garyrc

Back to the original question, reworded to use "not localizable:" "Below what frequency is bass not localizable?" I have a 15" Klipsch RSW-15 sub, with the low pass set for 40Hz at 36 dB per octave. It is not often used for straight music listening, but is always used when running a movie, along with Klipschorns, a Belle Klipsch center, and Heresy II surround. The sub is in phase, well integrated, and set a tad lower than flat via acoustical measurements. With the noise signal my AV movie preamp uses to adjust channel levels by sending the noise signal to each speaker in turn, the bass is as localizable as hell, even though set for 40 Hz and below!! It's very obvious where it is. With movie music & effects, the leading edge of the attack of whatever instrument is playing, or Foley is sounding, almost always comes from somewhere else in the sound stage (even though some big bass drums have a fundamental around 40 Hz, a lot of the beater contacting the drum head is above that frequency), and that attack seems to localize the sound away from the sub, and places it wherever it should be. Once in a while, very rarely, the sub gives itself away. When the movie people less than creatively use their famous "bass machine," and it is set for very low frequencies, with no natural instrumental attack, we know where the bass is coming from.

It's my understanding that the AK-5 turns down the tweeter just a tad (a JND?), compared to the AK-4. If so, why? I assume they arrived at the balance of the AK-4 carefully, using their special one-of-a-kind anechoic chamber for Klipschorns. I have a hunch/hypothesis. Years ago (late '60s), someone at JBL (Arspurger, or some such name -- he was one of their top guys) told me that the correct balance on my JBL crossover was at 2.5 to 3 -- just about straight up -- according to repeated measures with instruments, but, since so many recordings had distortion and garbage at the very top of the audible spectrum, many listeners would prefer a setting of about 1 (somewhat attenuated) for the average (lousy) recording. I set my crossovers for 2.75, and spent the next 7 or 8 years crawling behind the speakers to turn the tweeter up and down, bouncing from 2.75 down to 1, and back up again. No, the preamp treble control didn't work as well, because it cut too much from the very top, compared to the middle and lower part of the tweeter's range. Well, recordings are still that way more often than we would like. Some small labels (e.g., Chesky) avoid this, but a few of the biggest German, British, and American labels often do not. Maybe Klipsch found that, with most recordings, a little less of an upfront sound in the treble was preferred by most listeners, and built that into the AK-5, making the Khorn a little more "forgiving." Perhaps the La Scala II that Stereophile loved, but cited as having "reticent treble," also has that tad of attenuation. Just guessing. Can any of you Klipsch staffers let us in on the reason for the slight attenuation of the treble in the AK-5 (assuming it is even true)? Too bad they don't have a remote control that provides a little shelving, with the two positions labeled, "The usual crappy recording," and "A recording made with love, and the taking of pains."

Yeah. You might pull it off with a concrete floor in a basement, but I doubt it. With good speakers, the some of the bass will always go through. About 20 years ago, we built a room within a room in a house, out of concern for the neighbors. We used the principles in Jeff Cooper's Building a Recording Studio (still available, pretty good, and geared toward modifying private residences). We had a floating floor (two layers of 3/4 plywood going opposite directions, on 1 x 4 cheaters, in turn on (partially imbedded in) several layers of celotex, also going in opposite directions, all on top of the existing floor, which was reinforced (necessary!) with Stonehenge-like posts and lintels in the crawl space, and a gargantuan beam going across (pressing up on) the original floor joists, as recommended in an audio magazine at the time (to prevent movement / flexing of the floor, which could absorb bass, if very springy). The floating walls/ceiling were built on top of the floor, so that the inner room was independent of the outer room. The walls were made with a 3/4 ply skin on each side of the studs, and hardwood veneer over that. I think that today, experts might recommend leaving off one of the two plywood skins, and going for an even greater air space (look online for an article called something like "Common Acoustical Myths"). Of course, there was a large and insulating air space between the new and old room walls. Everything was caulked and sealed 6 ways for Sunday, and the seams of the hardwood and the plywood were staggered. The walls were high mass, particularly near the Klipschorn corners, where there were studs 8" on center. Naturally, there were two sets of doors, one for each room, and they were "sound rated," i.e., massive, airtight, with high thresholds that the doors pressed against, and a 360 degree closed cell neoprene super wide gasket for each door. The whole thing was as airtight as we could make it. The treble didn't leak out. The midrange didn't leak out, (at least to the outside world) even at the highest levels. The bass went through. Since I play mostly classical and jazz, it was not as much of a problem as it would be with frequent rockers. Before we even finished the room, it was apparent that the culture was changing. Our neighbors didn't give a damn, and their music went through their thin windows and permeated the neighborhood more than mine, although they got sensitive to my bass for a few weeks after the '89 earthquake -- you could hear that quake coming in the distance, rattling buildings in the distance, as it came ever closer. So once in a while they wondered, "Is it a quake, or is it Gary?" If there is any way to get a house .... with a big yard around it .....

