garyrc

Trey, I guess somebody is making a count here, as well as collecting our emails, so ..... email sent! And thanks to all.

The reduction in SPL with distance in a room Average vs peak levels re: 1w/1m levels The reduction in SPL with distance in a listening room (rather than in free air) is controversial and, of course, varies with room acoustics and room volume, not just distance. In the 1970s, JBL sought to provide an efficiency measure that would be useful to the average, not particularly technical listener. They came up with an average listening position (15 feet away from speaker in a so called typical room) figure that was 13 dB below the 1W / 1M figure, which they also used. So, the D130, one of their speakers that had a sensitivity of 103 dB at 1w at 1M without crossover (selected by me for this example for closeness to Khorn efficiency, but JBL just used the midrange at the time) was depicted as producing 90 dB at 1w, in the room @ 15 feet. Using this method, the Khorn would produce about 91 /92 dB with 1 watt, in JBL's room, @ 15 feet. The "average level" of my full orchestra music hovers around 80 to 90 dB in loudish passages -- probably very few use an average level of 104 dB (except with Rock)...BUT it's those peaks you gotta watch. They are 108, 110, sometimes 115 dB as read on a Rat Shack meter with funky Vu ballistics -- PWK told us that there were sometimes brief unread peaks 13 dB or more above what a waving Vu needle could register. That gives us 123 dB unread and extraordinarily brief peaks, with an average level of about 90 dB! The good news is that peaks that brief can sometimes pass without clipping, even if they as much as 10 dB (~~ coincidentally about 10 times the wattage) beyond the RMS power of a very good amp. So they say.

My first High Fidelity speaker system was a Karlson enclosure my dad made me in 1959 or so, containing a JBL D130 extended range speaker ("the worlds most famous speaker") that was 54 dB EIA (the same efficiency in the lower midrange as the Klipschorn, 104 dB, 1W , 1M), with a JBL 075 ring radiator tweeter mounted on top of the enclosure. They were quite punchy. Peaky but punchy. CU said that the D130 needed only 0.9 watt to equal the then new AR speaker at 20 watts. I think the Karlson's front and back loading increased that a bit in the upper bass. People walking by on the sidewalk (30 feet from the house) used to come knocking at my basement door to hear the Karlson a little better. I eventually changed to JBL c34 horn enclosures when I "went stereo." They were smoother, but not as much fun. Years later the Khorns provided the best of both worlds, and then some.

