Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

garyrc

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1250 Legendary

1 Follower

About garyrc

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, flush mounted, behind AT wall fabric, buried in the wall between flanking Khorns, 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

7570 profile views
  1. An F3 (-3dB point) of 106 Hz would call for a 110 Hz crossover, or higher. Sound and Vision measured in a quasi-anechoic environment, but Klipsch says the speakers should be on a wall, where the F3 might be a bit lower in frequency. I would guess that Klipsch would have measured a speaker meant for wall mounting on the wall of their special anechoic chamber a few feet away from the corner, but hung right against the wood. If it actually did turn out to be lower in frequency Audyssey would feel free to recommend to the AVR/AVP turning the bass up, until flatish response at the F3 is reached, if possible (Audyssey can recommend up to a 9 dB boost or down to 20 dB cut at any of the hundreds of points at which it measures). Below the measured F3 Audysssy has a "hands off" policy. The final decision on x-over is up to the AVR/AVP, not Audyssey, even though it is based on data Audyssey collects.. Audyssey first determines the -3dB down point of your surround, in your room, where your speakers happen to be in the room, then recommends a crossover to your AVR or AVP, which is probably a bit higher. Years ago (1950s), JBL refused to publish frequency specifications and sensitivity measurements; instead they pointed out that there were no standards. Later AES came up with standards, but they didn't hold very well for rooms in the home. Neither do quasi-anechoic measurements of the overall frequency response, or the F3, as the differences between Stereophile's in-lab and in-room measurements indicate (we won't even speak of their "in-driveway on a furniture dolly" measurements). Neither does a measurement in your listening room at a single point, because moving the microphone a few inches can change the results significantly. That's one reason Audyssey uses 8 microphone positions and their proprietary fuzzy averaging device that is intended to be better than an arithmetical average. About the same time (?) Paul Klipsch was asked what a speaker's power handling capacity meant, exactly. I believe I remember his response being, "Probably not a lot."
  2. The adjustment often marked "phase" on a subwoofer -- a two position switch -- is typically just polarity. The multipath problems that can occur with a sub and a main, with the main set to "Large" and the sub working (usually requiring something like "LFE + Main," another misnomer) can take the form of valleys or peaks and valleys. In some rooms, with some positions, no problem. I've tried both, and although it is no big deal with my set-up, I eventually decided on "Small" for a bit of extra clarity that may be illusory. If you get a second sub, it should be identical to your present one because if you want to use Audyssey (and I think you probably should) when Audyssey scopes out your F3 for each sub, it will limit correction to above the F3 of the inferior sub (unless they have changed that feature). Mike's Guide should help here -- see the Table of Contents -- I think you want VIII--C.
  3. Try moving the sub around some more, including in a rear corner, behind the couch, etc. Either you or it are probably sitting in a room null. Can you turn the sub up? As Augspurger of JBL used to say, most people, as long as they are assured that their speakers are flat, like a little bump in the bass. This is more true now than it used to be -- see Chris A's many posts, starting with "The Missing Octave." If you use Audyssey (I love it), you, like everyone else who uses it will have to turn the subwoofer up AFTER running the calibration (or else Audyssey will turn it right down, having "heard" too much bass). Most people prefer it with an after calibration bass boost of 3 to 9 dB. In some rooms, some phase cancellation occurs if you have your main fronts on full range. In those rooms you actually get more bass with the main speakers set to SMALL rather than LARGE. I think the reason someone asked that question is that you absolutely need full range, LARGE, if you DON'T use a subwoofer. See this also, by Mike Thomas; it's a goldmine, and covers more than just dealing with subs. GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES * The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including: Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
  4. My great grandmother was bitten by a cottonmouth (also called black moccasin, water moccasin, swamp moccasin). She went into the kitchen, took down a bottle of whiskey kept there for "purely medicinal reasons," poured some over the wound and also on a butcher knife, cut out the area of the bite, and then had a good slug of the whiskey. Her great, great granddaughter (my daughter) started a band called Black Moccasin in her honor. I, too, grew up around black widows. When my parents disassembled the sand box I played in, there was a nice black widow underneath. My father was a quietly confident man, and of mesomorphic body type ... strong and brave, in my eyes. One day I saw him bend over and put his mouth under an outdoor water faucet to take a drink. Suddenly, he leapt up, did a little dance, and spit out a black widow. No bite. One day, I heard my mother shriek, "Gareeee!" I ran into the kitchen and caught a snake slithering across the floor. It was a harmless one, and hung around as a pet for about a year, even accompanying me on vacation.
