DTLongo

RJH65, shame you're not closer to here in Maryland where you'd be welome to come listen to my 2003 Khorns. But I do endorse your caution about hearing before buying. I got mine new based on a decades-ago brief listen to Khorns in the Washington D.C area, plus their legendary reputation since I first ever heard about them in the 1950's. But they DO take getting used to, they must have their good corners, and they are quite amplifier-sensitive. When they are dialed in right they are a true joy. They just seem to energize the very air in the room with bell-clear enveloping sound. It is quite uncanny. I venture to say though that for home theater the Khorns are overkill. I earlier had mine set up in a home theater with a 2004 Belle center and a 50" Plasma HDTV. Those three magnificent speakers were just wasted. "Wasted" in the sense the in HT the picture attracts eyes and ears away from the sound. When guns are gunning , roars are roaring, booms are booming and the Terminator is Terminating, one's ears are not focusing on delicacies in the sound. Save money and go with a GOOD subwoofer and small-speaker surround setup. But for pure audio listening, as I now have them set up, Khorns (+ Belle) = BIG : )

"DTLongo - Have you looked at a Playstation 3 versus the player you bought?" No I didn't, because 65 y.o. fossil that I am I don't have a great interest in games. I do appreciate their fascination for some people including the fantastic graphics of which today's home systems are capable. I got into the audio hobby in the 1950's and have sort of seen and done it all - 78's, LP's, tubes, transistors, reel-to-reel, cassettes, elcasets, four-channel, Dolby, Dolby Pro-Logic, DVD's, high-def DVD's, 5.1, 7.1, Internet, etc. It's been a fascinating ride. A former licensed private pilot I do still fly Microsoft Flight Simulator (v. 9) at times but that's it games-wise. I'm just a VFR duffer into low slow sightseeing. A Piper Cub is the funnest of all, a great "ultralight." Visited Yosemite last summer and then built into F.S. some flights from and in to the valley. Fun!

My 2004 Pioneer PDP-5040HD 50" plasma HDTV supports 1080i but not 1080p. I am running 1080i to it via HDMI from my new Panasonic BD30 Blu-Ray player but of course can't run 1080p. From folks familiar with both 1080i and 1080p, what am I missing by not having the latter? What is the actual visual difference and is it subtle or dramatic?

"How goes it Tom Longo? Long time no see! BTW, we're looking to buy a beach place around Bethany so we might be neighbors in the near future... I was about to buy an OPPO... " Hi Gary, good to hear from you. If you are in my area by all means stop by. I am no longer in Ocean Pines, I'm now in a pondfront house in Delmar, MD just north of Salisbury, close to the main Route 50 route to Ocean City/Bethany. The Khorns and Belle are in a dedicated three-channel audio setup in a room with perfect corners. My office is there and I can patch a desktop TV into them if I want to. The 7.1 surround HT with the 50" Pioneer and the new Panasonic Blu-Ray is in a separate media room. I have a great "bachelor pad." Based on my experience with the Oppo and first impressions of the new Panasonic, I would bypass the Oppo in favor of the latter as regards the video and 7.1 sound quality. The manual does not say whether the Panasonic plays SACD's, though, so I doubt that it does. The Panasonic's firmware is upgradable by Internet but the machine does not have a telephone or ethernet port. You download and burn the update onto a CD and put the CD in the player. The player came with version 1.3 firmware and I updated it last night to version 1.6. No visual or audio difference but the update is supposed to make the player compatible with forthcoming more-features Blu-Ray DVD's. Version 2.0 Blu-Ray players are supposed to offer direct Internet connectivity and interactivity. That's not a feature I particularly want or need plus I imagine version 2.0 machines will be more expensive.