Hey, forum folk -- can these power needed calculations for solid state and tube amps into speakers of varying efficiencies be right? Someone (this thread is soooo long!) brought up the issue of what we should consider "low efficiency" in speakers today. A related issue is whether 3.5 w tube (SET) amps could adequately drive them with all kinds of music. In my view, to know what SPL (@ 2.83V -- 1wt into 8 ohms -- @1 Meter) constitutes "low efficiency" in 2006 (or for that matter, what SPL constitutes "high efficiency," today) we would need to know the efficiency of the speaker that falls at the efficiency median. Calculating the median would require a large, fairly collected sample, as would calculating the mean (arithmetic average), but I suspect that the mean would be inappropriate because it is over-influenced by extreme scores. Lacking that sample, I would say that the efficiency I see most often (this would be my impression of the mode) in everything from the ads of the cheap brands, to the Audio Advisor, reviews in Stereophile, etc., to the various Internet sources is about 90 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 Meter. My harsh inclination is to consider a speaker that needs twice the amplifier power in watts (the equivalent of 3 dB more) as a 90 dB speaker to produce a given SPL to be "low efficiency," and one that needs only half the power to be "high efficiency," So, speakers below 87 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 M would be low efficiency, and those above 93 dB @ 2.83V @ 1M would be "high efficiency." Now, if my peak reading meter can be trusted, my Klipschorns usually use much less than a watt, but peaks @ 6.3 wpc are not uncommon for great surges in classical music, or explosive transients (I like 'em to sound dangerous) in almost any kind of music in our big room. On occasion, we've needed a bit more than about 12 wpc (yes, usually on both channels with full orchestra peaks, varying and alternating as to which channel was highest) --- peaks to be sure, but lingering about 1/4 or 1/5 of a second, and repeated over and over. One time we used 25 wpc. To match the peak SPL my family and I were occasionally enjoying @ 12 wpc into a Khorn (104 dB @ 2.84V@1 M): 1) A slightly low efficiency speaker [87 dB @ 2.83V (1 wt @ 8 ohms) @ 1 Meter] would need approximately 640 watts, for about 1/4 or 1/5 of a second at a time, from somewhere. That somewhere might be from a really good 300 watt solid state amp, with 3 dB+ real dynamic power. If we take into account the currently popular notion that good tube amps can produce pleasantly distorted instantaneous peaks up to 6.25 times the power of their solid state cousins of the same RMS rated power -- let's make it 7 times -- we would need 300 divided by 7, or a really good tube amp of about 40 watts (42.86 watts). 2) With what I'm calling a typical efficiency speaker (90 dB) one could get away with a really good 150 wpc solid state amp, or a really good 20 wpc tube amp. 3) With what I'm calling a high efficiency speaker (one that just barely qualifies @ 93 dB @ 2.83v @ 1M) really good 75 wpc solid state amp, or a really good 10 wpc tube source might do. 4) And with Klipschorns, to get those 12 watt peaks we enjoyed, a really good 6 wpc solid state amp could be used, if one existed, and a really good 6 divided by 7, or 1 watt tube amp ( .857 watts) could be used for each channel. As I asked before, can this be right? But I'm made a lot more comfortable by the > 12 x (> 10 dB+) extra headroom I have over the 12 watt peaks by using 150 wpc amps. Because what if a big peak comes as a surprise, and we go way over 12 watts? I like 'em to sound dangerous.

Dr. Who, maxg, Dean, Carl ... As expected, in different listening rooms, my Khorn bass response varies highly with the mass and rigidity of construction (and also with acoustics, of course) ... in some rooms, the unaided bass response is really quite amazing. In our old house, with high mass double 3/4 plywood + hardwood veneer walls, over studs 8" on center, and with the Stereo Review recommended beam in the crawl space pushing up against the floor, across the joists, to prevent floor flexing, along with a couple more post and lentil systems down there, making the crawl space look like a murky Stonehenge, with the Khorns sitting directly on the floor above, with the carpet cut away in a triangle shape to accommodate them to prevent any rocking [whew, what a sentence] the bass with the Khorns alone (from listening position) was actually slightly elevated (compared to 1KHz level) at both 35Hz, and even at 31.5 Hz. Below that, it dropped like a rock. I think it was + 1 dB at 35 Hz, and about + 0.25 dB at 31.5 Hz. It was + 3, or so, at 40, and above that there were various moderate dips and peaks, with a fairly big, gently wavy, peak from about 90 to 150/175 Hz. We never had a subwoofer in that house. The difference in the bass before and after that remodel was amazing, without any in-room acoustical devices. Our new house has normal walls and a floor that gives just slightly (but passed inspection--they are evidently allowed to be a little springy, if the're strong), and the Khorns are temporarily on the carpet, which allows some slight movement and shuddering when I really crank it up. This all will soon change, when we redo the music room, making it like the one in our former house, complete with 8" O.C. studs, rigid, high mass walls, and Stonehenge in the rather shallow crawlspace (this time, there will be no room for fat Druids or even the skinnier Stone Agers). But for now, without the firming up and massing up, the same unaided Khorns, at listening position, are much worse -- down something like 9 or 10 dB at 31.5, down about 6 dB at 35, down about 5 dB at 40, etc. When we remodel, we'll make the response as good as possible with the Khorns alone, then add in the RSW-15 sub quite judiciously, with the Khorns still running full range. Even now, with the somewhat floppy boundaries, adding in the RSW-15 Sub, cutting in at 40Hz, with the Khorns operating over the full range, as described in my recent post, we get acceptable response to 20 hz, but not quite as clean down there as I would like. The Khorns and the sub seem to work very synergistically, but it took days of futzing around with them. The music setting (lower sub setting than with movies) gives us very smooth response from 25 to over 100 Hz, with 20 hz down about 5 dB -- much more synergy at that level than I expected, even though the Khorns alone at 20 are very, very attenuated and dirty. With both speaker systems running, there is a very slight swaybacked dip at about 40 to 63Hz. The sub makes only a very slight contribution at 63 Hz, and much more @ 40 and below. To address maxg's point, the lowest note on the piano (fundamental of 27.5 Hz, with plenty of harmonics) sounds great, and very much itself with live vs recorded trials, with a U47 fet condenser mic, which is not spec'd below 40. We also reproduce a lot (too much) room rumble with our own recordings, professional ones and even those by the lofty Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile. When we remodel, I predict that the rigidity, mass, attention to room modes, etc., will help the Khorns to the degree that we will turn the sub down a bit more, at least for music.