Of course, if you turn the Klipschorns upside down, the former bottom of the bass bin must be against a ceiling that is flat quite a ways out (>5 or 6 feet), or against another suitable surface substituting for the floor, making a good trihedral corner. The bass bin should be supported separately, not letting the mid/tweeter chamber support it (too weak, I think). On the off chance you get an American Style earthquake, the bass bin should be attached to the wall, if it is to be that high. I'd be tempted to just cover the entire corner with grille cloth (removing the cloth on the Khorns) to keep drunks well away. Then you can let those of the Order of the Self-congratulatory Golden Ears guess what kind of speakers you have. Khorns often sound better to them when they don't know what they are listening to. They won't sound weird upside-down. A friend once told me not to reverse the right and left channels, though, or the instruments in the center would be twisted -- First Violins tied in a knot -- it takes all kinds.

The Japanese case had elements of a feud, obviously. Too bad it was Rock. It could have been a never-ending fugue feud. Laws concerning music levels are a legitimate concern to music lovers and audiophiles, however. In my view, if it is during the day, and if it is no louder than one of those annoying leaf blowers -- more annoying than any music anytime -- all is O.K. Rumor has it that some idiotic local laws specify a decibel level, without specifying duration (are we talking average, or peaks?) and without specifying time of day, or night, or day of the week, or distance. Obviously, SPL measurements taken by the police should be taken at least as far away as the property line! I have often heard 80 or 85 dB as being the highest permissible level on the sidewalk, or on someone else's property. What have you folks heard? I feel I do my part by having walls with low sound transmission (high transmission loss) and standard double glazed windows in most of the house, with heavier duty custom made ones soon to go into the music/movie room. There are no other houses really close to ours (I can't imagine ever again living in an apartment, although if they are built right ...... ). In return, I think I have a right to realistic orchestra levels, with very occasional brief peaks sometimes reading 115 dB ("fast" "C" wt), on my Vu meter (needle type). As PWK pointed out to readers of The Dope from Hope, there may also be unread peaks as high as 13 dB higher, or 128 dB, unread due to needle ballistics. Average loud levels are, of course, far lower. Maybe in the '80s. I cut back the level a bit after 11 at night, unless a movie is just ending. But the end of Beethoven's 7th, the last minutes of which are as emotionally close to the last minutes of the sex act as music can get, at least for men, absolutely needs those 115 dB peaks. That is what I'll tell the judge, if I'm ever hauled in on a loud music charge.

