garyrc

Just a note on Mapleshade (not necessarily anti-cable, but any and all contentions held by the Mapleshade bunch) ... Have they ever published their experimental procedures so they can be criticized? My curiosity includes experimental designs that use the human ear as a way to assess differences in sound, in all configurations: with case of a single listener over repeated trials, with groups of listeners being exposed to different sonic conditions, and when the above are listening to make judgments, vs. when they are just relaxing and letting the music wash over them, etc., etc. Since this can all be done with relatively low to relatively high internal and external validity, Mapleshade annoys me when they seem to be saying, "Trust me/us, this will make a big improvement in your sound." Sure, we could buy a bunch of their stuff, but I'm not persuaded that this is a good way to spend my time, energy, and money, without looking over their methodology.

Dissonance Tolerance and appreciation for dissonance has grown over the years. Leonard Bernstein, in The Joy of Music (p195 of my paperback version) reproduced comments of a music critic during Chopin's lifetime, regarding one of his mazurkas: "Ear-rending dissonances!" Bernstein lists other examples. Resolution I haven't rented the movie to confirm this, but I read that Bernard Herrmann left the final moment of the score of Hitchcock's Psycho unresolved. Stravinsky's Firebird a) Try the Riccardo Muti & Philadelphia Orchestra version EMI CD; ADD c1979, but with magnificent audio and a great performance! Stravinsky's (or someone's) dynamics: When I saw it in IMAX in 2000, the version of the Firebird Suite that closes Disney's Fantasia 2000 (Levine) was overwhelmingly dynamic -- I don't know if the projectionist was riding the volume control (other projectionists have told me they are occasionally requested to do so by the studios/distributers*), i.e., in this case, turning it up gradually but monstrously at the end. The IMAX system, for all their bragging, wasn't quite up to it -- almost, though. I bought the CD and DVD, and both are dynamically compressed, compared to what I heard in the theater, but, with the DVD (the better transfer) I found that I could do a bit of volume control riding myself, and the ending brings tears to the eyes of guests. The visual content, while the animation is superb, will leave people as divided as both Fantasias do. *An early example was in a chart the projectionists (the Union required two projectionists in San Francisco for 70mm releases) were given that accompanied the Super Panavision-70 version of Paint Your Wagon. They said the instructions were a studio strategy to get the volume turned up -- for the sake of the music -- without producing complaints from the audience. The volume was to be at a certain (pretty loud) level for the opening titles, then, early in the film, when a wagon noisily rolls down a hill, killing the driver, and the audience expects high volume, the SPL would be sneaked up. When gold is discovered in the poor wagon driver's open grave a few moments later, and the male chorus sings "Gold," they are doing so at a very high volume. It worked well, and may have made the sequence funnier, IMO.

Are you reading the final "K" off of the tweeter itself, or off of something else (paper documentation)? In following this since the '60s, I haven't heard of a K-77K until now. I thought the first tweeter used in Heresy, LaScala, Cornwall, and the Klipschorn (when it first went "three way") was the K-77 with no other marks (in reality, the best testing EV T-35s from a larger group of T-35s, selected and separated into matched pairs, and marked, as part of a deal with EV, "K-77"). Then came the K-77M, and starting in the 21st century, for those speakers (Klipschorn and LaScala II) still using a 77 (for its efficiency and signature sound?) the K-77F. I still don't know, and would like to know, what the K-77D is that is in the limited edition 60th Anniversary Klipschorns -- I suspect that it is a highly selected F.... anybody know?

Whether cones or surrounds deteriorate may be partly a function of location -- wet humid areas may, or may not, be the worst?? In California (& now Oregon) I never had a cone/surround show wear, and the oldest is a JBL D130 c 1955. By the way, I pumped the s**t out of every woofer or extended range speaker I've ever had. The old D130s are now enjoying a third life in the speaker abusing, cast partying, hands of a regional Little Theater group, none the worse for [nonexistent] wear. I read somewhere (about 15-20 years ago) that among the speakers best able to withstand humidity and fungus are Klipsch -- no surprise.

