sweep generator. I cannot speak for early 60's models, but all the mid-50's I tested have the factory stock Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 (a 15" 4ohm motor), with the bass bin having the 6" throat aperature as compared with the later ones that had the K33 (one had little round magnets, the other had the little square jobs) blowing through the 3" throat aperature.

Here's the 2nd. The 'rears'. As you can see, one khorn is a stock '53, the other is just the guts. My project du jour is to swap out the gray-ish grillecloth with stock heritage black as well as to re-skin the existing Mahogany with walnut to match the fronts and Belles. I will then turn attention to the 'guts' khorn, making a matching walnut outer shell for it. Hmmm....you say. That center Belle looks non-standard. Got a 5 inch collar rather than a 1 inch collar. Right you all are. The extended collar houses the projector, performing double duty as a 'hushbox'.

OK, since I don't recall how to do the multi-pics-per-post thing, guess I'll just attach in a series of a few posts. Here's the first one.

All...thanks for the input. SVS because of the raves on this forum!! Specifically, some glowing testimonial from one who's opinion I value very highly, Mr HornEd. Hey HornEd....you still around?

....and on the type label, I inspected it closely in person, it had some fading that came across in the pics poorly. In any event, I don't see them listed this AM so he - Greg's his name - must have got a BIN. Hopefully, not another far east sale. I'll give the guy a ring and let you folks know if there was anything special about the deal.

I'm not sure they are '85's. When I looked at them, the s/n convention was the newer one that does not have any lettering. I thought "Y"s were '85's, "Z"s were '86's, and then they started the newer s/n scheme?

Or one of you considering Rose's may want to think about these stunners: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=61378&item=5701923398&rd=1 Just so happens that I saw these in person yesterday evening while there to pick up a khorn bass horn and 511b. This is the same guy I recently purchased a '53 Khorn single from about 2 weeks ago. These Rosies are in perfect condition. Perfect. $2450 BIN ain't bad. I can personally guarantee the operation and condition of these beauties (for what my guarantee is worth ). They appear to be ~'87's - whatever the first year of s/n's without the letter are.

"Seriously though... very few multi-channel recordings push the surround channels anywhere near the mains... so if space is an issue, it is my opinion that Cornwalls or even Heresys would be a perfect compromise." Man Rob...I hear you talking...in fact I had those same thoughts and started with Khorns up front with belles for the centers and 'yes', CW's for surrounds. It was very nice at first. However....I have to say with both bias and prejudice...there's something very magical about Khorns and even well setup Belles. For all their weight and size they seem to produce a sound quality that 'floats'. I don't know how else to describe the sensation. In contrast, my CW's seemed to have a sound that was anchored to the ground. Loud, powerful, rife with bass, yes. But at the same time more similar to say...a rock concert stack of speakers. The difference to me is strikingly evident when playing multi-channel DVD-A's and SACD's where in many cases equal amounts of sounds are emitted throughout the whole 'stable' of speaks. If your listening is limited to mainly movies, I would agree that perhaps a pair of CW's will suffice for the rears. Still working on those pics, been busy the past few evenings. I won't forget....

Good day! I've determined that the 'weakest link' in my HT is my Klipsch KSW200 sub. As many of you no doubt already are aware, the KSW200 was the predecessor to the KSW-12. It is a 200W 12"-er but for some reason weighs in at over 70lbs.....much more than the KSW-12. In any event, I'm not so much disappointed with it's performance thus far as I am interested in upgrading the quality of the sound eminating from the sub in general. My HT system consists of mid-50's era Klipschorns in all 4 corners, Belles refitted with mid-50's components for both front and rear centers. All 6 heritage speakers have the Stephen's Trusonic 103LX2 option rather than the EV15WK. Let me state now and for the record that I am not 'underimpressed' with the effortless, quality bass that these behemouths spew forth, but rather want sound recorded on the ".1" channel to be every bit as well suited. I have all speakers set on my Denon 3802 receiver as "large" so that none of the "5" or "6" (of 5.1 or 6.1 respectively) should be crossed over to the sub. Hopefully the sub only receives sound recorded on the ".1" channel. The system gets used the most for movies and DVD-A/SACD music. With this in mind, anyone have any suggestions as to which size SVS would merge the best with my current setup? The 16-46 or the 20-39? Any and all input will be greatly appreciated!! Thanks.