  5. Mine (as surrounds) sound fine with NAD 150 w.p.c.
  6. Audyssee Audyssey ☺️ "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
  7. IMO, it's not really random in a technical sense ... more like the opposite of random, i.e. systematic, but unexpected, because of not knowing the details of the systematic influences, including, but not limited to, different boundary gain and extension for different locations in the room. I don't know about "very commonly;" Audyssey has always been fairly well behaved at our house, but, in our room, with our boundary gain, our surrounds have an F3 below 80 Hz (approx. 60 Hz). Our front speakers, with their boundary gain, have a 3 dB down point of well below 40 Hz; so the pre-pro was engineered by the pre-pro manufacturer (not Audyssey) to take the F3 assessment from Audyssey and somehow interpret it as calling for a setting of "Large" and a x-over of 40 Hz, as if to say, as Kal Rubinson quipped in the Stereophile review, "Congratulations, Sir," on buying such a bass capable speaker. Chris K, of Audyssey criticized this manufacturer view, and feels, as does nearly everyone, that 80 Hz is the proper crossover for speakers that have an F3 measured (by Audyssey), with whatever boundary gain to which they are subject, to be well below 80 Hz. The danger (danger of distortion and, with inexpensive, delicate, surrounds, danger of overload in the bass at high SPL) comes when the speakers, in their position in the room, are set for, say, 80Hz when the functional crossover for those speakers, in that location, is really 110 Hz. Thus the rule, you may raise the crossover above the F3, but not lower it."
  8. How did your Khorns sound compared to your JBLs and your Bose? Did you run sweeps on any or all of them?
  9. Evideence? I've had one for 16 years, turning it on and off every day, sometimes multiple times, first at work, then on the bedroom TV. Wallowing in decadence, we watch the PBS news using it for sound, almost every night.
  10. @oldtimer , @CECAA850 , Taking the last two posts first, the standard for the true crossover to the sub is 80Hz, but the standard for the Low Pass Filter for Low Frequency Effects (LPF for LFE -- not music) that is urged in many pre/pro and AVR manuals, is 120 Hz. The two separate channels -- bass management bass and the independent LFE, are mixed together in pre-pros (AVPs) and also in AVRs, then sent to the subwoofer. @wvu80 Several experts have advocated using 80 Hz even for the LFE, for additional clarity and more headroom in the sub amp and the transducer itself, with very little loss of LFE. Part of this is because some of the re-mixes of movies for home theater are often over-plump between 80 and 120Hz. I tried it, and I liked it. I attribute the improvement to the clarity/headroom phenomenon mentioned above, plus the frequencies below 80 Hz not being interfered with as much by LFE above 80 (I don't know if modulation distortion comes into the picture here). Some comments on this by Keith Barnes, as well as Dressler, Seaton, and Fitzmaurice can be found at "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" Including this part, excerpted from the article linked above: However, Roger Dressler (formerly of Dolby Labs and the guy who helped them develop many of their technologies, including bass management) and Mark Seaton (founder and owner of Seaton Sound, makers of the legendary Submersive subwoofers) have both recently put forward an alternative view. Mark explains it like this in this post: "I personally tend to set the low pass on the LFE channel at 80Hz in most systems by preference. I think many forget that the difference between a 120Hz low pass and an 80Hz low pass is nothing more than a shelving filter. If the low pass is 4th order, the 80Hz filter is about 7dB lower at 100Hz and about 4dB at 80Hz. A 100Hz low pass setting would have about 1/2 that difference. The adjustment has more effect on shaping the LFE track's response than it does on cutting off content. If you're running the subs with a rising response on the low end which blends with the main speakers, experimenting with 80, 100 vs. 120Hz is basically a means to taper the top end of the LFE channel. Setting this lower than 120Hz is not hacking off content any more than setting your sub a few dB hot would destroy a soundtrack." What this means in effect is that you do NOT lose the content between 80Hz and 120Hz if you set the LPF of LFE to 80Hz - you simply alter the way it is presented, because the filter is not a brickwall but a shelving filter. Setting it to 80Hz simply allows you to 'shape' the LFE track's response. Roger goes on to elaborate more in a separate post (my bolding below): "Back when DTS was making their name with Jurassic Park and Apollo 13 on 35mm film, the LFE bandwidth was 80 Hz. The Dolby Digital codec has a bandlimited LFE channel, and it has a brickwall filter at 120 Hz as a means to protect the LFE channel from higher frequencies (which can still be present even with a 4th-order LPF at 80 Hz). It seems that when films moved from