Oldtimer, I'm not a real expert, but; Many things go under the term "Variance." The most commonly seen one may be "the average of all squared deviations from the mean." The square root of that is the Standard Deviation. There are specialized forms of both for estimating population values from samples, with slightly different formulas, e.g., with N -1 as the divisor to get the average of squared deviations, instead of N. If "r" is the Pearson correlation coefficient, then "r squared" is the proportion of variance [some would prefer the word "variation"] "explained" by the correlation. If the correlation between two variables is 0.50, then the proportion explained is 0.25, or 25%. "Explained" -- that's a good one -- it doesn't by itself imply causality, only that it is the the part of the association that is not error variation (in social, behavioral, and medical science, most people would say one can't infer causality -- instead of mere association -- unless there is an experimenter manipulated independent variable and random assignment to conditions -- most are happiest with double blind and other refinements) There are specialized uses of the word "Variance" as in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in which the variance is split apart (in the simplest case) into variance within groups vs. variance between groups. Then there is "homogeneity of variance" as in the homoscedasticity one looks for in scatter diagrams, the similarity of scatter of the dots along the length of the regression line (rather than them forming a bowed shape, say). This seems to be vitally important to some people, and not to others. At SFSU, there was a little man with a briefcase who would show up about twice a semester to offer his services in examining one's data ... he earned the name "Mr. Homoscedasticity,"

Lee, Thanks for your reply! RMS is sure reminiscent of the Standard Deviation in statistics, which, as you probably know, is the square root of the average of all the squared deviations from the mean, with the squaring apparently done for the same kind of reason, to avoid the positive and negative values summing to a useless 0. In stat, the final square root is to return the value to a size that makes intuitive sense within the data set. If one does nothing at the end to undo the squaring, what you have is a variance, which has its own uses, but is intuitively unsatisfying. I'm surprised that manufactures don't all flock to using CASP, since the power figures would look higher than with RMS.

RPG's website says [the underline is mine]: "All of the spectral, timbral and spatial information is pre-encoded on the playback media and the room's only function is to allow a critical listener to hear what has been recorded, as is was recorded." I most often listen to music from the Classical, Romanticist, and 20th / 21st Century Orchestral movements, and with about 9 out of 10 CDs a great deal of the "spectral, timbral and spatial information" is NOT on the recording, OR doesn't sound much like the beautiful spaces one hears in live concerts. When critics complain about close micing of solo instruments, I'm guessing they are complaining about the lack of a sense of the hall around the soloist, at least some of the time. I'm hoping to build some pleasant complexity (additional diffusion) into our new music/movie/library room, particularly coming from the rear and sides, after using diffusion (primarily) at the first reflection points. It looks like the room will be about 4,550 cu ft., still too small to qualify as a true reverberant field, but we'll do what we can. Bookcases with artifacts as well as books will provide some diffusion, supplemented with homemade and professional diffusers. I have some habits I'm hoping to break when the room is finished -- but I'm not holding my breath. Right now, with overly "dry" recordings, I use NAD's EARS (ambiance recovery) and surround channels, with surround levels painstakingly set and noted on a little sticker on the CD case. Or, I use my Lexicon processor's reverberation -- through the surround channels only! For truly, sadly, bad recordings I use both, with the recovered ambiance getting some reverb, through the side surrounds only. I agree that many music rooms and home theaters have too much absorption -- and so do some modern commercial movie theaters! The dictum is evidently that absorption must be heavily used to preserve the articulateness of dialogue -- but the old, large movie theaters with many bumpy, sometimes ugly & overdone, highly diffusive surfaces had no problem with dialog articulation, and, given a fairly good magnetic or digital soundtrack, the music sounded rich and beautiful.

Lee (Arkytype), and everyone: As far as audio amplifier output ratings are concerned, the usual method is to feed a 1 kHz tone to the input and measure the unclipped output into a dummy load. The resultant power calculated from E*E/R is properly called "continuous average sinewave power" (CASP). I'm still a little confused. A good dealer measured my NAD "150 watts per channel" amp (C272) at 171 watts per channel just below the clipping level at 8 Ohms (37 volts ROMS), with both channels driven. 1) What would my CASP be? 2) What does ROMS mean? 3) At the time, I had figured that my RMS wattage (which I now know is imaginary) would be .707 x 171 or about 121 watts (rounding), and that NAD must have used some other formula to rate the amp at "150 watts" -- do you have any idea what formula/method they used? In redoing my music / movie room, should I ask for 20 amp circuits and AC wall outlets? 30 amp circuits and plugs like Groomlakearea51 ? Where online does one buy a 30 amp wall outlet? Thanks `

Trey, Steve, Michael, or the appropriate Klipscher: 1) What is the difference between the K 77- D that is in the 60th anniversary Klipschorn, and the K 77- F ? 2) Can you personally hear a difference? 3) Do the K 77- Fs in the Klipshorn AK- 4 upgrades get the same quality control testing as the ones that go into current Khorns (Parts didn't know when I ordered my AK-4s last year)? Thanks

