Jump to content

heresy2guy

Regulars
  • Posts

    362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

heresy2guy's Achievements

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran (4/9)

0

Reputation

  1. Thanks to Masterxela, Frzinvt, and Indyklipschfan for chiming in and Dr. Who, I'd like to be able to read those papers if you can find them and post them. Best, H2G
  2. MFK, I'm the opposite of you - I was raised in the Northeast and eventually settled out here in California many moons ago after completing my final duty station as a Marine at Camp Pendleton. Bose and the Northeast seem to have a particularly friendly relationship since I knew many, many people who had Bose speakers...more so then I’ve seen in any other part of the US, and I've lived in North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, and California. Perhaps this is due to Bose being HQd in Massachusetts and Amar Bose having been a professor at MIT; either way, he was something of an audio celebrity in MA, CT, RI, NY, CT, etc... when I was a kid and adolescent, most likely due to the early days of the Bose Marketing Machine. As you stated, they were pretty big on college campuses too at one time (maybe they still are...it's been awhile since I found myself on one) but they always sounded pretty lifeless to me and I'll give PWK his due by saying that he never played the Bose or Polk marketing game with all their ridiculous buzz-words and other miscellaneous marketing fluff. Truth is, Bose was the King of all that direct/reflected sound bullsh_t and I've yet to hear a Bose (or cone speaker in general) sound as live or real or dynamic to me as a horn-loaded one so when I see or hear anything pertaining to indirect or reflected sound I cringe and dismiss it as yet another take on a tired and beaten (and erroneous) ploy in order to push their supposedly "new" advancement in sound reproduction/technology out of their factory doors and into your living room. The whole reason for me posting this topic is that I noticed a lot of marketing fluff employing (seemingly) pseudo-science in home theater speakers and it didn't tale long for even a boob like me to see that it a) sounded suspiciously like old rhetoric rewashed for the times and if it's so good, then why aren't commercial theaters using it and c) they are, after all, trying to sell you on their ability to replicate the commercial theater experience in your home so why do they follow the commercial theater recipe for speaker design and placement (allowing for the differences and preferences between cone and horn speaker types, obviously) but abandon it when it comes to the surround speakers?Fact or fiction? Is there a real reason or is it just more corporate pseudo-science and marketing hype?As the commercial for a well-known rag said years ago...Enquiring minds want to know.
  3. Shawn, thanks for the input. I understand what you're saying about the WDST theory, but aren't most home theaters pretty small inasmuch as only having one typical sweet spot (where the couch and/or lazy-boy-type chair(s) tend to be) wherein the listeners generally sit? If you follow the THX instructions from the website on the placement of the surround speakers, that'll mean that they'll be placed exactly to the left and right of where you'll be sitting in your home theater, assuming that you have it set up like the THX website with your seating area more or less in the center of the room. With that being the case, the WDST format will have you sitting off axis of the the two horns that are shooting 90 degrees each but converging at their ends in order to form the 180 degree arc, yes? The WDST design surely seems better to me then either the bi-pole or di-pole but still seems to be be coming up short because it appears to be an approximation of the commercial theater setup. The immediate, major difference I think everyone can see between home theater and commercial theater speaker placement is in the surround speaker category. It seems reasonable to me to say, therefore, that until home theaters utilize direct-radiating surround/side speakers (be they only one per wall or multiple units, depending on the size of the room and/or listener/audience location within the room) then they'll continue to come up short of the real experience, or real deal, irrespective of what audio manufacturers, Hollywood studios, or THX may say. - H2G PS - The WDST, bi-pole, or di-pole surround theory must not hold water in a performance or professional/commercial sense, because if it did, the theater conglomerates would realize a reduction in their newly-constructed theater costs by replacing the multitude of direct radiating surround speakers with fewer speakers of a WDST, bi-pole, or di-pole design. In today's world, every company's trying to pinch their dimes tighter then ever on practically every level (except on its Officer or Board compensation it seems) so I imagine this notion has already been examined thoroughly and has since been rejected.