Hey Doug....the room is approx 20x20, slab foundation, vaulted ceiling. Enclosed. It's about time I take some fresh pics. I'll post them within a day or so for your perusal!

Just another testimonial for the 'don't do it' camp! Like you and many others, I have the cornerhorn/belle front. I added cornwalls for surrounds then added another belle for the rear center. This 6 channel setup in my opinion was just about as sweet as it gets, losing nothing (again IMHO) to a 7 channel setup. However, after a while, the cw's started getting annoying...so I replaced them with yet another set of klipschorns. Current setup is all 4 corners sporting 50's era klipschorns, a front center belle and a rear center belle, and the weakest link, a KSW200 sub tucked up near the front. The weakest link will be replaced with the mighty SVS soon....pondering whether the 16-46 or the 20-39 would be best to integrate with the current all large heritage sound. I listen to multi-channel DVD-A and SACD's wide open - that is to say full sound going to all speakers...no crossover to the sub and I have not heard a sweeter setup although as you can see I am slightly biased.....movies will likewise part your hair. Good luck!!

"I for one wouldn't use a horn with a 500 Hz cut off frequency with a 400Hz crossover. " Me neither....I use the K500-5000 crossover in my Khorns and Belles. The CW's with the Cobraflex "Ears" sitting atop are a temporary compromise until I can find another '50's era Khorn. In fact, I just last weekend picked up a '53 Khorn (S/N: 523), a perfect match for my pair of '54's. So....if any of you know of a 50's era single Khorn available, please let me know. Thanks!!

University Cobraflex's. Because they sound equally as good as 511b's. I have 511b's in my '54 cornerhorns as well as in my '74 Belles. Love the sound. Love the dispersion. However, 511b's do not fit either inside or on top of Cornwalls, which I am using for surrounds. So I tried University Cobraflex's. IMHO, the sould is as good - if not a wee bit better - than the altecs. The dispersion is easily as good. Another plus....your midrange driver will screw right on....no adapter needed. Good luck!

Good day. Been awhile. Believe it or not, I think I'm done tinkering for now (are we really ever 'done'?), been just enjoying. Was on vacation the other month visiting a buddy in OR. Out on the back porch he had a couple of outdoor recliners. I don't know if it was the 10 hour drive, but I swear that they were the most comfortable chairs I had sat in. Lafumas. Suppose to be "zero gravity", whatever that means. My enjoyment was so complete that I ordered up one the other week for the purpose of sporting the 'ultimate' camping chair at the yearly bird hunting camp. It arrived 2 days ago. Rather than toss it in the trailer to stow for eventual use, I decided to test drive the Lafuma to make sure that I did not receive a defective unit. Figured the HT room to be a good spot to flop it out, plenty of real estate mid-room. There are evidently 2 types, one padded, the other 'mesh'. I chose mesh simply because the intention was outdoor use. Wild horses can not drag my Lafuma out of the HT at this point. I know that most everyone has their 'favorite chair' for either/both movies or pure music. So did I. To me, the Lafuma takes the whole experience to a higher level. Open mesh ensures that no surround/rear sound waves are 'baffled', 'muted', or in anyway 'throttled' whilst still providing that much required head and neck support. The 'zero-gravity' effect makes one feel like you are floating in air, suspended right at sound level. I first set the thing smack dab in the middle of the room. It's lightweight, collapsable and portable so you can on a whim place it anywhere. I turned out the lights and flamed in DSOM (in SACD). OH MY! From that moment on, things changed in the HT room. Words cannot adequately describe. Next was a few chapters of the latest Star Trek flick, the ones where they're zippity-swooshing through the galaxies. Since you're essentially floating in the lafuma, the space scenes took on a new 'feel'. Almost gave me vertigo. The best part was that I could sit and watch fully any movie without getting 'chair fatigue'. Not to sound like the local Lafuma shill, but this thing is the nuts. Anyone else try HT-ing in a Lafuma? Or have suggestions as to other 'perfect' listening/viewing seating? I had no idea just how important this 'component' is to the overall experience! Now I have to get one for the missus.... Here's my final system: HT AUDIO: Receiver: Denon 3802 DVD: Denon 1600 (DVD-A) Sony DVP-755N (SACD) V, Inc Bravo-D1 (Video) SVHS: Panasonic PV-VS4821 CD: Onkyo Model 702 Furman AR-1215 Power Regulator 2-CHANNEL AUDIO: Amp: Dyna ST-70 (Van Alstine mods) Pre-amp: Dyna PAS2 (Van Alstine mods) Tubes: Mullards Speakers: Front Mains (and 2-Channel): Factory Custom 1954 Klipschorns Type "A" Woofers: Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 (Factory Stock) Midranges: Altec 511b horn (Modification) University SAHF driver (Factory Stock) Tweeters: University 4401 (Factory Stock) Networks: Klipsch K500-5000 (Factory Stock) Front Center: 1974 Klipsch Belle Woofer: Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 Midrange: Altec 511b horn University SAHF driver Tweeter: University HF-206 Network: Klipsch K500-5000 Surrounds: 1985 Klipsch Cornwalls Woofers: Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 Midranges: University Cobreflex horn University SAHF driver Tweeters: Klipsch K77 Networks: Klipsch Type "B" Rear Center: Homemade Klipsch Belle clone Woofer: Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 Midrange: Altec 511b horn University SAHF driver Tweeter: University HF-206 Network: Klipsch K500-5000 VIDEO: InFocus LP350 DLP Front Projector 10x5 Parkland Plastics based screen ROOM: 20x20 w/vaulted ceiling Slab foundation Open Mesh Lafumas