zuzu: "..... my Radio Shack SPL meter says that ear damage starts to come into play at 80 dB and worsens as you go higher. Most of my listening is 75 dB and a bit lower." I seriously doubt that 80 dB is damaging IN MOST MUSIC. All SPL figures (except the extremely high, e.g., 140 dB) which are purportedly damaging must specify duration or they are "free floating" and relatively meaningless. Government standards, at least in the chart reproduced below, don't even list 80 dB, and will permit 90 dB for 8 hours, 100 dB for 2 hours, 115 dB for 15 minutes, etc. Orchestral music, in which the peaks don't last very long, can be played at a higher SPL than music that tends to be "all loud," such as some Rock. A full orchestra often reaches 100 dB for a few moments at a time, with very brief peaks at 110, 115, 120 dB. Paul Klipsch used to claim that one needs 115 dB "at your ears" to achieve what he characterized as the "blood stirring" levels of a symphony orchestra, and I agree, but that 115 dB is only momentary, even if repeated. If one has a very old fashioned SPL meter with a swinging needle, the real peaks may be as much as 13 dB higher than the needle swing indicates (even on "fast"), because of needle ballistics. But those peaks are by their very nature, brief (if they were closer to continuous, the needle would do a better job of registering them). So it is usually relatively continuous high SPL that causes hearing loss. Much confusion has been caused by the recent attention to impulsive sounds in the workplace ... I think they are concerned with sounds that are not merely impulsive, but of extraordinarily high SPL -- like heavy metal machinery clanking and banging, gunshots, and the like. Employers must provide protection if the impulsive sounds are 140 dB or greater. Real gunshots are so high in SPL that the movie industry usually fakes them because real shots, close up, are so loud that they drive microphone diaphragms back against the plate and produce tame "pops." The glorious finale of a Beethoven symphony could, very worst case, be considered continuous by government standards because its maxima repeat at intervals of 1 second or less (but really, only rarely) -- even at that level, it could sail along at 115 dB for 15 minutes, when in reality this ff (occasionally fff?) passage probably fluctuates between 90 and 110 dB in the front rows, with a few ultra brief leading edges at 120 dB. If the variations in noise level involve maxima at intervals of 1 second or less, it is to be considered continuous. TABLE G-16 - PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES (1) ______________________________________________________________ | Duration per day, hours | Sound level dBA slow response ____________________________|_________________________________ | 8...........................| 90 6...........................| 92 4...........................| 95 3...........................| 97 2...........................| 100 1 1/2 ......................| 102 1...........................| 105 1/2 ........................| 110 1/4 or less................| 115 ____________________________|________________________________ Footnote(1) When the daily noise exposure is composed of two or more periods of noise exposure of different levels, their combined effect should be considered, rather than the individual effect of each. If the sum of the following fractions: C(1)/T(1) + C(2)/T(2) C(n)/T(n) exceeds unity, then, the mixed exposure should be considered to exceed the limit value. Cn indicates the total time of exposure at a specified noise level, and Tn indicates the total time of exposure permitted at that level. Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level.

If I wanted to substitute ribbon tweeters for K77Fs, in an outboard box on top of my Klipschorns, are there good commercial crossovers or high pass filters, with attenuators, that I could use? My guess is that I'd want to bring the ribbon in at approx. 4.5K. On the Stage Accompany website, there is a nice article about the SA 8535, and some endorsements, but I failed to find any dimensions. Does anyone know the approximate size? How about Western US dealers where SA products (esp the 8535) can be heard?

AL-4: They really want to get that squawker outta there, before it can cause trouble? ?? Does this not avoid the famous (above bandwidth) glitch in the K-55 V (and F ?)? And maybe they wanted less interference of the K55 with the K77, above the K55's designated range?

Pauln, A just noticeable difference would be 3dB. 108dB LS would be great with my SETs, but is this what happened? The magnitude in dB of a "just noticeable difference" may depend on whether one is listening to audio oscillator tones or a complex stimulus like music. Back in college, everyone in our Discover Your Ears class (about 20 students) could clearly discern 1 dB differences in complex music with a lot of high and mid frequency content (when switched between two electrical channels, which either did -- or did not -- incorporate a dB difference, single blind), but it took more like 2 + dB (depending on the student) to hear differences in a 300 kHz tone. We expected a 1K Hz tone to be easier than the 300., but I forget whether it was for most of the students.

To Steve Phillips: Happy Birthday Steve! Thanks for all your help during the last few years! Fear not, you will no doubt hear from me again. Gary Camp