Dean: Finally got RSW-15 Sub to sound good with Khorns by aiming the active end of sub back toward one Khorn (RSW is against the wall), bouncing off angled front of Khorn and no doubt creeping through KH side grille all the way to corner (Belle takes up center position, therefore can't put sub there) getting in phase, so both drivers are moving cooperatively, sub set at -3 or -4 dB (relative) for music, and flat for movies, x-over at 40 Hz. The preamp is set to give the full range (inc deepest bass) to the Khorn, while giving deep bass only to the sub. I had to laboriously slide sub back and forth along the wall a bit to tune ... ended up about 30" from edge of Khorn and about 60" from room corner behind Khorn. Combo is pretty damn flat all through bass down to 20 Hz in music position, and pretty tight, since Khorn is handling the leading edge of most bass attack, including the beater to head impact of timpani and bass drum. All: Isn't TIM distortion one of the primary drawbacks to too much feedback? Is that just another way of describing the poor transients you folk are mentioning? I never hear TIM mentioned anymore. PWK wanted it named after the person who wrote the papers of about it in the late 70s .... Otala? Olata?

tkdamerica: There are 1,000 stories in the naked city... ... and, in the old Rolling Stone article [I Have Been to the City of Hope, And My Ears Are Open Wide] there is a story of a nearly naked PWK, sweating it out in a deliberately over heated room, probing his calculator with instruments to try to find out why the calculator manufacturer cautioned that it would not work well in very hot weather. The man was one of those delightfully eccentric originals. Just for clarity: As I remember, the reason PWK gave for suggesting the consumer not get the upgrade, was that the upgrade was only a little newer in design than his Khorns... I think it was implied that, on the average, people might be better off waiting for more than one upgrade, before going to the trouble and expense of installing new parts. When I find the book that reproduced PWK's letter, I'll let you know if I remembered incorrectly. I waited 24 years to upgrade my Klipschorns!