  4. Maybe to create non-localizable surround 'effects'? To mimic multiple direct radiators? Keith _______________________________ Don't know much to say about this one expect that there has to be localization to the sounds because you have separate channels (Left Front, Center Front, Right Front, Right Surround, Left Surround, Right Rear and Left Rear) and the engineers direct the sounds on the soundtrack to the appropriate channel(s) in order to give the listener/audience the impression that they're immersed in the action and that although the screen is only two-dimensional, the soundtrack places you in a real-time three-dimensional environment by enveloping you (via precise locations) with multi-channel sound from the various speakers strategically placed around you. I guess what I'm saying is that I see (in my layperson's persepective) that the engineers want the sounds to be localizable, i.e. noticeably coming from the front (right, center and left), rear (left and right), left side, right side, etc... You make sense with the notion of those "pole" and WDST speakers trying to mimic multiple, direct-radiating surrounds that are found in the theater. This might have some traction, but it still seems to take home theater on a different course then what's found in commercial theaters. If there's truth to this, then the only way to "fix it" for the home theater environment would be to add even MORE speakers - direct radiating surround ones - on the left and right walls, and that doesn't seem feasible considering how small most home theaters tend to be. Again, I'm just throwing darts here...
  5. ...commercial movie theaters don't use them and employ front-firing speakers instead? The next time you're at your movie theater, remember to take a look - all the ones I've been at here in Southern California use multiple, front-firing speakers evenly (or so it seems) spaced along the side walls. Furthermore, the di-pole designs seem to create a sonic hole, or void, directly in front of them (where you, the listener would be sitting) while the bi-pole design seems to rely on focusing the lower and middle frequencies directly at you but then using two tweeters pointed in opposite directions to disperse the high frequencies away from you, at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Klipsch WDST design seems to direct the complete frequency pattern away, at close angels, from the listener. In the end, both "pole" designs seem to rely on "reflecting" sound - via the listening room's physical properties (i.e. walls) while the Klipsch WDST design directs the sound away from the listener at two distinct, albeit close, angles. Any way you cut it, this seems to go against the entire Klipsch concept of using horns to control the frequency dispersion directly towards the listener in a focused pattern. That, therefore, brings me to this point: Whenever I think about "reflected" sound I think about Bose marketing their products throughout the 70s and 80s with their mantra that their reflected sound is more natural and therefore better. Needless to say, I've never heard a Bose system utilizing a "reflected sound" dispersion come even close to sounding "live" or "natural." In fact, this just seemed to make their cone-driven speakers sound even worse then a "conventional" cone-driven speaker because they were pointed away from you, and since they were all naturally low in sensitivity to begin with, facing them away from the listener, as per Bose, made them seem even more muted and even less efficent and even less realistic. I guess what I'm saying is that the whole surround sound concept using bi-pole, di-pole, or WDST speakers seems to stand in contrast to PWK's philosophy on controlled, directed sound towards the listener via his horns, not to mention that I've yet to sit in a movie theater that utilized anything rather then direct-firing, non-reflecting surround speakers faced directly towards the audience...and I live in the most densely populated section of the United States with lots of new construction to boot, so a lot of the theaters I've been in are pretty new. It begs the question as to why one should use bi-pole, di-pole, or Klipsch WDST for home theater use when the goal of the home theater is, after all, to re-create the commercial theater experience in your home? I've thought about this for quite some time but never got around to asking the question openly on the forum; here's my chance...hope it pays off. Thanks, H2G Postscript: I heard or read that Klipsch professional cinema products were being used in approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of all new movie theaters being constructed today....or something to that effect. I don't know if this is true or not, but I just checked the website for their professional cinema products and low and behold, there are no bi-pole, di-pole, or WDST surround speakers to be found, only the direct-firing KPT-1201, KPT-8001, and KPT-250.
  6. The CF-4's may have been a precursor to the KLF-30s but the CF-4s are a two-way design with the cones providing most, if not all, of the midrange while the KLF-30s are a three-way design with a dedicated compression driver & horn covering the midrange. That's akin to comparing apples to oranges in my book. I've never heard a pair of CF-4s personally, but I know I've liked/chosen the sound of a compression driver & horn over a cone for the midrange time and time again so I suppose it would remain the same here as well. H2G
  7. "Cornwalls may have them beat on the low end, but, in every other aspect the Lascalas win hands down." Very common assessment of the cornwall v. la scala comparison, which inevitably lead to the creation of the Cornscala, which offers the best of both worlds - the low, deep bass of the cornwall with the magical midrange of the la scala. -H2G
  8. "That will make a nice addition to your LaScala, it's 44"x44"x40"D(with driver), and it barely made it from 400hz to 2.2Khz." I, for one, have always been partial to - and entertained by - Dennis' subtlety - LOL. I had no idea a suitable horn would be 4 feet by 4 feet and the driver itself had frequency issues; from what is stated on the JBL Pro website, you'd think it was the Mother of All Midrange Compression Drivers or something. Then again, if it was, I guess it would still be in production then... Thanks for helping me out and settin' me straight fellas. -H2G