Ki, Thanks for the list! JBL has always interested me, and I'm glad to see they are still designing new speakers. I used to love the marvelous JBL units occasionally used with the pristine 6 channel magnetic soundtracks in movie theaters equipped for Todd-AO (and, sometimes, other 70 mm movie processes) of the 1950s and '60s. One of the best set-ups was in the late, lamented Coronet in San Francisco (before the late 1970s, when they ill-advisedly changed speakers). The Altecs were good too, but not quite as good, IMO. Altecs were used far more often, but seemed to have a little less sparkle. Somewhere in the Forums, someone posted pictures of the JBLs that were finally taken out of the Coronet and Alexandria, photographed by the man who was hired to take them out, I believe. These are also on the JBL forum somewhere. Another individual posted many, many pictures of the Altec movie horns. Both the JBLs and the Altecs tended to sound better in these theaters than at home, partly because the movie magnetic tracks (but certainly not the optical) were far superior to Lps and the phono cartridges of the day, as well as the usual 7.5 or 15 ips magnetic tape used in the home -- and there were generally 5 channels of music (and 1 of off-screen effects) spread over a wide expanse. IMO, they were better, warmer, richer, than today's digital movie tracks, or CDs. In the home, in those days, the best JBLs and Altecs were subjected to the same criticism as the best Klipsch speakers, "Excellent with exceptionally good recordings, too revealing of flawed recording." Now all we need is a format for the home that will be widely used by the music providing industry that is also reliably mass produced (too few SACDs/DVD-As, vinyl is too variable/vulnerable, cartridges too finicky for me), that is as warm, sweet, and dynamic as those old magnetic soundtracks! Could it be SACD or DVD-A if we built a fire under the decision makers?

Ki Choi, Thanks for the pictures and info re: the JBL DD66000! I tried to get Stereo Sound magazine's 2006 speaker ranking online, and could not. Can you provide a link, or post it? The DD66000s look great. Given the 96 dB sensitivity rating, it looks like one would need the entire 500 wts Maximum Recommended Amplifier Power that JBL allows -- or a little more -- to produce the same SPL that we can get out of Klipschorns at Klipsch's Maximum Continuous allowable power of 100 watts. But, then again, those who can afford a $60,000 pair of speakers might not have a problem buying a good 500 Wt amp.

In the very early 1970s, a Berkeley, CA store (might have been Fisher Stairway to Sound [no stairway] -- they were bought by, and became, the Good Guys right after this) had a JBL Paragon set up between two Klipschorns. They didn't seem to want to A-B compare them at first, even though this was an obvious thing to do. Did the purchase of one deliver more money to the dealer? Also, P.W. Klipsch had visited shortly before, and said some things (I know not what) about some of the equipment the store carried that one of the sales guys reported offended him. Eventually they did set up a comparison, powering with McIntosh amps, as I remember. Several of us listened much too long, as other groups of customers, some of which could actually afford these speakers, drifted in and out. The speakers were very different, but very hard to decide between as to quality. Both had that precise and "horny" sound -- if you've gotta have coloration, that's one I like... If anything, the Paragon might have been very slightly more precise sounding, but occasionally with a slightly harder midrange ... The word "imaging" had, mercifully, not been invented yet (but PWK's "stereo geometry" was known). The Paragon was designed in part to not have a "hole in the middle" and the design succeeded, but the Klipschorns really didn't have "hole in the middle" either, at least from the three sweet seats they had set up. The Khorns were about 12 feet apart from inside edge of the cabinet to inside edge, and the Paragon was about 104" wide -- had channels 40" less spread apart, if you go by the cabinet edge, in reality more like 60" less far apart. Most of the time the Khorns sounded more spacious, perhaps due to the spacing ... but some of the time the Paragon did... The Paragon looked more solid in construction ... I believe the Paragon was considerably more expensive than a pair of Khorns ... The Klipschorns sounded a little "warmer" in the brass with some program material ,,, Neither were quite as forgiving of some (poorly recorded?) strings as the Bozak that was also sitting there, but they were both fine with most strings. Both had highs when reproducing brass, triangle, even piano, that could tingle one's cortex, that the Bozak simply couldn't do. Occasionally, the Khorns seemed to have a larger supply of deep bass (on Thus Spake Zarathustra). Jazz cymbal work sounded a little more real with the Paragon, providing you were in front. The Khorns tended to sound more real than the Paragon at a distance of about 20 to 30 feet or more, even off to the sides (a big store). We left feeling that both were great. When the Good Guys took over the store, a strange thing happened -- all of the Klipsch emblems were ripped off of the grille cloths, yet they were still for sale. The damnedest thing. Did they buy the speakers form the former owner, and did they fail to pass Klipsch's muster? The personnel all changed, as far as I could tell, and the new guys claimed to not have a clue, other than one hypothesizing "Vandals???" Many years later, when I decided to buy Khorns, the Good Guys had them, brand name emblems and all, but only had the most expensive woods. "What about plain old oiled walnut?" "Not available!" I called Klipsch, and the woman there said, "We still make them, oiled walnut is the most popular one!" I bought walnut ones a 10 minute drive away, in Oakland.

