Soundthought

Hello all, Merry Christmas! I'm just sitting in the middle of my living room floor, wrapping gifts for my kids and family. Ahhhhhh....Finally. Right now, i'm playing Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" remaster through my Khorns. .......nice........ Thinking of popping in some Clapton Unplugged later, or maybe some Stan Kenton. Just brewed a pot of fresh ground colombian and cracked a bottle of Baileys. Got my robe and slippers on, ready for action. Life is good. I hope everyone has a wonderful Holiday weekend. Cheers! Regards, John.

I wonder why you fellas are coming up with 39-1/4"? Either, the newer bass bins are taller than mine, or you guys need new a tape measure. Ha Ha J/K. Seriously though.... I come up with 39-1/4", if I include the bottom plate of the top cab which is approx. 3/4". Regards, John.

Hi Rich, Welcome aboard. The bass bins of my '57s are 38 1/2" tall. Regards, John

I wonder how many snakes you'd have to sqeeze to fill a 1 oz. bottle?

Congrats, Keith. I hope you enjoy the heck out of them. They are something to behold. I'll never part with mine. They'll have to pry them out of my cold dead hands, first. Regards, John.

Sigh..... I can relate to this thread.

Hello, Fortes are amazing speakers. I listen to mine at least 2 hours every evening. Paired with my Mac set-up, they are a little slice of heaven. If in fact you're talking about Bob Parlocha, do you ever notice the low freq. rumble that occurs occasionally when he gets done speaking? It shakes the whole back of my house. Regards, John.

I see one thing that every stereo component has in common. Wires. Theoretically, cables have immeasurable physical/electrical changes that occur after some time with an electrical signal is passed through them. The biggest part of this, IMO, relates to the dialectric.(wire covering) The thinking here is that dialectric absorbtion occurs to the point of supersaturation. Then, it maintains a constantly charged state unless unused for a period of time. (Various materials exhibit various properites, in this regard) Again, in theory, the electrical absorbtion of the dialectric around a conductor is said to reduce the "skin" affect as well as provide better sheiding from external interference. So, if that's true, then it should result in retention of undistorted, upper value, harmonic components that have very little electrical value. And we all know, in an audio circut, the weakest is the first to go. In turn, those salvaged harmonics introduce sublte changes in the timbre of any given note. With those retained harmonics and enriched timbre, comes a more accurate, life like sound. Is it possible that we perceive those timbral difference as our "burn in"? Probably not all together. If you believe the timbral theory, I think you would have to consider the possibilty of reduced unwanted harmonic components from the increased insulating properties of a charged dialectric. Keeping noise out is as important as keeping info in. I find it strange that so many people are uninterested in cable "theory". It is, after all, an intricate part of the audio chain. From the point it leaves the transformer, to the time it makes it's final turn around your voice coil....wire is there. This could explain why we can't agree on why speakers break in or stereos "open up" with use. It's not the nessisarily the parts or the surrounds changing in immesurable value, it could be the cable. Think about it... (notice I say immesurable value...doesn't that suck?) On the other side, I've been doing some metallurgical research. concerning the nature of a conductor. I've came to believe, that cable type (solid or stranded) and gauge used, makes the most difference when applied correctly. This makes sense. But I can't help to wonder. What if....a conductor changes it's crystalline alignment in relation to directional signal flow by a thermodynamic means? (cable directionality theory) I still don't feel that anyone has to spend big cash to have good cable and wires. That is just plain silly from my perspective. Then again, i'm cheap and don't own any $1000 plus stereo equipment. Think of it this way. Would you put econo-tires on a Lamborgini? I doubt it. People with the money to buy incredibly expensive gear do not think twice about spending a few dollors on cable. That few dollars being relative, of course. So, somebody is bound to make it. The market used to be small, but with the onset of multi-channel mania, the cable manufactures are popping up everywhere. Par for the course. They're having a feild day exploiting the market. (Let's sell Joe Blow cable for 5 speakers instead of 2) No doubt, they must also cater to the "keeping up with the Jones" crowd. So in comes improved product X selling for a modest 15% more retail. It's a crazy, media hyped time. As a smart consumer, you just have to decide what is theoretically reasonable and financially responsible. It's all about weeding through the fluff and hype. Good luck and may the electromotive force be with you. Regards, John

