Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
  • Sign Up


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

876 Revered

About garyrc

  • Rank
    Forum Ultra Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Milky Way
  • Interests
    Music, audio, film, psychology, psychology of film, philosophy, religion, history, mythology, audio electromechanical mythology.
  • My System
    Main room: 2- 1982 Klipschorns with K-401 fiberglass mid horn upgrade (1987), and AK-4 Klipschorn stock upgrade (2006), Modified Belle Klipsch (2005) center channel with K401 horn in an enlarged hi hat, 2 NAD C- 272 ss 150 wpc stereo power amps, Marantz AV7005 AV preamp/processor, Heresy II surround speakers driven by 1/2 NAD C-272 and a Yamaha 135 wt amp, NAD C-542 CD player, OPPO BDP-93 CD/SACD/DVD/Blu-ray player, Klipsch RSW-15 subwoofer, for movies only, Panasonic projector, 130" true width 2.35:1 projection screen (141.3" diagonal).

Recent Profile Visitors

6279 profile views
  1. garyrc

    Klipsch Speaker Specs link

    What are the differences between the KP201 and the Heresy II? Same drivers? Different crossovers? What does a directivity index of 8 db(+/- 2 dB) mean?
  2. garyrc

    Beatles Sound Terrible on My Fortes

    True, on the albums I have.
  3. garyrc

    Beatles Sound Terrible on My Fortes

    The later Beatles albums make good use of stereo, IMO. I think the dropping of tone controls is one of the biggest mistakes the audio industry ever made. I understand the part of the "purist" position that is that removing excess circuitry can be a benefit, but I think it is far outweighed by the help tone controls can provide by partially compensate for music companies artlessly messing around with the sound, and, yes, adjusting the sound to your preference. I once had a Luxman that had tone controls that provided 3 choices of turnover frequency for both treble and bass, plus a variety of other devices to customize the sound, like a low boost switch at either 70 Hz or 150 Hz, various cut switches, etc. My manipulations of these always resulted in a better sounding recording, IMO. "Purists" should keep in mind that there probably is no such thing as a flat recording, speaker or room. On the Beatles recordings, which do sound "bright" I wouldn't start by turning down the treble, because the very high treble -- above 10,000 Hz -- may need a boost relatively speaking. If we look at the correction curve Chris A posted (reproduced below) for Sgt. Pepper (the song), and arbitrarily make 1,000 Hz the reference point (as is traditional in many frequency response measurements), we find that it is the upper midrange (1,500 Hz to 5,000 Hz) that needs cutting. The high treble (above 10 K Hz) actually needs boosting, relative to 1,000 Hz, by 7 dB! That doesn't surprise me; I would hate cutting out some of the Beatles sparkle above 10,000, providing it is not distorted. Well, you don't have a way to turn down just the upper midrange on most preamps/receivers, so you need to look else where for a solution. Notice that the correction curve Chris posted calls for a boost of about 7 or 8 dB from 38 Hz to 90 Hz, and, maybe 11dB or 12 dB below 38 dB, all relative to 1,000 Hz. You might start by turning up the bass by about 8 to 10 dB (and turn down the volume by a subjectively like amount) and do the rest by ear. You would be taking steps toward restoring the balance, which is what counts. Perhaps a better way is to close your eyes and operate the bass control without looking at it, and adjust the balance by ear, then check to see how many dB you have boosted (if your receiver or preamp has a read-out or if there is a useful graph in the manual. All this is very approximate, but so is plunking the disk on, or engaging streaming, and just playing whatever they put on it. Haul out your copy of Sgt. Pepper (the song) and give it a try! See which version you like best. Of course, to do it thoroughly, you could read Chris A's posts on demastering, and learn the technique. When I had my Luxman, many records required me to use the steepest treble comp curve, which was also the least drastic in terms of number of dB of compensation provided. Full clockwise rotation provided a boost if 7 dB at 16K Hz. That setting also provided 3 dB boost at 7K Hz, and barely did anything at 5K Hz. With most recordings I used a boost of 6 dB or 7dB at 16K. I also boosted the bass with the Low Boost at the 70 Hz position of the switch (+3 dB), and used the bass tone control at the lowest turnover, to taste. Some of my past results may have been due, in part, to the speakers and room. Now, in a new and bigger, treated room, with the same Klipschorns, I have Audyssey. It measures room/speaker response at the listening positions, and applies compensation. What does it do? A 2.5 dB dB boost at both 16K Hz, and 12.5K, and less at 10K and 8K, all relative to 0 at 1K. It "thinks" I don't need bass compensation above about 40 Hz, but I add some manually, trusting my ears.
  4. garyrc

    Beatles Sound Terrible on My Fortes

    That would apply to the vinyl versions of Norwegian Wood, She's Leaving Home, and many others. I don't know what happened to the CDs. I'm not one who thinks that all vinyl is better than all CDs of music in general. I'd say that a little less than half of the Beatles songs are well recorded on vinyl, and fewer on CD. Back in the '60s, audiophiles would just say, "Well that's the Beatles," then sit back and enjoy (at least I did). The CDs may have been transferred at too high a level, kicking in the horrible CD over-recording distortion. Or, they may be yet another victim of "re-mastering."
  5. garyrc