1) Get one of the organ CDs listed, e.g., the Biggs. 2) For a modern recording of Stokowski's magnificent ORCHESTRAL arrangement (essentially the version mentioned earlier by Groomlakearea51 that was used in Walt Disney's Fantasia, but a 1990s recording), plus a bevy of other Bah masterpieces orchestrated by Stoke, get Musical Heritage Society's 1998 CD (evidently licensed by Chandos, who made the recording in 1993), conducted by Matthias Bamert, who used to work with the late Stokowski. This arrangement, definitely not for purists, immerses you in complex orchestral sound -- lets you swim in it. Crank it up! Hearing it through my Klipschorns, with peaks of full orchestra level, makes me higher than the proverbial kite. 3) Historically, the very first sounds heard by the mass public (if you consider about 10 specially equipped theaters from New York to San Francisco, "mass") in stereo, was this arrangement of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor in Fantasia, in a process Walt Disney called Fantasound (which was described in a Scientific American article by Peck in 1940 or '41). The two old-timers I know who experienced it that way independently selected the word hypnotic to describe it. Stereo had been demonstrated to small groups at Bell Telephone Labs before that, and Stokowski had participated. The various versions of the Fantasia soundtrack demonstrate the importance of sound quality. The dynamic range was very high, thanks to the best film stock of the time and automated turning up and down of the volume controls! The various mono optical/ mono re-releases were terrible. One transfer to magnetic film stereo in 1964 was magnificent (I was lucky enough to hear that one). Later transfers, until fairly recently, were a bit too distorted. The DVD is pretty good, but not like modern sound, but rather dynamic. All versions of the film, of course, have a lot of 1940 style optical background noise, and some phasiness, but it was incredible for its time.

You may find the sound of the Dynas hard to beat. With SET, you may miss the overwhelming power of about 35 wts into each of two K-Horns. I don't know. Can you borrow some from a dealer? None of the newer amps I've had sounded better than my pair of Dyna MK IV 40 wt tube amps (each used for one stereo channel), c 1964. McIntosh tube amps a dealer loaned me in the '70s sounded about the same. Sometimes I wish I had either the Dynas or the Macs back. Some of the solid state power amps I've had are good, but don't have that luscious sound people attribute to tubes. I haven't heard the new, elegant, low power tube amps, but I'm addicted to big peaks!

Everyone, Thanks for your responses thus far, and your humor, as well. I, too, doubt if 17 feet is a magic and malevolent dimension. I imagine that for people with hum problems like mine, it would be asking for trouble to have one dimension 18.8 (O.K., 19) feet [approx. the wavelength of 60 Hz hum] or 9.4 feet [approx. the wavelength of 120 Hz hum]. Those dimensions would be easy to avoid in our proposed room. Since the ceiling will be slanted, it will only be at 9.4 feet for a tad. Our hum problem [subtle, but present] sounds like that 120 Hz first harmonic, and we've traced it to the NAD T163. NAD worked on it but could not eliminate the hum. We looked for ground loops. The hum comes and goes -- weird. The NAD may be picking it up from some intermittent source. MAS, it sounds like you've been to Corvallis. Actually, I find most tree-devoted folk charming. I was just chatting with a tree today. It whispered to me a line from George Bernard Shaw, "The average tree conducts its affairs better than the average man conducts his."