For the '90s and the 2000s, What D man said. In Antediluvian times ('60s -- '80s), no matter how many times PWK said it, advertisers, the Blows, and even some of the magazines wouldn't believe that frequency response was less important than low distortion. The public was sold on frequency response. PWK published Klipschorn curves done with a swept sine wave, in an era in which other companies published noise curves (sometimes 1/3 octave averages, sometimes not). Some put a dot at the average for the 1/3 octave (or other) expanse, and connected the dots. The competition's noise curves looked deceptively honest, in that connecting the dots produced some jaggedness, but no fine jiggles and dense zig zags, compared to a swept sine wave and an old chart recorder. Most magazines (with the exception of Audio) followed suit. At least one manufacturer (JBL Professional) let the reader know what was being done (a good thing) by depicting each average as a straight horizontal line for each 1/3 octave tested, the way Stereophile occasionally does in some of their room tests. That was fairer, IMO. In the Audio Papers the Klipsch company published back then, there was an article titled something like "Plain and Fancy Test signals, that concluded that the swept sine was the signal that most closely resembled musical instruments (? or was somehow the "best"). PWK's swept sine wave curves of the '60s and '70s looked like they were smoothed a bit for both intelligibility and to avoid suicide in a dishonest marketplace -- or maybe that's the way those pen and ink chart recorders worked -- I don't know. In any case, there were more squiggles than in the curves of other speaker companies. There was one graph at the time of the introduction of the K- 400 Horn for the midrange, with the K-77 tweeter (EV T- 35 selected by Klipsch for quality control, and matched for stereo), and there was a pair of graphs, comparing SPL loss across the spectrum when moving from 2' to 16' to demonstrate that since the loss, in a room, is much less than whatever law (falls of with the square of the distance in an anechoic environment??) would predict, therefore, all speakers use direct / reflected sound, not just those thus advertised (probably had in mind Bose, JBL Aquarius, and perhaps Empire). In the late '80s, curves were reproduced on the spec sheets, with the Klipschorn being measured in the revolving door corner anechoic chamber. Now, the public is overloaded with information available because of the computer revolution, but seems to know less about audio than ever, as D-man says, A Walmart World. And try to find Khorns, and 3 or 4 brands of other Hi End speakers in the same store, for listening purposes! Now I find out that some manufacturers actively discourage dealers from having certain comparisons available, and a product line can be taken away if there is another dealer (bigger) to close by. In the commercial area, it is no longer the World of Paul Klipsch, Saul Marantz, Rudy Bozak, or any of those guys! Thank goodness we have Roy.

Thanks a million, Roy! Thanks for your trust of our ability to handle information. Interesting -- I think I hear the peaks more than the dips. Are all three plots done at about 3 Meters, or are the midrange and treble ones done closer up? How is the word "standard" being used? Are these plots the average of a sample of Khorns? Just one more question, which may reveal my deep ignorance: what does "bodcaw" really mean? I'm assuming and I Hope, you should pardon the pun, it is the town in Arkansas, but I'm visualizing a fish, bird, food, type of music, or something more graphic. Thanks again!

ka7niq I have heard Klipschorns sound screechy on strings occasionally --- I attributed it to the recording, or over-close micing, because they usually sound fine. I haven't heard Khorns sound tubby in the two houses I've had them in. Others on this forum mentioned that the AK - 4 Klipschorn is sweeter and less "hard" sounding than the AK- 2. I don't think I've heard the AK-2. I originally had either A or AA (1982). It's interesting that you mention the B & W 801 --- When I originally picked the Khorns, I did so after a several day stand off against whatever B & W 801 was around in '82 ... it may have been the F ... anyway it was the runner-up to the Khorn, after eliminating Canton, Altec, Bozak, Bose, Magnapan, Acoustat, DCM, and many others. It was a very close call, between two very different sounding speakers. I actually found it rather disturbing, because the choice could have gone either way. The B & W seemed very well balanced, more forgiving of bad recordings, very "musical," and never gave offense. The Klipschorn sounded more "there" and "live" and "immediate," and captured more of the excitement and air of the orchestra, especially on very dynamic material. And on some string recordings, the live, gutty, rosiny, detailed sheen of the strings came through more forcefully. Now, with our stereo system doubling as a simple Home Theatre, I love some of the dynamic movie soundtracks, and wonder if the B & W would have sounded as exciting. Ribbon speakers can sound beautiful, as can ribbon microphones. Now to look up sfogg, thanks to Dr. Who!