    Beatles Sound Terrible on My Fortes

    John Lennon did occasionally sound like his voice was coming through a telephone. Artist's prerogative. Their first few albums sounded pretty midrange-ish. What speakers did you have before Fortes? Did they have midrange horns? Are your current ones Forte I, II, or III? There were plenty of records of the '60s that were well recorded. Some, like Sgt. Pepper, were fine on vinyl with a good phono cartridge (Ortofon moving coil!), but were bad on CD. I don't know what the new remastered one is like. Hopefully it is an SACD. Klipsch speakers are very revealing. They reveal good and bad aspects of a recording. Really good recordings sound really good. This is most true of the fully horn loaded ones (Jubilee, Klipschorn, La Scala I and II, and Belle Klipsch), then Forte and Chorus a little less so. I think it's likely that your Fortes are positioned correctly where you have them, but make sure there is at least an area rug on the floor at the point that the sound from the speaker will bounce off the floor and go to your ears. Other room treatments might help. Try manipulating the tone controls, if you have them. The original Fortes got one of the best reviews in the history of Stereo Review, in 1986.
  6. Looks good. You don't want the angled parts of the ceiling reflecting midrange and treble back at you too soon. Other people with a ceiling shape like yours have put absorbers on half of the ceiling area on each side, hopefully with absorbers spaced so that the first reflection points are covered. You know about the mirror test, right? To get even more elaborate, some people put diffussers in between absorbers on the ceiling, so that any reflection you get is diffuse rather than specular. The highest part of your ceiling looks like it may be high enough to cause no problems. How high is it? Some people would cover that highest part that is parallel with the floor with diffusers -- I've seen studios and control rooms like that. Diffusers are ridiculously expensive, so you would probably want to make your own. Speaking of expensive, you might want to check your city main library, or university library for this book: https://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-Absorbers-Diffusers-Theory-Application/dp/0415471745 These look good, and are quasi-spherical, but may not do as good a job as some deeper ones: Take a look. Your contractor might want to look at these -- might learn something -- mine did, but my wife ended up making ours. Probably a good idea to get a mathematical model. Free Plans: http://arqen.com/sound-diffusers/ and: And: https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+acoustical+diffusers&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBtv_o-urcAhWPJHwKHdLIBJAQ7Al6BAgDEBs&biw=1025&bih=491 Oh, I didn't see the post in which you reveal that maximum height is 8' -- I would definitely put some diffusion on the highest part of the ceiling, as well. For some reason, it looked like 10 or 12 feet! 5 channel music on SACD ranges from great down to barely there, but I would consider surround now or in the future. You could hide surrounds behind the cripple wall?? Or elsewhere. If you do that, don't tell anyone, and your Belle clones will sound especially spacious. The glory and fascination of music well reproduced will charm you, tinnitus or not, IMO, especially with something fully horn loaded, like a Belle. Have you tried Lipoflavonoid? It is over the counter. Strong experimental evidence isn't in yet, but good research is expensive, and I don't think anyone has been motivated to do a good multivariate double blind study, over sufficient time, yet. There is reason to believe it might work (due to ingredients).
  7. Janus image.docx Unlike this fellow, @elee532is looking in many directions at once, as he should. I think he has an acoustically transparent projection screen, so a sufficiently thin speaker would fit behind it, rather than being on the floor angled up. The center speaker could be ear height, the best place for it, IMO.
  8. You said it perfectly, "maybe worth it?!" But my best guess is it will be worth it to get that tight bass above 80 Hz. Your movies and music will come alive with La Scalas or Khorns + some good subs (I don't know yours). Your journey has begun, the game's afoot, and you are doing well. You might want to contemplate that Harry Truman said he wanted a one armed economist, so he couldn't say, "On the other hand ..." You may not have to pivot your La Scalas when changing from music to movies. I believe your Denon AVR, being used as a pre-pro (AVP), has Audyssey XT32 (the really good one). It may be the solution. After running Audyssey, without toeing in the La Scalas more than a slight amount, if at all (if you can do it, do it; if you can't, don't), you can try using Audyssey FLAT. The Audyssey people recommend Audyssey REFERENCE (plain old Audyssey) for most rooms. Aud. Ref. provides two things you probably won't need: "midrange compensation" which provides a cut of about 2 dB at about 2K Hz, and a gradual roll-off in the high treble, -2 dB at 10 K, to -6 dB at 20 K. Chris K, the CTO and one of the founders of Audyssey said he hasn't heard a speaker/room combination that hasn't been improved by it. For those who disagree, like me, there is Audyssey FLAT. In my case, it may be because we are seated slightly off axis, as you will be. My Khorns' sound beams (a line perpendicular to the front of the speaker, starting at the center of the tweeter, and ending at the listening couch) cross a few feet in front of the couch, so we sit somewhat off-axis, like you would if you don't -- or hardly -- toe in La Scalas. So, I use Audyssey FlAT, which, in my room, is a dB or two above the 0 line at 10K Hz to 12K Hz, where it crosses the line, and continues to 16K Hz, at -2 dB on one Khorn and about -4 dB on the other. Audyssey is doing its job, because not only does it sound better, it measures better. O.K., that isn't flat, right? Yes, but the slight roll-off it provides in my situation is less of a roll-off than Audyssey (and some others) advocate, e.g., with Audyssey REFERENCE doing the rolling off. For music, I use whichever -- Reference or Flat -- sounds better on a given disk. Unlike some speakers that veil the sound, Klipsch reveals the difference between music disks, and they can be quite different! IMO, you shouldn't listen to people who say Audyssey doesn't help. There are good arguments in favor of other options (e.g., Dirac Live -- expensive). Audyssey requires maybe three or four careful tries to get it to work optimally in a given person's situation, defining the listening area, deciding whether you will favor certain seats, deciding which 8 mic positions are the best to use for you, empirically testing that, dealing with the shock of the absence of your favorite room or speaker peaks, etc. Some people just don't have the patience. I think you do, given all of the thinking and comparing you have done to select speakers. The best source for help (the Denon manual is terrible, unless they have improved it) is: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" One thing almost everyone does after running Audyssey is to crank up the bass. As Paul Klipsch said, you can't have a "flat curve," but he meant it in the same spirit that he said that even with pontoons, "You can't land a plane on water." To most people, flat doesn't sound right. Harmon and others found that most people they tested not only thought that a curve with the bass about 9 dB above the highest treble was "flat," instead of the sloping curve they were hearing, and they preferred this sloped curve. So most people turn their subwoofer up, some quite a bit. If they have a means to turn up the bass in the front speakers (above 80), they also do that. I don't turn down treble, for all the reasons given above re: off axis. This all must be done AFTER running Audyssey; if it is done before, Audyssey will just turn the bass back down. What's the point of going to all the trouble to use Audyssey for room/speaker correction, if you are then going to monkey around with the bass EQ? Because, by running Audyssey first you have a relatively smooth curve to start with, instead of a kinky one and your boost will be a relatively smooth climb to the lowest bass. Unless you like kinky. Here are two versions of Harman-like curves: They both have too much treble cut for me. Klipsch speakers [especially La Scalas and Khorns] are so efficient, that Audyssey may set them at a trim of -12 dB, the limit, and you won't know whether it would have set them even lower, if it could. There are a couple of ways around that, so let me know if that happens to you, and I'll help.
  9. Did you tell us how high the ceiling in the sound room will be at its lowest and highest point? Volume in cu.ft.?
  10. garyrc