OK, now that Blu-Ray has won the (accursed) format war I took the plunge and purchased a Panasonic DMP-BD30 from Best Buy on March 4 on sale for $450 + tax, with two free Blu-Ray DVD's thrown in. Have had it up and running for two days now. It worked fine out of the box, and better now that I've spent time with the manual, tweaked the setup-choice settings and learned the remote better. The two Blu-Ray disks I got were Terminator 2 and The Dirty Dozen. So far I've played only the T2 disk. Impressions: Blu-Ray visual improvement is so-so on the T2 disc relative to the previous T2 DVD I have. The fault is not the player but the quality of the video transfer. The brief opening Lionsgate and THX trailers on the T2 disk ARE stunning. The movie itself is only marginally if at all better than on standard DVD upconverted by my previous OPPO-991HD upconverting player. BUT, the sound improvement on Blu-Ray T2 and on my other regular DVD's with the Panasonic is stunning! It is a really dramatic improvement. The surround aspect is now really "there." Dialogue and everything else is also clearer. In the last two days I have played on the Panasonic numerous regular DVD's with which I am very familiar. The upconverting function for regular DVD's on the Panasonic is also a VAST improvement. I thought the Oppo was pretty good but the Panasonic blows it away in both video AND sound quality. I don't know why, since the Oppo was and the Panasonic is connected to my Pioneer 50" plasma HDTV by the same HDMI cable and to my Harmon-KardonAVR-235 via digital optical cable. All my non-high def DVD's are dramatically improved and newer ones with better transfers, such as the latest Star Wars "A New Hope," come through the Panasonic in virtually HD quality. Seriously. So, I'm glad with the new purchase and I look forward with a lot of good viewing of Blu-Ray DVD's from Netflix. Given Hollywood's less than ideal transfer processes, I don't expect the best high-def from film-based movie DVD's. But quality high-def DVD's from Discovery Channel and other sources should be stunning.

Good for Klipsch for keeping Heritage alive. But what was the rationale for dropping the Belle? I guess I got one of the last ones, in 2004. Back in the day the Klipschorns were GREAT for LP's (Amy, are you old enough to remeber those?) since anything much below 40 cps (hz) wopuld translate itno bad turntable feedback. Nowadays Khorns are still great for unlimited, full volume unrestrained reproduction of rock, symphony or whatever, though they do benefit from a good subwoofer for very low LFE (movie) bass, symphonic organ, etc. material Still, one only listens to or hears other speakers. One experiences Klipschorns. Keep up the good work.

Has anyone outside the Klipsch factory or beyond show environments experienced how the new big Palladiums SOUND relative to the the former flagshop Klipschorns? Your impressions? The big Palladiums are perhaps a stylistically more WAFly (wife aceptable factor) package, though those sloping tops don't let anything be placed atop it. They cost twice as much as Khorns. And, like the Khorn, they can apparently benefit from a topnotch subwooferr handling the < 45 hz region. I do think that the venerable Khorn is still an incredible value among true high-end speakers. So, are the big Palladiums worth it?

"Welcome aboard. Seriously, the very first thing I would do is box up those 901's, return them, get your money back and put that towards buying the Khorns. For your info Bose products are almost universally scorned among serious stereo folks for being overpriced and massaging the sound they produce" For whatever it's worth, I don't share the conventional religion on these Klipsch forums that ALL Bose is schlock. I've had my 901 Series VI's since 1988 and they still satisfy. On the other hand much of Bose's stuff IS schlock, greatly overpriced for the audio quality that you get. There's only so much oomph you can get out of those small speakers in the bass modules and tiny satellite speakers.. Analagous to auto engines, cubic inch "displacement" in audio does count. By the way, I have a pair of 2003 Klipschorns and a 2004 Belle in my adjacent main listening room in a three-channel audio setup. The Klipschorns sound, er, pretty good too - as in awesome. Someone mentioned a 1000 hp. big block Chevy monster engine. Get a recording of one and play it on the Khorns at full equivalent loudness. Trust me, they will not disappoint. You will BE there, aurally.