Hey Craig, Remember the basement at Alfredos in Chi-town? That was a pretty cool set up. Very basic, yet functional. I'm thinking of building a custom rack like that. It's not really complicated, but it's a commitment of sorts. After all, moving a record collection can be a back breaking experience. Especially after your pushing 1000+ albums. Ouch...Where's my back belt? Alfredos shelving was very basic and solid. He had simply built a wall of his finished basement into a set of shelves dedicated to album storage. He allowed for weight conditions and installed upright bracing about every 2ft. I believe it was roughly 7'x10", but i'm not completely certain. I was too wound up to really focus. Regards, John.

Hey Clu, Is that the new and improved west coast, chrome dome, driver? I'll bet the I.T. crowd will love it. Though, I heard it's response was a little slow. Whatever ya do, don't drop it. They break rather easily. Ha Ha J/K Moon Rocks! Why do I want for Christmas? Heh. That's easy. 2 more inches. Same as I got last year and the 4 years before that. Happy holidays. Regards, John.

I prefer the EH EL34s. They can be had locally, fairly cheap, and always test strong. Did you know, Electro Harmonics EL34s are just hand picked Sovtecs that have been "burned in" for 24hrs? Great posts Everybody. Mark, you make a compelling arguement. Almost converted me back to the "dark" side. IMHO.There are many facets to consider when attempting to honestly understand the reality of audio. Electricity, metallurgy, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, acoustics, pyschoacoustics, engineering, and quantum physics comprise the majority of them. Reality of audio as I would describe it, connects all points and aspects of audio, both internal and external, with theory, fact, and a completely non-biased, open mind. Being that those "real life" facets of audio are largely based on theory, I feel that my highest priority is to always maintain a very open mind. ALWAYS. Why deny yourself any possibilty? That's what I say. Facts are facts, and in audio, they are few and far between. Let's face it, the science of audio is relatively new and a greater portion of the applied theories were conceived long ago. Good stuff, but it's old news. As of today, we can predict, manipulate, and convert energy, but we still don't know exactly what it is. I find that fascinating considering the impact electronics is having on our world. We put a lot of time, money and faith in a flawed theory. It makes no sense to me. Point being, that I don't take theory as the final word. It's not. My mantra exploits the fact of it being only theory. I find that this "hobby" is much more interesting and insightful when dealt with in that context. Granted, this way of thinking didn't come overnight. It required a certain level of deprogramming to fully appreciate the greater scope of the possibilities. I, like everyone else, was conditioned to think a certain way. Learning how to be open and unbiased was a humble path. An unbiased, open mind can only be acheived when one looks at every level their personal sensory input. All that you take in, throughout your entire life, directly affects your disposition on a continually evolving basis. If you come to understand the true nature of that input, you can look at it from 3 distinct perspectives. My point of view, the 3rd party point of view, and the physical manifestation of the reality, in and of itself. Those are the main considerations when trying to obtain a level of unbiased thought. This is where my audio-reality lies. Not based on what I see, you see, or the event itself, but on a compilaton of the 3. Though, a good portion of this comes as reflection after the experience. As I examine cable theory, I consider the afore mentioned facets, and combine that with the 3 perspectives. With that in mind, I consider the facts and possibilties surrounding it. This gives me a better understanding and a more complete unbiased view. Let me give an example, it's not like this is a long enough reply or anything. Here how I approach a "new" cable that has "new" technology. Who is it being marketed for? How is it being marketed? What is the material cost in relation to retail price? WHat is the business model of the manufature? Is it a modification, or "improved" version of a previous production run? What is the turnover rate for the particular series? Then.... How was it engineered to perform? What are it's electrical properties? What theories or concepts does it employ? What is the dialectric used? What is the core conductor made of and how was it wound/pulled? Type and quality of terminations? How, where and by whom is it assembled? I can even get to the point of asking where does the manufacture outsourse it's wire from? Then I go to a different perspective. How do other people, both experienced and not, view this cable? What's the "word" on the street? How would the cost of that cable affect my perception of it quality? Does the marketing spur hype that influences these perceptions? Then after looking at various 3rd party, theoretical, and physical aspects, I would consider the cost/performance ratio again. And knowing me, if it wasn't dirt cheap and on a "close out", demo, or return rack.....I ain't touching it. You can still participate in theoretical cable experimentation and not spend a fortune. (Trust me....i'm half Dutch/half Latvian....and I don't know how to spend alot of money) Ha Ha. So there you have it. My twisted way of thinking. Unless they prove, as a fact, that there is no merit to cable theory, i'm in it for the long haul. Regards, John.