  9. Hey Guys, There's a fellow I know who has two JBL 2490H compression drivers that he's looking to sell. I've seen them and they look huge compared to the Klipsch K55 midrange drivers on my 1992 and 1993 La Scalas. I looked at the JBL Pro website ( http://www.jblpro.com/pages/components/cmp_drvs.htm and http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2490.pdf )and they said the 2490H has a 4" diaphragm and a massive 3" exit (I think the K55 uses a 2" diaphragm and has a 1" exit...and it's actually necked-down to .75" with the K401 horn, if my memory serves from an earlier post here on the board). The JBL site also has the 2490H rated at 200 watts continuous from 250hz up (compared to 40 watts for the K55) and has its sensitivity listed as 116db 1w/1m on a JBL 2393 horn and 116 db 1mW (.089 volts)/1m on a 25mm plane wave tube and that the sensitivity with 1 watt on the tube is 30db greater, which I guess would make it 146db with 1w/1m? Am I reading this properly?? It doesn't sound right to me; seems way too high. At any rate, does anybody know anything about these drivers? The're supposed to be low compression and that, with the big 3" exits, are supposed to make them sound more "relaxed." Problem is, I couldn't use them with the K401 horn; anybody know of any horns that could take a 3" exit driver and be able to deliver the low-end of the 2490H which is 250hz ? The guy says that JBL doesn't make those drivers anymore and they used to cost $1,000 new, each, but he'd be willing to sell them to me for $500 each. My internet searches haven't come up with anything regarding 2490H prices so I have no clue if what he's saying is correct or whether or not his asking price of $500 each is too steep, or even if it isn't, is there that big of an audible difference between the 2940H and the K55? Any help/thoughts/insight would be appreciated. Best, -H2G
  10. $600 for 4 Forte IIs is a great buy; I think I paid $1200 (if memory serves) for my 4 La Scalas, early 90s vintage, with AL-3 crossovers...which was quite a buy as well. Thank you, Craigslist!
  11. "When I first connected it to the Cornwall lll's Michael Colter was here for the wedding. When Michael turned it on I walked over to the sub to turn it off, then I realized it was not even connected it was the 930 and CWlll, completely different setup ! The Yamaha HT receiver did not make the CW's sound like that, " Been there, done that, and heard that (but with Technics and Sony AV/HT receivers and Heresy IIs) - the difference is simply amazing, isn't it? I don't know why those vintage HKs sound infinitely better then today's typical HT receivers on Klipsch Heritage, but there's a night and day difference and you've gotta hear it yourself to really grasp it. -H2G
  12. I agree with the above - Chorus offers better bass, higher efficiency, and a "bigger" sound. Speaking of Cornwall, I used to live there; in fact, I still have family there. -H2G
  13. Thanks guys! The reason I was asking had to do with the khorn - I know that there's an issue with proper stereo imaging in large rooms do to the necessity of corner placement. It had been discussed on this board before that one way to avoid this would be for the HF section of the khorn to be moveable, so you could track it, or pan it, left or right in order to adjust for the proper imaging depending on the size and shape of the room without having to yank the speakers out of their corner recesses, which woudl destroy the bottom end. I know the khorn squawker dips to 400hz, so from there on up you could effectively direct the sound to where you want it to go should the khorn HF section swivel. It was the low frequency folded horn that I was thinking about. I guess I don't really have the technical expertise and/or lingo to explain it all, but I was picturing the khorns in the corner with their HF sections swiveled somewhat to project the best stereo image for the chosen spot of a large room (say, where the couch is placed). I can envision the dispersion from the HF section with the section thus swiveled and was, mentally, trying to contrast it with the dispersion from the folded horn (below 400hz) radiating straight out of the corners and into the room. In other words, if the Khorns upper section could swivel as above to affect a proper stereo image in the desired spot in a large room, would the resulting sound still sound "right" and "whole" seeing how the bass bin would be fixed into the corner and not able to match the same directional pattern as the swiveled HF section? That's why I was originally asking about the omnidirectional pattern/dispersion of the lower frequencies. I hope I didn't overly complicate or confuse anyone with what I'm trying to say and learn - lol. Thanks - H2G.
  14. I've heard and read about bass being omnidirectional, but where does this begin in terms of frequency, i.e. below 200hz, 100hz, 60hz, etc...?
  15. I've noticed how often he said that too; it seems he absolutely hated those "100 watt stoves." (100 wpc amplifiers) He also spoke negatively about electronic equalization as well. The most postive thing he seemed to harp time and time again was his theory about "distortion being inversely proportional to efficiency." To PWK, efficiency meant practicially everything...or so it would seem.
×
×
  • Create New...