Jump to content

garyrc

Regulars
  • Content count

    2937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

682 Revered

About garyrc

  • Rank
    Forum Ultra Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Milky Way
  • 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 hihat, 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

5700 profile views
  1. JBL is on the Vintage wagon now?

    Bruce, Well, I guess these days are over: 1) JBL C55, not much bass, but very clean, very tight, with very low distortion. Marvelous with 375 mid/treble driver and a good horn-lens added. Erroneously thought to have been designed for the 70mm Todd-AO film process (see below), but actually intended for small theaters, or surround duty at best.. Stairway to Music in Oakland had one on which to listen to the LP records they sold (stereo in the next room, with JBL 030s in C34 enclosures, also with horn loaded bass) ... many happy hours ... 2) JBL horn Loaded theater speaker. These were designed for Todd-AO, at the behest of Ampex. Woofers were front loaded by horns, with plenty of boundary gain by virtue of the front surfaces of the boxes, and a supplemental port. In the Todd-AO (and other 70mm processes before Dolby) theaters there were 5 of these units behind the screen (and a few smaller C34/C40-ish units embedded in the ceiling and behind side wall grills, for tone induced switchable, but mono, surrounds, 6 independent channels in all, front and surround). To my very young ears, the behind the screen ones sounded squeaky clean, very powerful, and dynamic as can be, with bass that shook the concrete floor for Ben-Hur (1959 - MGM Camera 65). They got me into the audio hobby.
  2. Ballistic Missile Threat

    Twain had no opportunity to add, "If you rely on Fox News, you're dis-informed."
  3. JBL is on the Vintage wagon now?

    I thought the 4310 was the pro version of the L100, and the 4311 was an improvement --- unless they kept changing the L100, without changing the model number. They used the 4311 at the Different Fur Trading Company [San Francisco recording studio] in the Moog Synthesizer room. They were less efficient than the Heresy, I think.
  4. Ballistic Missile Threat

    So, what are we going to do to prevent this from happening for real?
  5. They were Cerwin Vega horn-loaded effects speaker that we would call "subwoofers" today. The size of the horns varied with the theaters. They often required seats to be taken out, because a common place to put them was on the floor in the front. I, too, would settle for 16.5 Hz. The old Fox theater in San Francisco had a 32' pipe mounted horizontally up near the ceiling, with a net below it to catch the falling plaster! Oh, vasubandu, I forgot to mention, you'll need a net.
  6. Of course, by saying, "you must get out of the 80s," I meant out of the 80 to 90 dB sensitivity at 2.83V at 1 meter; you said you kept finding those inefficient speakers and couldn't "get out of the 80s." Then Mallette riffed off of my admonition, and the meaning shifted. He said "1946 to be precise" (the birth year of the first version of the Klipschorn). The RF-7 would do fine with any movie (above its F3 -- the frequency at which it is - 3 dB). It is precisely the old speakers, "back then" that could express the dynamic range of movies or music back then! Or now. Up until the introduction of small box "acoustiic suspension" speakers in the late '50s, speakers were pretty efficient. Klipsch, JBL, Altec, or EV stayed efficient and most could easily handle and reproduce the dynamics of modern movies, above about 40 Hz. Modern movies, on Blu-ray in the home, with DTS HD Master, or Dolby True Hi Fi, are designed to allow 105 dB peaks from each main speaker, and 115 dB from the subwoofer(s), at the main listening position, not at a measly 1 meter from the speaker. No low sensitivity speaker could do that unless it would take a huge amount of power safely. There are, in a sense, some new sounds that have been "invented," e.g., bass a low as 10 Hz is used in some modern movies as Low Frequency Effects, whereas movies used to start to roll off at 40 Hz, or 30 Hz, at best for some 70 mm epics, except movies in something like SenseAround.
  7. I completely agree with your second statement. With some movies, 80% may come from the center, but not during climaxes in the soundtrack music, and not with sensuous feasts of sight and sound like Baraka, Fantasia or Fantasia 2000, the most important parts of Amadeus, or The Tree of Life and the finest moments contributed by Bernard Hermann, Miklos Rozsa, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, etc. Baraka, 1992
  8. Yeah, that would do, even though it is really only 4,000 wts per channel, for each of 4 channels, and we don't know if that is over a 20 to 20K bandwidth, or is just at, say, 1K, and whether that is into 8 ohms, etc. But, for those 4 channels, it would probably be great, but you'd better have a fire extinguisher handy.
  9. Indeed. Some Klipsch models would be fine. Maybe some JBLs, but I don't know their current line. Reportedly, Klipsch assumes about 4 dB room gain for some of their speakers, so the anechoic for the RS-7 may be more like 94 dB, and the RF-7 more like 98 dB. Paradigm publishes both an anechoic and a room sensitivity. To get the full dynamic range of modern movies, you must get out of the 80s, unless the power handling is huge, and the amplifier a behemoth.
  10. As illuminating as the metal halide bulbs? IMO, the best way to get the Sound Pressure Level needed is to use efficient speakers -- like most Klipsch. Here's a comparison: To produce 105 dB continuous at 13 feet, in a 4,000 cu. ft. room, a typical speaker (90 dB/2.83v/1m) needs 128 watts, but a Klipschorn or La Scala II needs only 16 watts to provide the same SPL. Depending on room location, an RF-7 would need about 32 some odd watts. All of these take into account room gain -- I think.
  11. The RC-7 is about 6 to 10 dB more sensitive than the 88 dB/2.83v/1m SVSs, depending on how you look at it. So your AVR will have to turn the RC-7 down quite a bit. To get 105 dB Reference peaks in your room (if it is about average in size and acoustics), and allowing for a loud sound coming from LF or RF, only, sometime during the movie, you may need -- just for a moment or two -- about 100 real watts into each SVS, not typically fudged AVR watts, i.e. you may need 100 watts per channel, all channels operating, 20 to 20K Hz, 8 ohms, at minimal distortion [below about 0.09%). So, if you would like to hear it like the mixing engineers heard it, you might be better off with speakers just as sensitive as the RC-7, all the way across.
  12. Bozak speakers [almost] never give offense. They are quite beautiful sounding. I think they have sensitivity in the low to mid 90s. At one time, I had to decide between the Bozak Concert Grand and the Klipschorn. Obviously, I picked the Klipschorn, but it was after hours and hours of listening; it was close, even though the two sound quite different. The Klipsch will be a bit more In-Your-Face, but in a good way. Dynamics seemed better with the Khorns, as did the sense of reality and the there, there. Is the one for sale a 3 way? Bozak had a very sweet midrange speaker and tweeter. The cello sound was wonderful. The Klipschorn was more Takete, but with fullness and power, and the Bozak was more Maluma, but with clarity. Stereo magazine (an annual published by High Fidelity) gave the Bozak Concert Grand, the Klipschorn, and the JBL Paragon their highest ratings. See below the black rectangle for a picture of Paul Klipsch and Rudy Bozak discussing loudspeaker design.
  13. The only place your display mentioned A weighting was the rather free floating and undocumented 81 dB-A in yellow. Maybe it is trying to tell us that the overall average SPL is 81 dB-A Maybe it "assumes" you are measuring industrial noise for which the OSHA standards use A weighting, instead of measuring a sound system intended for music and movies, for which C weighting would be more appropriate, IMO. It should tell you all this stuff somewhere ... a Manual? Online? As I have said too many times before, APA would have a cow. They want every graph to be self explanatory without reading the text, to the degree possible. You are quite right, the graph looks like it is a fair representation of what C weight would give you with La Scala and sub.
×