Now, on the Zep front, you do know that there is a 2-disc DVD scheduled for release I believe this month. Concert footage from the early years. Would be nice if it's at least in DTS. Got my copy 'pre-ordered'.

I think we're all saying the same thing. In essence, we like our music to be of high quality regardless of format. I feel there is two ways of looking at this. One to make it sound like you are at the concert Two to make it sound like you are on stage and hear it they way they do. I would respectfully suggest that there are a third and forth component to this list: Three to make it sound like the artist wanted it to sound. Four to make it sound however YOU THE LISTENER likes to hear it. I have to go back to the basics of my testimonial. Both formats of SACD (stereo and multi) as well as DVD-A offer STEREO formats that are the same as the original stereo recordings but with a MUCH HIGHER resolution. Regardless of whether your poison is 2C or MC, you cannot deny the potential positive impact to your listening experience. CD's max out at what....44khz sampling rate while DVD-A (multi) is more than double at 96K and DVD-A (stereo) is a whopping 192Khz. I have the Hotel CA CD as well as the DVD-A. Naturally, I a/b'd between my 2 channel tube setup running the CD vs DVD-A in high res 192Khz stereo. Both through the same cornerhorns. The difference is very pronounced. Other than the obvious type benefits one would expect out of a higher resolution format, what is harder to put into words is the difference in the feel. Only way I can explain it is that note for note, there seems to be 'more' sound in the room. Fuller, richer, with more substance. Likewise, I plugged the DVD-A stereo outputs into the tube amp and ran the 192Khz stereo track through. Simply phenomenal. Words cannot adequately describe. Again, a feeling thing. So when I read statements like: IMHO some music should be left in two channel. Why put Wheezer in MC? Wilco? That would be cool with all the melodic sound effects they use. Pink Floyd? Love it! Bring on the rest of their albums. Santana? To me that was just an engineer making silly noises because he could. Gave me the impression Beavis and Butthead where behind the mixing board. Some people like it. Some don't. I have to refer to a couple of key thoughts. The first is of course dealing with the Santana assessment. 100% in agreement. **When done right** is precisely what I was referring to as it pertains to these types of hack jobs. On the flip side I refer to the Hotel CA DVD-A, which in my opinion, is the best example of MC hi-res out there (that I've heard). I purchased it because I have the DVD-A player and wanted to checkout this new 'gimmick'. Expectations were fairly low as I was of the same opinion.....Why put this title in MC? Not a whole lot of cool effects, etc. I was treated to a 180 degree change in my opinion of what MC is all about. Each instrument in it's own 'space', clearly part of the overall experience and at the same time seperated. The combo of hi-res and multi-chan (done right!!) simply puts 'more' sound in the room in the right quantities in the right places.