Thank you, srobak. For everyone: OK, I get the point, I should have titled this string differently. Apologies to anyone who's felt inconvenienced. But now that I've acknowledged the criticsm, can future posters stick to the intended main subject as srobak did? That intended subject is the question: Since very much Hollywood movie source material is not shot in HD from the outset and is also apparently fuzzed up or degraded in the "artistic" cinematographic process to boot, in view of the HD/BR format war in which one or the other format will eventually be orphaned, if your main purpose is to watch movies, why upgrade to HD or BR now and risk buying the losing format? (Dual-format players are not presently the answer for most of us since they're so expensive.) By the way I have the Oppo-991 upscaling player, a nice machine, and it's hooked up to my HDTV via HDMI as it should be. I haven't noticed that the upscaling makes a major difference, though. It all comes back to the source material; one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

"Why would you question BD/HD picture quality based on your dissatisfaction with cable TV? How is one related to the other?" I think you missed the point or maybe I did not state it clearly enough. Recall that I said, "Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film." Ergo, the point is not whether HD/BR DVD's are better than cable so-called HDTV. They undoubteldly are. But HD/BR DVD's can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well. My lament is not with the HDTV technology per se. It is with Hollywood's poor quality source material. And, given that flawed source, if one's main purpose is to watch movies in HD and they still look like, well, just movies, why bother to upgrade until at least after the HD/BR format war is settled? Some programs, e.g. Discovery Channel and the evening Leno/Letterman/OBriend network programs, look great even on cable HDTV. So why not Hollywood movies? Answer: the source film, alas.

Apologies for starting a new post but who has time to wade through the previous string(s) on this subject? The jury is still out though HD-DVD seems to be on the ropes. I too hope that some standard HDTV-DVD format survives since I want to have selected such items "on my shelf" for myself and my heirs. But in the real world, in my view HDTV-DVD as regards Hollywood movies has been a joke. For whatever reason, Hollywood directors, cinematographers, etc. "soften" their movies anyway such that the full HDTV sharpness potential is not realized. I have viewed any number of movies on both standard DVD's and on Comcast cables's so-called HDTV. Apart from the different aspect ratio on HDTV there is no or nil difference in visual quality! Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film. For whatever reason Hollywood purposely softens and degrades the quality of their films. I am utterly puzzled as to why. Can anyone explain? Ergo, in my view there is no reason now to switch from standard DVD. Except for perhaps the aspect ratio, standard DVD on a competent system will yield as good a picture as the (degraded) one you will see in your local movie theater. Not to mention the better sound if you have a good audio system at home. Comments welcome.

I want to see a back-to-back Klipschorn versus Palladium review at some point. At twice the price of the Khorns the Palladium should be something special. And yet, while the Khorn from the bass on up is a fully horn-loaded speaker, the Palladium uses "standard" ported speakers for the bass. Klipsch seems to have compromised its ideal of a full-range horn-loaded speaker. Perhaps for good business reasons, but that still saddens one somewhat after 60-odd years of "the mighty Klipschorn." Amy or anyone at Klipsch: can you say anything about this? What differences (apart from the Palladium's arguably more pleasant dimensions) do YOU (Klipsch) see objectively between the new big Palladium and your venerable (modern) Klipschorn? What sonic differences specifically?

Except for the matter of sheer screen size, my HT blows away the local (new with all the bells and whistles!) cineplex not only in terms of avoiding high ticket and concession prices and candy-paper-crinkling cellphone yammering other patrons, but in picture- and especially sound quality as well. Thumbs up for Netflix.

It does sound like you need a subwoofer, though one woud have to know much more about your setup to judge. Your speakers might not be well-placed in your room for good bass. But my experience with HT receivers is that they DEPEND on subwoofers. In my experience, when set to (non-subwoofed) stereo even through top-quality mains, such receivers tend to sound thin. Basically, with your setup I would pay for a subwoofer and judge the results. You probably will not be disappointed. Though if you're a "purist" such as I, you will be frustrated that your "full-range" speakers by themselves leave you wanting in the deep bass. The fault is not in the speakers but in the amplification. To correct such you would have to get into the mega-amplifer league (tubes + complexity) costing perhaps thousands. A cheaper powered subwoofer with your HT amp may be the way to go.