optical to digital delivery, the LFE bandwidth crept up to 120 Hz or maybe even higher (the PCM LFE channel has no inherent response limitation). I suppose it helps less than magnificent subwoofers in "regular" cinemas provide more whomp. But I find that LFE in the 100-120 Hz region is just a lot of boominess that unfortunately too often clouds the deeper bass in the bottom 2 octaves. Setting the LFE filter to 80 Hz does a dandy job of dealing with that boominess IMHO. In addition, I have found that 5.1 music recordings are not well disciplined in their use of LFE, leading to muddiness that is even more annoying. Again, the 80 Hz LFE filter setting really helps the bass knit together more cohesively." Background information also in this post of Roger's. Further comment from Roger Dressler explains the thinking behind a setting of 80Hz as opposed to the more usually recommended 120Hz: "I was recently noticing that my well tuned room sounded great on 2-ch programs but occasionally had excessive/plump bass on some 5.1 music discs. Turns out many music discs do not have well filtered LFE tracks--easily seen using REW's spectrum analyzer. It also turned out that my SSP did not filter the LFE at 120 Hz or the like. I did some experiments comparing SACD/DVD-A music recordings with the LFE unfiltered, or filtered at 120 or 80 Hz, and compared the results with the 2-ch mixes on those discs. It was pretty obvious that the mixers were listening with a monitor system using an LFE sub filtered at 80 Hz. The match was obviously right, whereas at 120 Hz it was not even close, and not very pleasant. They filtered the LFE sound in the room rather than the signal feeding the recorder. I did a similar survey of movie soundtracks, and REW showed all were well filtered near 120 Hz at max. Some DTS movies were rolled off lower, like 90 Hz. In listening to these movies with 80 and 120 Hz LFE filters, it was possible in direct A/B to sometimes hear a difference only with the 120 Hz LFE tracks, but using either the 80 or 120 Hz filters sounded great and sounded correct. The impression was that the 80 Hz setting yielded "deeper, tighter" bass than the 120 Hz, and this has been a major reported difference between Dolby and DTS soundtracks since the days of laser discs. Interestingly, DTS HDMA does not employ the 90 Hz filter, so that "advantage" is now gone, even for the core lossy DTS track. I have my SSP's LFE set for 80 Hz all the time (F/W updated!). It makes a huge benefit for 5.1 music, and a small benefit for movies, so it all sounds great now." I should emphasise that the generally accepted setting for the LPF of LFE is 120Hz. However, this is one of those 'preference' issues which members may want to experiment with and come to their own conclusions. I have tried it myself and found that I can definitely hear (or feel) a difference between 80Hz and 120Hz for the LPF. 120Hz gives more slam and I feel the gunshots etc more in my chest. But Roger is right - it also adds a touch of boom too. 80Hz gives a little less slam but overall it's tighter. We're talking small, but noticeable differences. It also seems to be movie-dependent - I guess some mixers add more to the LFE channel than others, or more above 80Hz anyway. Update: Bill Fitzmaurice added this relevant comment when posting in another thread: Also, with respect to LFE track material being directionally locatable, the LFE track is brickwall filtered at 120Hz, so regular program material harmonics that can be directionally locatable even with an 80Hz low pass of the other channels aren't present. If you have the ability to set the normal program low pass frequency and LFE channel low pass frequencies independently the difference that would probably be heard between 80 and 120Hz with the regular program probably would not be heard with the LFE track. Further Reading: The misunderstood 0.1/LFE channel
  11. Regardless of why it is changing, shouldn't we take steps to minimize any negative effects? Like preventing the burning of the Amazon, minimizing our reliance on fossil fuels, etc.?
  12. Welcome to the forum! Are the surrounds placed to take advantage of boundary gain? Klipsch's figures may be based on the availability of boundary gain in the bass. I doubt if 4" woofers would be good to 62 Hz (or 80 Hz) in an anechoic chamber (unless pressed into the non-anechoic corner of the Klipsch "revolving door" chamber). In the manual for the RP-240S, we find, "... The surrounds should be placed on the walls directly adjacent to the listening position. Another option would be on the wall behind the listening position. The final surround speaker placement depends on your room’s characteristics ..." There are several cases on the AVS "Official Audyssey thread part II" in which a surround very near a wall or in a corner will be assigned a crossover of around 80 Hz, whereas another surround of the same make and model, but not near a wall, will get a crossover much nearer 150 Hz. IIRC, this was most often true in "Open Plan" rooms with no wall support nearby on one side.