[i'm moving this post to "Home Theater" from "Architectural," in hopes of getting more opinions -- to those who responded thus far, thank you] Note: This post came about because we got guesstimates from 2 local contractors here in Oregon of $40,000 and $75,000 -- that seemed too great a range to us. We're seeking a way to see if we can afford this. I know there is at least one contractor on the forum, and many of you have hired contractors to put in, or help put in, home theaters or music rooms. We're trying to get a rough idea -- a plausible range (nothing more accurate) -- of what it would cost to get professionals to remodel an existing room into a specific kind of combination music room / home theater / library, in Oregon -- or in your state (please specify, and I'll try to adjust that figure, quite approximately, by comparing regional cost of living data). The room would have no fancy aesthetics, and none of the visible trappings of home theater (decorative lamps, wall designs, etc.), but would have to be built to our specs as to proportions, and be rigid (for Klipschorns as main spks), relatively earthquake safe, and not rattle (even with super-bass from K-horns and a 15" subwoofer). We realize that we will need a permit, approval by an engineer, and perhaps someone to draw better plans than our skill level will allow. We've decided we are not skilled or physically fit enough to do the work except for the kinds of finish work that creaky older people can do -- painting, putting up some bookshelves, diffusers, absorbers, the projector, screen, and audio equipment, staining window frames (yes, there will be 4 windows with blackout shades), etc. We are wondering if this job would cost nearer $40K, $50K, $60K or $70K for labor + materials. We're also wondering what the approximate cost per square foot might be. Here are the provisions: 1) No equipment included in the price -- we would have a separate equipment budget, and use most of the equipment we already have. We are also not counting features such as electrically operable blackout shades at this time. 2) The room size (dictated by the current room and roof) would be about 17' x 25' with a ceiling that would vary in height from about 8' to almost 13.' 3) The existing ceiling is much too low, and is the worst thing about the room, audio wise. It (sheet rock, joists etc.) would have to be taken off, and a new system put in to hold up the existing roof in the "A " shaped front half, so that new sheet rocking (and insulation) could be applied, making the new ceiling follow the "A" shape of the front part of the roof. We're visualizing 2x 6s being sistered along the existing 2 x 4 roof members to make room for the needed insulation, while still allowing maximum ceiling height. The front half of the ceiling would start at about 8 feet and go to about 10' at the peak of the "A." The rear half of the ceiling is would not be "A" shape, and would slope up, following the roof, to a height of about 13.' Some appropriate wiring would need to go to the projector location, and to track lighting. 4) The floor in the front half would need to be taken off, and replaced -- two layers of 3/4" plywood would be fine -- no fancy hardwood flooring needed, because it will be totally covered by carpeting -- that's what's there now, but the plywood is floppy (put in by a former owner). The joists look good and firm. While the floor is off, the foundation bolts should be given the larger, modern, more earthquake safe washers and nuts, shear walling installed in the corners and mid wall area of the crawl space, the air conditioning ducts moved away from the front half of the room where they put convection currents in front of the speakers (a "no no," we gather), and new 20 Amp or greater wiring routed to the subwoofer location, and to the main audio system location. No speaker wires need to be strung; we have that covered. 5) The sheetrock would need to be taken off of the side walls, and the framing inspected. One large window on each side would have to be taken out, some of the area framed in, and these two windows replaced with smaller, beefy, double glazed ones. We will deal with the blackout shades. Near the front of the room, for five feet (only) out from each of the two front corners, where the Klipschorns will live, we would like additional studs inserted between the existing ones, making the resulting studs 8" on-center, rather than 16" as is the case now. We did this in a former house, and got much improved bass and impact/attack from the Klipschorns. If this costs too much, we might get talked out of it, if the walls can be made very rigid some other way. The side walls would then be covered with 2 layers of 5/8 sheetrock (staggered seams), or 3/4 plywood for shear strength, if the code permits, and then just 1 layer of sheetrock. In the rear portion of the room, the walls would have to be extended upward to join the sloping ceiling/roof. Now here's the quirky part. You thought you already read the quirky part? In the front of the room, where the main speakers and roll-down screen would be, we would like to have a baffle wall about 5' high (and 17' wide) built about 21" into the room from the front wall. It would have 8" O.C. 2 x 6 studs and 3/4" plywood front and back. It would join the side walls, providing strong corners for the Klipschorns, and our Belle Klipsch center channel would be embedded -- flush mounted -- in that baffle wall. Above the 5' high level, where the baffle wall ends, there would just be open space (a few studs would go all the way to the ceiling for added strength) with a deep space (from the baffle wall to the original wall) in which we could place various diffusers and/or absorbers by ear, then the whole baffle wall, the Belle (its own grille cloth taken off) and the empty space above would be covered with somewhat acoustically transparent grille cloth (prob Acoustone FR 93). We would handle putting in the non-resonant decorative trim which will divide the space into fabric coverable areas. From the room, with the proper lighting, and everything behind the proper color (experiments are favoring the "theatre black" to match the non-reflective black Belle), this arrangement would look like a fabric covered wall, that would be partly obscured by the movie screen when it is rolled down. 6) We would probably want a new (additional) power box (a ____ amp main) in the garage, dedicated to the audio equipment. What do you think this would set us back?