The Steiner Brothers. Both of them are excellent wrestlers.

Hi Gary, I clean all my new LPs with a slightly over-saturated Discwasher brush or wet Parastat brush. This ensures that any remaining releasing compound will be evacuated from the grooves. Scratches on an album can shear off the very tip of a stylus in certain circumstances. It really depends on the stylus in question and the nature of the scratch it's plowing through. Some hold up better that others in this regard. The runout groove was engineered to emit the thump, thump. thump. While it cannot harm a stylus, any excessive heat on a groove will eventually shred it's sidewalls. That might damage a stylus by changing the angle of it's realignment intersection. Again, possibly clipping the stylus tip off which ultimately results in loss of info from deep within a groove. The important thing is to make sure and take an extra second to set the brush on the runout groove for a couple of turns, every time you clean an album. Most carbon brushes don't reach all of the runout groove when set properly on a 12" disc. Any if you keep falling asleep in front of the darned thing, then simply trade your new TT for one with an auto-lift feature. (Luxman PD-284 for example) They are still classified as manual TTs but they have a trip sensor on the base that automatically lifts the arm off the disc and shuts itself down when the album is finished. Have fun. Regards, John.

I stand corrected, Dean. Khorns are the size of but only 2 RF7s. Not 3. I must have been thinking of my Paradigm Monitor 9s. I'll bet I could put all 4 of them in front of one Khorn without blocking the wall throat.

Tom, interesting you say that. I was talking with a friend earlier today who wants to take me out to his walleye "honey hole" this next season. Funny thing, though. I grew up living on a lake and have been fishing my whole life, but i've never been out for walleye. I've hooked everything freshwater from Salmon to Smelt but never that funky fish, Walleye. I guess I would use a jig or maybe a spinner bait. I had an idea from what you said, Tom. Perhaps, I can run my MG2s with my '57 Khorn bass bins. What a concept. I'm intrigued. Now, i've gotta try it. But first... i'm a little curious about something. Since i'm running the ultra effecient Stevens 103LX-2 woofers in the 6" slotted doghouses, would I instead use tubes for the woofers and big SS for the Maggies? Hmmmm.

The concept of "bi-wiring" relates directly to the effect of signal modulation in a standard 2 or 3 way crossover. Running independant networks for each stage not only enables inherantly better driver damping, but it also allows for less distortion (IM) in high side of the crossover due to it's separation from the low side. Woofers and low level signal will modulate a HF signal. The reduction of IM (Intermodulation distortion) results in a cleaner signal which is the foundation of accuracy. IM is defined as distortion produced by the interaction of 2 or more signals. This kind of distortion is not related harmonically to the original signals. So therefore, it's unwanted noise and detracts from the clarity of the signal on many levels. The reason that you don't see many speakers with this capability is because not many speakers have the ability to reproduce sound at level of articulation that warrants such a design. What you're talking about with the different taps has been coined "fools biamping" Don't do it. While bi-amping has lots of potential, the idea there is to use 2 amps. One for the HFs (preferably tubes) and one for the LF (meaty and big SS) Ya know.....this topic has been beat to death. Have you tried a search of the archives? Lots of good discussion concerning both positions of bi-wiring. Good luck and have fun.