    A Room Acoustics Issue?

    Imagine 5 of these -- a total of 20 - 15" woofers behind the screen for early 70 mm Todd-AO presentations (surround was a switchable 6th channel in this set-up; in some theaters the switching was automatic, triggered by a subsonic tone on channel number 6). These are JBLs, commissioned by Ampex, who, in turn, was commissioned by Todd-AO. In addition to the woofers being horn loaded, there was also a port. I would never carpet a wall, but strategically placed absorbtion and diffusion can improve things greatly. I think our 4,243 cu.ft. Home Theater, with Khorns, modified Belle center, sub and surrounds now comes pretty close, proportionally, to the speakers shown above in a 1,000,000 cu.ft. theater, but the recording has to be up to snuff. Most Blu-rays are, but not all, by any means. We could think of our HT as Rottweiler equipped, but actually, it's more like St. Bernard outfitted, because the sound is so warm and friendly
  11. Most of my SACDs are 5.0 channel. I value the center channel (a modified Belle Klipsch) when playing these discs. On the other hand, a phantom center (no speaker) can provide a spacious sort of "free floating" effect. People sitting off to the side may get poor imaging, without a center.
  12. If you are going to replace the screen, get a bigger AT one, preferably 2.35:1 (Seymour has them) that goes wall to new wall across in front of whatever you put in the corners -- Khorns or Forte III -- (one corner can be an artificial one, or one formed by a new wall). In your case, you would only need a firm pony wall on one side, unless there is a question of rigidity. *
  13. garyrc

    Is it worth it to set up for a projector?

    We have a drop down screen from Seymour, and there are no wrinkles except for a quite minor one in the lower right corner which is due to tensioning and we could get rid of it by adjusting the tensioning, but it doesn't show when we are projecting a movie. The AT fabric is not given to wrinkling.
  14. Beautiful! For people who like moderate sized projection screens, this is an elegant solution. Others want something bigger. Visualize exactly the same room with an acoustically transparent wall to wall 'scope screen (2.35:1, like yours) that electrically rolls down in front of the Klipschorns for movies, and stays up and out of the way for music, to show off the Klipschorns. Individual tastes vary regarding screen size, but, IMO, once people get used to a big screen, they won't want to go smaller. Big screens, especially 'scope shape, are immersive, help suspend disbelief, and increase emotional involvement. But, I grew up on 70 mm projection and 6 channel stereo, so that has programmed me in that direction. Seymour makes good AT screens, at a lower price than some. www.seymourav.com/ @elee532 please copy, for way in the future.