The pricing is high for what you appear to be getting, horn treble and mid coupled with standard ported coned bass and lower-midrange in a cosmetically pretty boat-tail cabinet. But Klipsch is going for the international status market, oil-rich Middle Easterners, highfalutin' Europeans and Asians holding our national deficit-debt, etc. All power to Klipsch in success at such. Outside the U.S. such folks are awash with dollars. The $100M+ megayacht market is booming, for example. But the real test for us folks with more objective ears will be how the new flagship Palladium will SOUND versus Klipschorns. And that remains to be seen since apparently no Palladiums have become available for such listening comparisons yet. Audio mags, including home-theater-centric Sound & Vision Magazine that appears to have become so shallow audiophilewise, are you listening? Do you care? Klipsch company, any comment? Klipsch, weigh in on this, please.

Congratulations! I too am in Maryland and if you're anywhere close to the Eastern Shore, maybe we can get together and compare notes (see system info below). You're far ahead of me in amplification and such. But Klipschorns are so darn sensitive in terms of room placement, amplifier-responsiveness and such it still could be interesting. Let me know. GaryMD, you too, if interested. Anyone else nearby too.

Thank you for that nice video. The Palladium is a handsome beast with its sleek boat-tail shape, though I wonder about the sloping top from the WAF (wife acceptance factor) viewpoint. You can't put anything on top of it, a vase, flowerpot, knicknack or whatever. Klipsch should take another look at that design. Keep the boat-tail exterior but give it a flat top. Seriously. But the main thing will be, as Klipsch's new "flagship" how will it SOUND relative to the Klipschorn? I can't wait for some knowledgeable, comparative side-by-side reviews and listening tests, the sooner the better. .

"I must have tin ears then. I find that Klipschorns are awesome playing CDs in stereo with my H/K AVR-325 receiver. As for HT, well HT soundtracks are all about dynamics, which KHorns provide in spades. Just be aware of the Dynamic Range Compression that get automatically enabled in most common HT receivers when fewer than 5.1 speakers are enabled. The dynamic range kick is then lost for good." I've not had a problem with limited dynamic range in HT. In fact, DR problems frequently go the other way, the music soundtrack and effects overwhelm the dialogue. You turn it up to hear what's being spoken and then get blasted by the other stuff. In point of fact, I spend a good part of my waking hours at my computer desk which I have wired in to an ideal setup of Klpschornrs + Belle center plus a Velodyne S1500R sub to support the Khorns. The video is a little Sanyo 11" LCD TV directly in front next to my computer monitor. The little Sanyo cost upwards of $650 several years go, much less I'm sure nowadays. Anyway, for the non-critical TV watching I do at my desk (news, commentary, occasional movies), the little Sanyo provides the image while the Khorns & Co. give me the SOUND. Of course, TV sound leaves much to be desired. But I can play DVD's and CD's through the system as well, and, in my role associated with a local symphony orchestra, the latter music's dynamics, inner voices, and such come through great. Plus, the 50" home theater is in the adjacent room for when I want to go that route. Best of both worlds, I am fortunate. I do think I have one of the best if not the best Khorn audio setup on the DelMarVa peninsula here in Eastern Maryland. If any of you are in the Salisbury, MD area. plse. feel free to email me ahead and stop by for a listen

Cut-throat's speaker picture reminded me of one I built when I was first getting into this hobby at the age of around 14 in 1956. I read up on "speaker baffles" and such at the Boston Public Library. Went back home and build an enclosed infinite baffle box about the same size as Cut-throat's speaker and slapped a nondescript cheapo 4" radio speaker in there. Gawd that box was ugly. But I was kid-AMAZED at the relatively better sound quality. A little later on I plagued my Dad for a Radio Shack "Realistic" little speaker that featured a perhaps 4" driver in a compact sealed box for $29.95 or $39.95 (gasp) and finally pried one out of him. With the box's rounded corners It looked good and sounded relatively fantastic, too. And thereby began my descent into this lifelong pleasure resulting in what you see in the profile below : )

Respectfully, ditch the rotating loudspeaker and other animated graphic please! Painful on the eyes.