Alright folks, I apologize for 'biting' on Mr Boooo's initial 2-channel bait. We all have been here before and should know by now that this is a 'lose-lose' discussion. If some of you are content with your 2-channel setup.....cool. However, at the risk of inciting another full page rant, it would appear from the replies on this thread that those who are 'poo-pooing' multi have not heard a properly setup multi chan and those that endorse have come from the position of growing up with 2-channel and 'evolving' (if you will) to MC. At least that is the case for me. There were a few passages that I have to respond to but first it might help to know what I'm listening through. Of course 'hi-end' 2 channel will sound better - soundstage, dynamically, tonally - than 'mid-end' MC. I do not believe that is the point, I think that we're all speaking to a level playing field equipment-wise. My setup for MC: Room size: 20'x20' vaulted ceiling, slab foundation Front mains: 1954 Factory Custom Khorns Front and rear centers: Klipsch Belles - Modified w/1950's components Rears: Klipsch Cornwalls - Modified Receiver: Denon 3802 DVD-A: Denon 1600 SACD: Sony 755 Video: InFocus LP350 Front Projector Screen size: 10'x5' 2-channel setup: Same room Same 1954 Cornerhorns Dynaco ST-70 amp w/Van Alstine mods Dynaco PAS2 Pre-amp heavily modded AR XA (Early version) turntable Onkyo 700 CD player Can also plug in the DVD players but the Onkyo sounds better On 4/30/2003 12:21:08 AM arena wrote: i totally agree, all i'm saying is that the imaging of truly hifi 2 channel speakers (i run klipsch rp3s) provides a far more realistic soundstage than anything decoded into 5.1, which always sounds forced or unnatural in comparison, at least in my experience. In a word: NO WAY. Absolutely, without question, no way. Leastwise if we are still talking SACD/DVD-A. Nothing is 'decoded' into 5.1. That would be 'pro-logic', the practice of taking a fine 2-channel mix and breaking it out into 'forced fragmentation'. SACD, DVD-A, even DD5.1 or DTS are as we know seperate discreet channels specifically mixed to play in a multi-channel mode. I do not listen to my stereo CD's in a multi-channel mode, nor do I play my multi's in a 2-channel mode. Fact is that most recordings - live or studio - are recorded on many tracks and the 'forced fit' is to put multiple tracks into a 2-channel format. That has all changed with the current technologies. Now sound engineers are able to go back and 'portion out' seperate tracks into seperate channels. To me or 'IM(very)HO', this is far closer to the original intent than 2-channel ever could be. In a properly set up 2 channel system you will get an amazing 3D presentation with sounds coming from all over (including behind the listener). I just don't see the need for MC on normal music other than to allow the unknowing to think that their Bose systems do something great. When in reality it does no more than a properly set up 2 channel. Now come on. Bose? Ouch! Mr Strabo, not aware of where you are located geographically, but if your ever in the Northern California area (close to Sacto), you have an open invitation to come have a listen to 6 vintage heritage Klipsch's singing in unison. I would truly like your honest opinion after hearing DSOM or the DVD-A Eagles: Hotel CA. I would wager that you will indeed 'see hear the need'. BTW - What's 'normal music'? Lets examine what good two channel is about. Its about getting that resolution, accuracy, and imaging, all the while having the music come across, well emotionally. It takes more than getting sound to envelope you from five or seven sides. It takes more than it sounding "crystal clear". It's about tone, dynamics music being presented as if it's being performed in front of you. On a good system you feel the music not hear it. Ditto for you, Tom. Or for that matter, anyone else. Just send me a PM. Again, 6 full sized heritages firing off in perfect harmony will have you more than just merely 'feeling it'. And I am not talking about ear peeling volumes. You will feel the music at the lowest audible SPL. That I can unconditionally gurantee. Now add the aspect that you 2-channel advocates conviently side-step......resolution. The higher the resolution, the more true to life the sound. Close your eyes and you WILL think that you are listening to live music. Open your eyes and you will still think you are listening to live music. There is nothing here to 'fear'. Stereo recordings belong exactly where you '2-chan's' and a lot of the rest of us put them, in a good, well setup 2-channel rig. MC belongs in the environment for which it is designed.....a good, well setup multi-channel rig. The notion that MC is 'boombox' fodder is well......unfounded paranoia. The selling point for high resolution audio - be it DVD-A, SACD Multi or SACD Stereo is the higher resolution. The subtleties that are less aparent in a lesser resolution format. Certainly these would be lost in a 'boombox' or 'car audio' type of setup. There are many SACD recordings in 2-channel only. To me, this should be a boon for you 2-channel enthusiasts. A higher resolution in your format!!! Would you deny yourself a higher resolution video picture if it all the sudden became available? Why then would you deny yourself a higher resolution audio format? Given the choice between HD or "standard" video, I would prefer to watch HD. Any reason the same logic can't be applied to audio? Awaiting any and all PM's for that 'dog and pony' show........