Dean and others, Before starting, I have to say I haven't heard the Jubes, and haven't heard Beck's tweeters. I don't know if the qualities of the K-77 that I like so much can be measured. I like their realistic warmth and clarity, without being over-zingy or too muffled. Yeah, the K-77 is about 50 years old. It's interesting how the various horn tweeters, including the K-77 (and T-35) have gone up and down (and for some, back up) over the years. I'm not sure what year the K-77 got the Avedon loading plug, that either smoothed it out, extended its range to around 16 -- 17 K, or both. In the 1970s I remember John Curl (later the design genius of Parasound) sitting in Berkeley Custom Electronics (where he then worked) touting the K-77 over most other tweeters, especially over the JBL "orange juice squeezer" 075 ring radiator. The K-77 sounded (and, under the right circumstances still sounds) very pleasant and a little sweet, but the 075 sometimes tended toward harshness. Curl claimed the K-77 was smoother, and at least one other engineer (name escapes) reported a big resonant peak in the 075 at 11 K that the K-77 didn't have. It may not have been the peak (if present at all); over the years, I've wondered if the 075 was just merciless with bad program material, because it (and the K-77) can sound damn good with very undistorted recordings (usually open reel tape, in those days). The 075 morphed into the 2402 (sounded about the same) and a version with a diffraction slot that narrowed its dispersion in one plane, the 2405 (used in the ubiquitous JBL 4350 studio monitor). I heard many of these in studios in the 70s and 80s, and they sounded fine. But the K-77 sounded "warmer." I never heard a cone or dome tweeter that I really liked during those decades -- horns were the only real sounding ones, at least to me. Later, as dome-like or modified conish tweeters were made out of (purportedly) better materials, with better designs, they improved, but my favorites (e.g., B&W) still seemed to lack depth, somehow, and didn't reproduce of cymbals realistically, or have the airy free floating quality of horns. True, a bad violin recording can sound less offensive on a cone or dome. I think the K-77 has been "voiced" differently at different times, and in different speaker systems. I like the K-77 (M or F) a little better as they are used in the Klipschorn than in the Belle, but that could be a height and axis issue (?), and a lot better than in the older Heresies -- the ones that still used the K-77. I borrowed some K-77 using Heresies for a big project once, and they sounded much duller than the Klipschorns and 2402s that were in the same room. Every once in a while, a new audiophile friend, who inevitably owned various higher end speakers would come over to my place and be surprised at the good sound coming out of the K-77s, saying something like "Wow, listen to those great highs," or in one case, while fingering the grille cloth over the tweeters, "Have I got a deal for you!" This even happened where I worked, where I had a carefully adjusted "home brew" system using K-77s (actually, in a T-35 incarnation).

I've always liked my Khorns, but there have been a few in stores I haven't liked --- they were not tucked into corners for a nearly air tight seal, and one must have them pressed into corners, or artificial corners, and Klipsch agrees that they sound best with a ceiling 8.5 feet high or higher. For Classical --- Khorns sound the most like the orchestra I played in For Jazz -- superb For Movies -- some speakers have more bass for special effects .... add a sub, if necessary ... I did, primarily for movies For Rock -- I'm no expert, but some have pointed out that the Cornwall has more bass punch --- not the ones I have heard, though. Bass Punch? I LIKE tone controls, and if one desires more bass punch, a few dB of boost on a Khorn will be effective and clean! I have an old cassette tape, recorded concurrently with a Crystal Clear direct to disk Lp, that contains the best version of Fanfare For The Common Man I've ever heard -- played through the Khorns, with the bass turned up a little, the timpani, bass drum, and tam - tam send pulses of air through the room that make everyone's pant legs violently flap in the breeze, and momentarily push the tables and chairs (occupied) out of square. Really! And it is as clean as can be! The peak energy is about 64 watts into each Khorn (according to the supposedly peak reading meter on a former amp of mine), and it used to rattle windows in my former neighbor's house. His house was about 20 feet away. O.K., it took a little bass boost, but I can't imagine a Cornwall doing all that. Caution: be careful with bass and volume boosts, keep your eye on a meter, and don't have long sessions during which your ears/brain may adapt, or you may blow something. I wouldn't try the above with the Reference Recordings version of Fanfare For The Common Man, because the dynamic range on their version is so great that it is harder to select a peak for absolute max.

We did contact two contractors a couple of months ago and informally discussed the project with them. One produced a ballpark guess of $40,000, "+ or -" and the other guessed at somewhere around $75,000 or more, saying that we wanted Cadilac quality construction, and that it would be cheaper to add a whole new room, foundation, roof, and all, than to make the changes we were asking for, while leaving the roof, foundation, framing, siding, etc, alone, except for adding some rigidity near the Klipschorns. We don't have the land to add a room, and we assume that tearing down the existing room and starting over would cost even more, plus creating disposal problems. We thought we were asking for Chevrolet level construction, with the normal West Coast earthquake safeguards (intermittent shear walls in crawl, good nuts/washers on the foundation bolts), plus staggered seam double sheet rock (or sheetrock + plywood, for shear strength), to decrease the amount of midrange and treble the neighbors could hear (stopping the deep bass is beyond our budget). We wondered afterward if this particular contractor had a different hourly rate for "Cadilac" jobs than for "Chevy" jobs. Everyone agreed we needed detailed drawings (but probably not professionally drawn blueprints), but in the course of laboriously producing the drawings, we realized that we didn't know how elaborate we could get, because we had no idea if we could afford the any of the more elaborate designs. We felt the need to get some outside indication of what would be a fair and realistic range of prices for the job (new readers, please see my original post -- the third one back).