Yep, that's the skinny of it. Run two sets of wires from each amplifier terminal out to the RF7s. Make sure the jumpers are removed so that the HF and LF can run independantly. Any speaker cable (zip cord) will work fine, but for very little cash, a decent pair of AUdioquest Type 4, would permit a vast improvement. I think you could get a 10' pair of them for around $20-$30 bucks. It is fairly inexpensive and was specifically engineered for use with bi-wired loudspeakers. They use two different gauge (18-22), solid core conductors wrapped systematically around a center dialectric to minimize RFI and a cover it with a thick PFE outer jacket dialectric to reduce EMI. The idea being that in order to get ultimate clarity, one must first get the clearest signal possible to the speakers. Lots of intriguing science myths floating around concerning the best way to acheive that but you really have to take them with a grain of salt while still maintaining an open mind. The main thing is to keep whatever speaker cable your using away from any power cable. If they must intersect, make sure it's at as much of a 90 Deg angle as possible. The worst thing someone can do is allow a speaker cable to run parallel in close proximity to a power cable. Have fun with it.

I just love talking about this subject. (gloves on and laced up) Biwiring offers a little more than just what's perceived as increased trable. (which in fact isn't increased, it's just less modulated) Simply put, It's a way to get more clarity across the whole audio spectrum by letting more available harmonic info to be introduced with every single note. Biwiring a speaker with separated internal crossovers allows more of the high frequency info/harmonics to be realized at playback. Granted, only to the extent of the gear preceeding them, the room their in, and the source material used. All High frequency harmonics are an intregal part of timbre and pitch. The more that can be propagated accurately, the more defined the sound will. That can be both a blessing or a curse. This is where RFs can make you love them or hate them. They were primarily engineered for accuracy using the latest greatest technology. Fast, tight, and controlled. Perfect for todays popular HT multichannel formats, but harsh for most non-modern 2 channel material. Here's my take on why that is. Our playback gear aside, when audio engineers used to mix down their 30 odd tracks onto 2 channels, before MIDI, they were'nt hearing as much detail/info as what new gear has to offer. But it was there, none-the-less. When you record something and your recording gear exceeds the limitations of your payback monitor, stuff just gets in there that shouldn't. That leads to an audio crapshoot of sorts. Could be good, could be bad. It really depends on the engineer and his gear he used, above all. Often times, an older song will sound harsh with horns simply because your hearing the garbage that many engineers couldn't. I say garbage, because if they had more revealing recording/playback gear back in the day, they would have attended to it. As many know, there has always been a few studios with top notch, hand built equipment. The best of the best. Though, again, they were still limited to the capabilities of their playback monitors. In comes modern technolgy rapidly advancing. Now, we can hear it all. Literally. Not that the extra info modern gear can retreive is always bad, just sometimes hearing that information can be an unpleasant thing. Horns, which tend to beam and distort in their own way, coupled with unintended harmonic input can be painful to listen to. (listening fatigue) With RF7s, running bi-wired, you have not only the clarity of a horn, but the added benefit of independant crossovers, and the accuracy of the Ceramettalic cones. When used in HT, every creak, snap, crackle, and chirp is heard as if it was occuring in the room. Simply perfect. When used for older 2 channel formats, one must be prepared to hear the "musical truth". Ha Ha And don't I know...sometimes the truth hurts.

Ha Ha Man Tom, if that's how you feel about Maggies, I wonder what you think of BES Bergatoni geo-stats? BTW. My favorite spoon was the color of RF cones. Used to slam some big pike with it....back in the day. Rain or shine, morning or night it never failed. At least until a nasty 4ft dogfish bit through my 20Lbs steel leader and made off with it. Sniff.... I miss that lure.