I think the Cornwall nonmetallic horns came in about 1987, when the Khorn ones did. The caps probably do need replacing. As to Levinson, I know one of his associates, John Curl (now still at Parasound?) started with Klipshorns at Berkeley Custom Electronics. I've long thought that Klipshorns produce the nearest sound to the live orchestras I used to play in, in ways specs don't reveal, but ears do. Yes, they need a little EQ -- the fiberglass horn Klipsch now has, and the steeper crossovers (in the case of Khorns, the AK-4) that get rid of the Mid-horn response before it reaches the ringing point Dr. Who mentions (it now deep sixes about an octave below) help a lot. But what I'm really hoping for is the DEQX -- I think it requires tri-amping (maybe it can be inserted earlier in the chain ????) -- but with very versatile EQ and phase correction, it might be just the ticket! Someone on the forum was trying them, but I forget who it was ..... please identify yourself, and update us! But then again, maybe the phase anomalies lend some of that brain tricking sound that makes the Khorns sound orchestral "in ways specs don't reveal, but ears do." Two clues: 1) Once there was a to be unnamed but world famous recording studio in San Francisco where the engineers raved about the great sound of the unadvertised upgrade to the Altec professional coaxes they were using as monitors -- I think they were 604 Es -- until they discovered that the whole batch had been miswired so that the midrange/tweeter units were out of phase with the woofers. 2) There were various popular devices in the 80s that "improved" the sound -- made it more spatial -- by throwing it slightly out of phase. Wasn't one called something like the Aphex Aural Enhancer? But I doubt that phase problems are responsible for the Khorns' remarkably "live" sound, just thought I'd mention it.

mdeneen, you have a private message

Dr. Who, Any advice or helpful hints on how to get the Room EQ Wizard to work? Thanks.

CONVERGENCE. Thanks for the new photo -- What, no "wings" on the A-5s? When they light up the rear of the IMAX screens, the speakers seem to have either no wings, or very small ones, and they put all their trust in subwoofers that don't seem to be keyed into any bass - reinforcing surface. Thus the lack of big bass and power in IMAX that the old Todd-AO / Magna theatres had!??! Still quite interested in the Ampex litt. to be scanned! Thanks again!

Roy, I'm glad you posted the Klipschorn standard LF graph. Now, how about the midrange and treble? We have seen the ones from the late '80s that Klipsch used to include on the spec sheets, and the ones PWK published in the 70s and before. I, for one, would be interested to see how the AK-4 models look different, while expecting only minor changes. We understand that Klipsch's sweeps are not going to be as flat looking as the 1/3 octave noise plots some others run. Wasn't one of Klipsch's Laws that "All speakers measured with noise sources will be flat?" We have seen so many DIYs' plots reproduced here that we won't be shocked! We can take it! We realize that frequency response is not everything, and many of us were attracted to horns by the clean, crisp, effortless sound, rather than FR response. You guys are the ones with the revolving door, corner containing, anechoic chamber, and the great measuring gear, I sure would like to see how a modern Klipschorn measures in there in the midrange and treble!

The one tweeter I blew (in 2001) was ..... on the right. My old McIntosh C28 preamp kept loosing one channel .... the one on the right. Had a phono system that had more distortion/mistracking on the right, no matter who did what to the antiskate, stylus pressure, cartridge change, etc.

I agree with mdeneen. 1) If an artist gets exactly the sound that artist wants, using all of the available means, including distortion, in a world (music and all of the arts) where small differences count, the last thing wanted would be additional distortion to change or mask that fine honed texture. As the two great San Francisco Bay Area mavens of Klipsch horn speakers (Joe Minor and Don Helmholtz) watched distortion become an aesthetic means of Rock, some funny things happened. Joe said something like, "I thought High Fidelity was dead, but all of a sudden more and more people wanted low distortion speakers because the musicians' distortion sounded more authentic on them." I heard that in the very early days, the Dead borrowed Klipschorns from Helmholtz for a concert. Naturally, they were probably too unwieldy to become a permanent fixture, and other manufacturers were coming up with speakers that were portable, with even higher clean SPL. 2) During the transition (no pun intended) from tubes to solid state, JBL warned that there could be such a thing as too much damping. I think that one thing they did with the equalizing cards they sold to match their energizers to their speakers was to provide the amount of damping appropriate to the particular JBL speaker system the consumer told them they would be using. At least that was the advertising.