Been there done that, and I would not recommend Klipschorns for home theater use for a number of reasons based on my experience. 1) Khorns are very amplifier-sensitive. They want a lot of push in the bass. If you give them that, they are unsurpassed. But modern HT receivers don't provide that, in my experience. "They don't build amps that way anymore." Modern HT amps (receivers) depend on use of a dedicated subwoofer. Having to use a subwoofer with Klipschorns is kinda like carrying coals to Newcastle, but that's the way it is if you're using a HT amp. 2) Khorns are very room-sensitive. They want a large room and they must have their good corners. 3) Khorns are superlative for a two-channel, audio-listening dedicated system provided you have the room, the corners and good amplification. Set up in that mode, they are STAGGERING. But, I'm afraid, not otherwise. So, over the years my own compromise has become the following. I have '03 Khorns plus an '04 Belle in an audio-only setup in a 16' W x 20' L x 8' high room fed by a HT amp with a Velodyne S1500R subwoofer. The home theater is in another room with a lesser speaker setup adequate for that purpose. To tell you the truth, if I had it to do all over again, I would foresake the Belle and drive the Khorns alone in a really well amped (tube?) two channel, non-subwoofed audio-only setup and be very happy. But I do have that beautiful Belle that I want to use and so here I am.

" I would highly recommend The Polar Express. Besides having a "train-loving" 8yr old at home, when that steam engine comes rolling in, your whole house will be a shake'n." Indeed! That scene is sonically incredible. The train noise starts off almost inaudibly and then builds and builds and builds and BUILDS until your house is shaking and you sense that big locomotive boiler heaving and panting with awesome chuffs, clanks, breaths and roars right there a few feet away from you.

"Please tell me I won't have 'upgraditis' for at least a decade! " For timeless longevity like a Steinway piano I think large Heritage is the way to go, especially for a room your size. Klipschorn mains of you have the corners, paired with a top-quality subwoofer or two for the below-35-hz. range for movie LFE's. Khorns would love a room your size and, tucked into their corners, would be visually unobtrusive, but boy would they fill the space sonically. A Belle Klipsch ideally for the center channel but I believe Klipsch no longer makes those new. With such an array handling the proceedings up front, you would already have awesome room-filling sound. The sides and rear surrounds can be of less expensive quality since they have less demanding chores to perform. Most people don't know what Klipschorns are. But believe me, for people who do know, the instant they would step into your room and spot those babies, well, you would enjoy seeing their reactions.

FYI, one sent to Sound & Vision magazine yesterday. Will be interesting to see whether they pick up on it. (begin repeat) Subj: Klipsch Palladium versus Klipschorns Date: 10/27/2007 5:49:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: DTLongo To: soundandvision@hfmus.com CC: DTLongo Dear Sound & Vision Editor Mike Mettler: see the following string on the Klipsch Forum: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/thread/977672.aspx When your magazine writes its own review on the new Klipsch P-39F Palladium, please include your reviewers' impressions of how the new Klipsch flagship Palladiums compare sonically with a pair of newer-model classic "mighty Klipschorns." Admittedly many of your younger readers won't know what Klipschorns are. But many of your older readers WILL know and will be very interested on how, in your reviewers' view, they fare relative to the new Klipsch big kids. We all know your magazine has to play to its current advertisers (including Klipsch), but if you do it right, this could be an exceptionally interesting article welcomed by everyone. I am posting a copy of this on the aforementioned Klipsch forum. /s/ D. Thomas Longo, Jr. Delmar, MD DTLongo@aol.com

The November Sound & Vision magazine's "The Tech Zone" column describes the new Klipsch Palladium in some detail. It evidently is Kilpsch's new "flagship" replacing the Klipschorn which continues in production. While the Khorn is completely horn-loaded, the Palladium evidently uses horns only for the midrange and treble and three ported conventional drivers for the bass. At $15,000 per pair they are twice as expensive as Klipschorns. Has anyone (outside of Klipsch) had the opportunity to A-B a pair of Palladiums against a pair of relatively new Klipschorns? What did you think? P.S. The same November issue of the magazine had a glowing review of top-line KEF 207/2 speakers at $20,000/pair. All the superlatives seemed to describe what my 2003 Khorns already do. The Klipschorn is still a remarkable product.