Considering the cost factor. I'm thinking of it this way. If you get a vintage set, you could easily have it re-veneered in any delicious flavor you can dream of. (read: Tigerwood or Birdseye maple) And, you can do that prior to putting them upstairs. and... if there is any money left over from what would have been your "new" Khorn allocation, you could spend it on a couple different squakers and/or another pair of crossovers. Cuz let me tell you brother, rolling parts in and out of these big daddies is ALOT of fun. More fun than tube rolling. Believe that? Deano. Just think of the possibilities. You could have the same custom veneered Khorns with parts to run Set, PP, or fat old solid state whenever you felt like it. Flip an 811 in place of a K400 or just fool around with tweeter placement. Swap a vintage 500/5000 with an AA or trade a T35 for a TW35. Lots of options, my friend. And the really cool thing. The older ones will never decrease in equitable value. I can't specifically say that for the "new" models.IMO Go for the Fortes' before you get the mombo-jombos. You'll be tripping, i'm telling you. The only reason I said that about the 3 RFs, was that yesterday, I packed up my RF system and just happen to have them both sitting in front of one Khorn. I also, am mathematically challenged. 2+2= too too. Man...Khorns are big. It's crazy. I had to take my both, my screen door and house door off, the hinges just to get them in. I'm not sure anyone could ever "get used to" them. Just their mere presence commands a certain amount of respect. Though personally, I respect anything that I can't pick up by myself. Regards, John

Great post Dean. You sure know those beasts, don't you. Here's a couple quickies from the audioreality files. 1. use spikes. 2. Biwire them. 3. Keep them roughly 1'6" from the back wall. 4. Toe them in so they geometrically intersect about 1' behind your listening position. 5. Treat the walls (acoustically) on each side of them. (acoustic panel work best, but heavy cloth drapes or a tapestry works really well too) 6. As long as you treat the immediate side walls, you can butt them right up against the walls with no major worries. 7. Lucky 7...and last but not least. Definately run them off an out-board amp and not your HT receivers' amp if possible. The RF7s really appreciate having their own decent torrodial to draw from. Enjoy. Regards, John.

I hear that, Dean. It's worth it just for the experience, alone. Though, I'm not sure "new" is the smartest route. I think you would have more fun and save a ton of cash by getting a used set and rebuilding them yourself. Plus, you could focus on getting a pre-'60 set with 6" slots and K5J composite horns. Boom Boom Honk Honk. Oh....and Khorns are as wide as 3 RF7s. BTW..They don't look very good sitting next to Khorns. Kinda like parking a Ferrari next to a '68 Yenko Camaro. Regards, John. PS. Have you ever listened to the original Fortes'? IMHO. Your room is ideal for them and I believe you would get the sound your searching for.

Khorns for sale here in Michigan, you say? Hmmmmm.

When running single cable to the RF7s ,with the connection jumpers attached, it really doesn't make a difference which input is used. I prefer to use the LF inputs when running a single cable. (for alot of reasons) You should try running them bi-wired. It's super easy and many notice a large improvement in overall clarity. Just run two set of wire from the stereo speaker jacks to the inputs of the RF7s. Make sure the input jumpers are removed and your in business. John.

Hello, I'm getting ready to downsize my RF7 HT to the following set up. KSF10.5s mains. KV-3 center. KSB1.1 surrounds. KSB1.1 surround backs. SW12II & SW8II subs. I feel that the KSB1.1 should fit the bill, nicely. I was going to use SB1s for surrounds but opted for the KSB1.1s instead. The main reason being that I have 2 pair of KSB1.1s and only 1 pair of SB1s. Since I truly enjoy 7 channel surround, my choices were limited with my smaller Klipsch speakers. If I ever get a bigger house, I want to try a 7 channel set up with Chorus 2s as mains, Forte 2s as surrounds, Quartets as surround backs, and then a single Chorus 2 as the center. That would be something..... Then again, when I get my Cornwalls, I might try a set up with those. Cornwalls-mains Chorus-surrounds Fortes-surround back KG4 pair as center??? Who knows??? That too, would be something. Of course, it's gonna be hard to beat my RF7, RC7, (4) RS7, 3 sub combo. Wow.....it's awesome. I'm going to miss them while they "take a break". Sniff. Regards, John