Does any one measure TIM distortion any more? PWK, c 1977 or so, suggested it be named Otala distortion to honor the man who discovered or first intensely studied it. Has it turned out to be important with certain amps? PWK, at least in the material I read, called Doppler distortion Frequency Modulation distortion ... he didn't call it IM in those articles. He apparently thought it was a very serious problem in most loudspeakers, As to ordinary IM, it was often singled out by advertisers and hobby writers (Martin Mayer) as the worst known type of distortion in amplifiers (all tube, then) in the mid 1950s. McIntosh characterized it as the most noxious type of amplifier distortion, made of byproducts harmonically unrelated to the tones being fed into the amplifier, as opposed to harmonic distortion, which was related i.e., odd or even order multiples. The ear is supreme. Someday, we might be able to factor analyze (and measure!) a few types of distortion that explain all of the major subjective differences we hear.

With either Heritage or Magnapan, try two patches of absorption on the 7 foot ceiling (too low, according to some). For Heritage, place them about where the sound from each tweeter and mid horn would have their first reflection off of the ceiling, and over a larger area (but no where near total!) for Magnapan. 4" Sonex (the big stuff) might be good, or just some Owens-Corning pads covered with a very acoustically transparent, loose weave cloth. The ceiling, because of its proximity, would be one of the highest priority areas to put absorption -- sparingly. Many Home theaters have too much absorption. I would think a thick rug, and patches where the tweeter sound beams hit the ceiling might be enough, with diffusion, rather than absorption, being used elsewhere. Given the nature of modern movie soundtracks (booming bass, high dynamics, special effects, or just a need for good, full range sound in films from Amadeus, to 'Round Midnight, to Madame Butterfly), you might be the most satisfied by using your current system and adding a humongus subwoofer, but make sure it is a match for your super efficient LaScalas (I have a Klipsch RSW-15 -- it works). The La Scalas could use the help in the bass. Then their natural dynamics could make movie watching at your place awesome! If you decide to raise the La Scalas a bit, to make the tweeters more nearly mid screen height, don't raise them too much, because you need to keep the tweeter far from the ceiling -- Klipschorns, as much as I like them, are not recommended for use with low ceilings, one reason being that the tweeter is so high (something like 50" off the floor). If you do raise the La Scalas, do not create a cavity below them. Make an extremely rigid and massive "apron" below them that goes all the way to the floor( 3/4" ply + veneer and 2x 6s). This will help preserve the bass that is above the sub woofer range, and will be handled by your La Scalas, which should probably remain engaged all the way down in the bass, i.e., set for "large" at your control center (see the "aprons" or masks that were used in movie theaters on the thread Hollywood Backlot on the Klipsch forum -- don't remember which section). Some people would recommend extending the apron to the sides of the La Scalas, too. I don't know. If you do, and your La Scalas are properly towed in toward the audience, that will provide some nonparallel surfaces (good), but don't make a focusing concave room wall. Either seal the area behind them, or stuff it with fireproof insulation. See thread entries by mas. Good luck!

Bob, About when do you think the K-77- F you tested was made? I heard that there were some problems with the earlier ones, and that the manufacturer in the Philippines later "got it right." My earliest one (a replacement for a blown M) wasn't as good as my newer ones, by ear -- the older F was less clean and less "airy." As you know, my measurement stuff sucks at the moment, but reads consistently (though wrong?) so my measurements may mean nothing except in the relative levels when changing speakers, but with the test bands from the Stereophile Critics' Choice disk, test section, nearfield (2' on axis), my old F (c 2002 ?) droops comparatively (~~ 2 dB, center of fairly symmetrical needle swing), at the band centered at 12.5 K Hz, and continues to droop just a little more up to 16 K, which is down about 3.5 dB. My more recent configuration F is about flat at 10K, then has just a 1 dB droop at 12.5 KHz, then goes back up to flat at the band centered at 16K. At 20K, both vintages of F and my one remaining M are all down about 8 dB, or more, in the case of the early F.