Mr 'boooo'.....please don't wander back just yet. We're all entitled to our opinions, some are just more insistant that theirs is the only right opinion. Used to be that I was 2 channel, without waver. 1954 Khorns, Dynaco St-70, leave me alone I'm 'tubing'. Still do on occasion, though I must admit that 'occasion' gets fewer and farther between. "5.1 channel ears"? Unless you're a stereo microphone, you've got the same ears as the rest of us. Multi-million ears. I hear things from all over the place, not just 2 sources. Any live performance yields multiple points of sonic wavelength origin. More to the point of why I'm 're-learning' some of my old favorites in surround is the fact that when mixed correctly, every instrument get's it's 'own' space. It's like 2-channel went 3-D. Two guitars dueling now duel as it should be.....from opposing corners rather than 'log-jamming' to get out the same speaker. Spacious and glorious.......**when done right**

It is important to note that the VInc DVD player 'upscales' to one of 4 formats....480p, 720p, 1080i or 'DVI Gateway'. The picture resolution is limited to the original source material. (720x480) That being said, I think that the video image gains, which are rumored to be significant, are in the fact that there is no a/d d/a conversions. Digital all the way. No video processing at the player. Purely up to your display's capabilitiy. Set it and forget it!! I tried to order one but they are not currently raking orders. Claim they are sold out. Gotta put your name in a hat and await V Inc to 'ping' you. Anyone who is interested, the url is: www.vinc.us

EL: $175 is a darn good price, I paid $187 for mine. Same here on the dual DVD players, I use the Sony for the SACD only and the Denon for movies and DVD-A. Interesting thing going on for all of us that are running front projectors or plasma with DVI input. New DVD player just out with a DVI output. This keeps the video 100% in the digital realm. No a/d d/a waffling about. Suppose to be the clearest picture possible out of a DVD player. Best thing is that it lists for.......$200. Guess that means I'll have the Sony for SACD, Denon for DVD-A and the "V, Inc" for general movie watching. O brother. Tom: I too have an early DSOM pressing and several CD's. While I concede that there are some aspects of vinyl that sound better to me (a more 'open' feel without the harshness of the CD's), on the whole the LP experience just doesn't do it for me. Seems like no matter how pristine the medium is.....even fresh out of the package.....there are still audible 'pops', 'scratchiness' and other 'noises' that are simply not worth the tradeoff (in my very humble opinion). To me, this is the excitement of both SACD and DVD-A. Marshal: What IS up with Shine On anyway? Seems like every iteration (usually live) since the original release OMITs the killer Gilmour solo and jumps right into the opening vocals!!!

Is there a reason "WE" couldn't just use a 2 into 1 adapter? Is there potential harm in having 2 sources feeding 1 analog input as long as only one is playing? Or would this introduce noise?

I got the Sony entry level unit, the 755. Video quality is not up to par with my Denon which I find interesting as the Sony has the 128 video dacs and the Denon has the 54. Sony is not as clear, looks 'grainy' in comparison. But all in all, a nice little unit. Do you even need a switch box? Is there compelling reason(s) why I should not just plug 2 inputs into each 'analog in'? I'll ask the question in the Technical forum. The Wall would be nice of course. Kind of get the surround 'feel' with the 5.1 DVD. I personally would like to hear 'Wish You Were Here' as well as 'Animals'!!!

Like 'Easylistener', I too went out and bought a SACD specifically to hear this in it's full glory. I was not disappointed. The feeling of envelopment is very pronounced. Clarity is phenomenal. Once again, I was treated to sounds I had never heard before, and I like most have been listening to this album for most of my life. Bass management and distance compensation, the well publicized 'achilles heel' of both SACD and DVD-A are not an issue as I'm running full sized all around, and I just slide my easy chair into the center of the room to listen. What is a problem is that now I have both DVD-A and SACD players and my receiver only has one set of 'analog in' inputs. For now, 3 A/B switches fill the bill but I can't help but think that I could be inducing 'signal pollution' of some sort using these Rat Shack switches. Anyone have a better solution?