We're seeking a way to see if we can afford this. I know there is at least one contractor on the forum, and many of you have hired contractors to put in, or help put in, home theaters or music rooms. We're trying to get a rough idea -- a plausible range (nothing more accurate) -- of what it would cost to get professionals to remodel an existing room into a specific kind of combination music room / home theater / library, in Oregon -- or in your state (please specify, and I'll try to adjust that figure, quite approximately, by comparing regional cost of living data). The room would have no fancy aesthetics, and none of the visible trappings of home theater (decorative lamps, wall designs, etc.), but would have to be built to our specs as to proportions, and be rigid (for Klipschorns as main spks), relatively earthquake safe, and not rattle (even with super-bass from K-horns and a 15" subwoofer). We realize that we will need a permit, approval by an engineer, and perhaps someone to draw better plans than our skill level will allow. We've decided we are not skilled or physically fit enough to do the work except for the kinds of finish work that creaky older people can do -- painting, putting up some bookshelves, diffusers, absorbers, the projector, screen, and audio equipment, staining window frames (yes, there will be 4 windows with blackout shades), etc. We are wondering if this job would cost nearer $40K, $50K, $60K or $70K for labor + materials. We're also wondering what the approximate cost per square foot might be. Here are the provisions: 1) No equipment included in the price -- we would have a separate equipment budget, and use most of the equipment we already have. We are also not counting features such as electrically operable blackout shades at this time. 2) The room size (dictated by the current room and roof) would be about 17' x 25' with a ceiling that would vary in height from about 8' to almost 13.' 3) The existing ceiling is much too low, and is the worst thing about the room, audio wise. It (sheet rock, joists etc.) would have to be taken off, and a new system put in to hold up the existing roof in the "A " shaped front half, so that new sheet rocking (and insulation) could be applied, making the new ceiling follow the "A" shape of the front part of the roof. We're visualizing 2x 6s being sistered along the existing 2 x 4 roof members to make room for the needed insulation, while still allowing maximum ceiling height. The front half of the ceiling would start at about 8 feet and go to about 10' at the peak of the "A." The rear half of the ceiling is would not be "A" shape, and would slope up, following the roof, to a height of about 13.' Some appropriate wiring would need to go to the projector location, and to track lighting. 4) The floor in the front half would need to be taken off, and replaced -- two layers of 3/4" plywood would be fine -- no fancy hardwood flooring needed, because it will be totally covered by carpeting -- that's what's there now, but the plywood is floppy (put in by a former owner). The joists look good and firm. While the floor is off, the foundation bolts should be given the larger, modern, more earthquake safe washers and nuts, shear walling installed in the corners and mid wall area of the crawl space, the air conditioning ducts moved away from the front half of the room where they put convection currents in front of the speakers (a "no no," we gather), and new 20 Amp or greater wiring routed to the subwoofer location, and to the main audio system location. No speaker wires need to be strung; we have that covered. 5) The sheetrock would need to be taken off of the side walls, and the framing inspected. One large window on each side would have to be taken out, some of the area framed in, and these two windows replaced with smaller, beefy, double glazed ones. We will deal with the blackout shades. Near the front of the room, for five feet (only) out from each of the two front corners, where the Klipschorns will live, we would like additional studs inserted between the existing ones, making the resulting studs 8" on-center, rather than 16" as is the case now. We did this in a former house, and got much improved bass and impact/attack from the Klipschorns. If this costs too much, we might get talked out of it, if the walls can be made very rigid some other way. The side walls would then be covered with 2 layers of 5/8 sheetrock (staggered seams), or 3/4 plywood for shear strength, if the code permits, and then just 1 layer of sheetrock. In the rear portion of the room, the walls would have to be extended upward to join the sloping ceiling/roof. Now here's the quirky part. You thought you already read the quirky part? In the front of the room, where the main speakers and roll-down screen would be, we would like to have a baffle wall about 5' high (and 17' wide) built about 21" into the room from the front wall. It would have 8" O.C. 2 x 6 studs and 3/4" plywood front and back. It would join the side walls, providing strong corners for the Klipschorns, and our Belle Klipsch center channel would be embedded -- flush mounted -- in that baffle wall. Above the 5' high level, where the baffle wall ends, there would just be open space (a few studs would go all the way to the ceiling for added strength) with a deep space (from the baffle wall to the original wall) in which we could place various diffusers and/or absorbers by ear, then the whole baffle wall, the Belle (its own grille cloth taken off) and the empty space above would be covered with somewhat acoustically transparent grille cloth (prob Acoustone FR 93). We would handle putting in the non-resonant decorative trim which will divide the space into fabric coverable areas. From the room, with the proper lighting, and everything behind the proper color (experiments are favoring the "theatre black" to match the non-reflective black Belle), this arrangement would look like a fabric covered wall, that would be partly obscured by the movie screen when it is rolled down. 6) We would probably want a new (additional) power box (a ____ amp main) in the garage, dedicated to the audio equipment. What do you think this would set us back?