I think RMS served a purpose, and still does. If some other, better, standard replaces it, so be it, but a vague nickname like "average" without adjectives, or without an always stated operational definition, will be misleading and exploited. I remember the history of RMS, at least in advertising, differently: In the late '50s, when I was in High School, ads would just state "power" with no adjectives attached. A good amp company, like McIntosh, might list "30 wts power at less that .5% distortion (60 wts peak)," but with no other measurement standards or techniques listed. Sometime in the '60s, the field of audio advertising lost what little conscience it had, and started to say that what had been a 30 wt per channel amplifier was now a 60 wt amplifier (summing the power of the two channels, and advertising that), and then it got totally ridiculous: An amp a relatively honest company might rate at 30 wt per channel could be listed at anywhere from 75 wts to over 100 wts, by the average (i.e., dishonest) company depending on the kind of Hocus Pocus performed on the specs. The >100 wt figure might be @ 4 ohms (not the usual 8), Peak power, far beyond rated distortion, only at 1 KHz, with only one channel operating, therefore not taxing the power supply. So, some kind of standard was called for! In the late 60s/ early 70s, the better companies could have settled on the continuous power of a sine wave, just below the point it began to show clipping, but they didn't. Perhaps they felt this would overestimate the usable amplifier -- who knows? They decided on the more conservative RMS power, which, my sources state, turns out to be .707 times continuous sine wave power, or 70.7%, naturally. It seems to me that this would be O.K., if everybody used it, but everybody doesn't. My NAD C 272 power amps measure 171 w/ch continuous, are "rated" at 150 w/ch, and would be about (.707 X 171) 120 w/ch RMS. 120 wts into a single Kilpschorn (conservative sensitivity of 103 dB @ 1w @ 1M), by the way, would produce the equivalent sound pressure level of about 2400 w into a single speaker of typical sensitivity (90 dB @ 1w @ 1M).

BEC, Thanks for all of your informative posts. Did your measuring equipment cost you an arm and a leg? I'm searching for a good way to make both nearfield speaker measurements, and farfield room measurements. The Radio Shack meter has got to go! I back ordered a Beherenger measurement mic, and will try some online analyzers, but may need something better. What do you have? Do you like it?

What everyone else said. A perfectly square floor plan is bad with any speakers you might put in there. Vary the dimensions. I like the Klipschorn corners to be rock solid -- studs 8" on center, double 3/4 plywood/veneer or double 5/8" sheetrock 5 or 6 feet out from the corner, or more -- beyond that distance, the walls can be normal, but solid -- no illsupported paneling! ,,, if you decide to make some walls non parallel, make sure the corners are 90 degrees for 6 or more feet out ....and the floor should be either braced underneath with an extra joist pressing up on the others, going the opposite direction, or a slab floor (with rug). With such a set-up, I had smooth bass response extended beyond specs. The older audio review of the Khorns in AUDIO suggested a thick rug and high ceiling, and I believe it. The Khorns don't have to SIT on a rug (probably shouldn't, if it is spongy), just have a rug IN FRONT of them ... the idea is to keep the tweeter sound from bouncing off of floor and ceiling and the reflections reaching your ears too soon, in the case of the Khorn, before the bass wave gets there. A higher than 8 foot ceiling is therefore a good idea. Do it! Before setting your dimentions, you may want to search for automatic room mode calculators online. I think Dr. Who, or someone, posted one. Put in some diffusion (just bookshelves with artifacts that don't rattle, books and spaces are better than nothing -- I like open ended bookshelves, rather than cases, so the sound can flow through, rather than being blocked by the end pieces -- and keep everything away from the first 6 feet of the Khorn corners). For more, you could put a few diffusers on the ceiling. Many audio rooms nowadays have too much absorption, so you may want to limit it to the rug, any soft furniture, and at the first reflection points (determined by having someone carry a mirror alongthe wall In my view, nothing I've heard beats a pair of Khorns in an excellent room!

Michael, I think Bill Peet was much more of a story person than an animator, but roles were not super tightly defined at Disney. He contributed to the stories, scripts, storyboards of many great Disney films for decades, and was the main story guy on a couple of the later ones during Walt's lifetime [Dalmatians, Sword in the Stone -- they were both based on pre-existing stories (novels)]. He and Walt had their ups and downs, respected one another's talent on several levels, but ..... They often got along like Al and Trey, and finally split. The new book mentioned on this form re: Fantasound (early, creatively used stereo), is pretty good [Walt Disney - the Triumph of the American Imagination], but skimps royally on Fantasound. It produces a balanced picture of Uncle Walt, a diamond in the rough.