  13. Also, has putting backs on the Klipschorn eliminated the 250 Hz to 500 Hz dip in response when open backed Klipschorns are not sealed into a corner? This was reported by PWK in a Dope from Hope on November 10, 1961. He started advocating rubber gaskets to seal the Khorn into a slightly uneven corner -- and almost all corners are slightly uneven.
  14. I watched the transition (starting in Jr. High) and then the beginning of the road back (in progress). IMO, it was basically an anti-horn propaganda job, plus the factors listed above, combined with a growing number of bad recordings that give less offense when veiled by inarticulate speakers. 1955 - 1958 Horns were very popular, among those who could afford them. The "best" speakers in every Hi Fi store I knew about were horns. People heard them with high quality stereo magnetic soundtracks in theaters, especially the 6 channel Ampex equipped 70mm Todd-AO theaters with custom JBL fully horn loaded. speakers. The better Record stores (which also sold reel to reel prerecorded tape) used them. Stairway to Music in Oakland had 5 large horn speaker systems. The 114 piece orchestra on the Around the World in 80 Days (1956) soundtrack was very frequently played on the JBL C55 rear loaded horn with its dual 15" woofers and horn loaded mid/treble. The store owner would say, "That's probably what you heard it on in the theater." Actually, the C55s were used as surrounds in the larger 70mm Todd-AO theaters, with 4 woofer, fully horn loaded designs for the (then) 5 behind the screen channels. Altec equivalents were used in other theaters. The third issue of Hi Fi Systems (1958) described 30 systems, number 1 of which (the best) had two JBL Hartsfield fully horn loaded speaker systems, buried in a wall behind a huge grille cloth. There was little need to hide them, however. They showed up in an art gallery shortly after -- you can see why: The elite welcomed these into their homes. So much for WAF. For less money, and better bass, Klipschorns were available, and gradually made their way into 8 Bay Area stores, where they could be auditioned at any time. Very Late 1950s Edgar Villchur introduced his Acoustical Suspension bookshelf loudspeaker. It could produce a great deal of bass in a very small enclosure. But those of us who had horns, or were familiar with live orchestral sound, recognized that it sounded "muddy," and had limited dynamics. But it was the beginning of the end. For a fraction of the cost of a good horn system, one could have "balanced" sound. Many other companies imitated these small speakers, which could be tucked in among the books, and not call attention to themselves. 1960s As more and more dealers started selling small speakers, people grew used to high modulation distortion and limited dynamics -- but if there was a large pair of horns in the same demo room, the difference was apparent -- to some of us. Dealers who did not carry horns --- and some who had never heard one -- would cup their hands around their mouths to imitate what they considered to be the defects of "horn sound." But when the public heard the "wow factor" of good horns, as at David Mancuso's loft parties in New York (using 4 Klipschorns), or at Paul Klipsch's live v.s. recorded concert with the Hartford symphony orchestra, their appetite for veiled sound receded. But when the vast majority of dealers no longer carried horns (often to offer more attractive discounts??), opportunities melted away. 1970s, '80s, '90s. Rolling Stone, Playboy (twice), picked the Klipschorns for their best recommended system. c.1986, J. Gordon Holt (founder of Stereophile) in complaining that "... so called hi-end audio is so far out of the musical mainstream that professional musicians can't recognize anything familiar in the reproduction their own instruments," said that "... musicians who listen to records are increasingly (according to our mail) choosing Klipschorns over the products of "hi-end" speaker manufacturers ... they want something to trigger their musical gestalt." During all this time, high-end speakers got more and more expensive, while outrageously priced speaker cables, special power cords, etc. became foolish status symbols. 2,000 and beyond Several horn speaker makers followed suit and marketed relatively high priced speakers, breaking the snob barrier that allowed them to be reviewed in the "Speakers over $10,000" category." Meanwhile, the Klipsch La Scala II got an excellent "ears only" review in Stereophile. Organizations like Classic Album Sundays and Brilliant Corners started using Klipsch fully horn loaded speakers for their critical listening sessions. Horns may well have set out on the road back!
×
×
  • Create New...