Philmays, I assume you are talking about the classic Bozaks of the 1960s and 70s. My experience with them is that the small ones (really medium size, I guess) are quite good (described below), but the giant ones seem to lack some kind of integration. Two different Concert Grands sounded strange, like the transients were not real. Here is a rundown on three excellent speaker systems I heard in the same room at the same time: The small/medium sized Bozak (which consisted of an Infinite Baffle enclosure, a woofer of about 12" as I remember, a cone midrange speaker and two cone tweeters mounted on a strap across the woofer) vs. a JBL S8-like system (15" woofer, 375 midrange driver and "wavy" horn-lens and an 075 ring radiator tweeter) vs. a c1970 Klipschorn Bozak: Very "musical" and forgiving, beautiful reproduction of the cello, as heard at audience distance (rather than by the cellist), and very full and beautiful orchestral sound. One of the other listeners pointed out that it was the only one of the three that seemed to capture the wood sound of the cello. In a way, it had the most and deepest bass of the three, amazing, since it was the smallest, with the smallest woofer in an infinite baffle. I say "in a way," because the other two had more impactive bass. JBL: Startlingly clear! Pristine midrange transients! Perhaps a bit artificial. Very forward. Maybe a bit too much in the very high frequency range, but it sure was fun to listen to. Klipschorn: The best balanced and most natural, to my ears. Also very clear, effortless, and "free floating," as another listener put it (at a different time). The latter two had tight, but real, bass, and the Klipschorn had more of it on big climaxes. They were both more forward than the Bozak, and both had more high frequency sparkle. One rather worn out record I took in was rough and distorted sounding on the JBL and the Klipschorn, but the Bozak pardoned it. Really good records were more "live," more exciting, and more fun on the JBL and Klipsch. It may be a matter of personality. You see which one I ended up with, years later.

One of the Klipsch cartridges, perhaps the Boron, had a nice, smooth, gentle little high end rise from 10 KHz to 20 KHz. reaching about + 5 dB at 16 KHz, and dealers whispered that it provided good EQ for the version of the K-77 that was in the Klipschorn, Belle, LaScala, Cornwall, and even Heresy in those days. The cartridge was bright, but sweet, with rich bass as well. I heard that one, with Klipschorns, and it sounded great, better than the Ortofons I was in love with, and better than the Shure V15 -V on everything but the most ridiculously overcut records. With the Klipsch (Boron model?) good records sounded better! There was some hope that the Klipsch and a few other fine cartridges would vastly improve bad recordings, but, no, crappy records were still crap. The one constant in the industry is the ability to produce a number of recordings that sound terrible on any equipment -- how do these ever get out of the factory?

Megain, Oldtimer, Who, etc. A CHURCH pipe organ's biggest pipe usually produces 32 HZ. A THEATER organ sometimes has a 16 Hz pipe. In the old Fox Theater in San Francisco (torn down by shortsighted Ferengi in 1962) the 16 Hz pipe used to cause plaster to fall from the ceiling, so they put up a net to catch it. The theatre would seem to roll back and forth a bit, the walls would creak, and out-of-towners would wonder if this was the beginning of The Big One. I'm not sure if there were "beats" at 1/2 the frequency, but I don't think so .... I heard of a theater somewhere that had two 16 Hz pipes, so (do I understand this correctly?) if they weren't tuned to exactly the same frequency, there might be beats at 8 Hz, or so? A theater like that might knock itself down. Grace Cathedral in S.F. had two organs -- one at either end of the cathedral that could answer one another antiphonally. Outrageous! One reason I turn the RSW -15 sub off some of the time on Classical and Jazz recordings, is that too much "Original Hall Rumble" comes through during quiet passages. Even the Klipschorns alone sometimes reproduce too much room rumble, and too many cluncks, booms and pulses as the conductor tromps around on the podium. Some of my organ CDs have very little deep bass. Can anyone recommend some?