Every company makes at least a few mistakes ... with Klipsch I get the impression that those mistakes are rare flukes. I have always had excellent customer service and technical service from Klipsch -- and one spectacular piece of good will from JBL. Klipsch replaced an entire Belle when I discovered that the first one had been damaged in shipping. Like all Belles, it had to be constructed on special order, and it arrived in a few weeks. The tweeter and mid drivers had new serial numbers (didn't look at the woofer), and the enclosure was brand new. There were honest options, completely without sales pitch, from Trey on whether to replace just one, or two, K-Horn tweeters when I blew one up in 2001 (music didn't blow it; it was a stupid mistake on my part -- forgetting where the volume was set on a test tone). Fast shipping, too! There were detailed instructions, with many helpful hints from Steve Phillips -- three emails -- on installing the AK-4 upgrades in my K-Horns recently. Many years ago, there was a very long telephone conversation with Roy Delgado, when I was deciding on rear channels (then ambiance only with a Lexicon), and considering EQ ("Mr. K doesn't like equalizers"). And now, we have two Klipsch representatives actually inviting feedback about customer service on the forum ... including Amy readily agreeing that there should have been better communication regarding the complaint that started this thread. Finally, there was PWK writing personal letters to customers from time to time, including the one urging a consumer to make a donation to charity, rather than buying a minor upgrade. Now, for JBL. About 1969, I was installing one of their 075 ring radiator tweeters over a movie screen when I dropped it, and it went crashing against the concrete floor far below. The orange juice squeezer-like horn had its center point pushed in and the ring / voice coil assembly was thrown out of alignment. Naturally, their warranty did not cover damage by customers, so they predicted they would have to replace the assembly for a $16 fee (about $65, in today's dollars?). They said they would bill me. I sent off the tweeter, and about a week later, a box arrived, UPS Air, at my door. "That was quick," I thought. In the box there was a note, which I framed and displayed for a few years: "Your tweeter would have been a pain in the *** to repair, so have a new one, with a new warranty, on us."

JetSnake, It suddenly dawned on me that since you put a space between "Klipsch" and "horn," you maybe referring to any Klipsch speaker that is at least partly horn loaded, rather than specifically and exclusively the Klipschorn (nickname Khorn). "Big box" dealers that don't carry the Klipsch Heritage line, and magazines and online sources that don't review them, occasionally don't even know the true Klipschorn exists (it was once reported on this forum that a salesperson was asked if the store he worked for carried, or could get, Klipschorns, and he said, "all of these Klipsch speakers are Klipschorns" (!) One European critic failed to take into account that the true Klipschorn has undergone many changes over the years, different drivers, mid horns, tweeters, tweeter mounting, internal wood structure of the bass horn, and many changes in crossover networks. Yes, Klipsch characterizes the changes as minor, and in detail only, but the newer ones really sound different. I can only vouch for real Klipschorns (1982 and c 2004 upgrade), Belle Klipsch (c 2005), which are both fully horn loaded (Belle no longer available new), and the Heresy II (partly horn loaded). None are harsh with good recordings and amps, with the exception of borderline bad violin recordings (see my earlier post in this thread).

I don't think the Khorns would be overkill. I sometimes run movies on mine, and modern soundtracks are fine, super dynamic, and fairly sparkle. Classic soundtracks (magnetic stereo from 50s, 60s, 70s) are not as impressive, though some were better in theatre than modern ones. They sometimes sound better on more modest spks, where the expectations are not as high.

Of course, not all SS amps sound anyway near the same. A few are intended to sound softer, more tube like, but with higher RMS power. The earlier SSs I happened to hear (when they were new) sounded unbelievably harsh. Even a great name like Marantz (before Saul sold it, left the company, or died, I think) made a very harsh and thin sounding 80 wpc power amp. Compared to my Dyna 40 wt Tube and McIntosh 40 wt Tube, it sounded hard, thin, metallic, and terrible-- I couldn't believe how terrible -- directly compared on Khorns, JBL 4350 pro studio monitors (their big one of the era), and even on the more forgiving Bozak Concert Grands. I never heard a Pioneer SS amp that I particularly liked, but I may not have heard the model (Pioneer SA 6500) that Pauln has been so carefully evaluating (thanks, Pauln). In the 80s, 90s, & 00s, some SS amps were fuller and silkier. The Luxman L 580 (100 wpc) integrated was warm and tube like, but more precise sounding than the tube models I happened to compare it to (c.1980), and the 1988 Yamaha 135 wpc power amp was more than adequate -- bright, but not harsh. The NAD 272 150 wpc power amp (c. 2002) is slightly better, with higher resolution. As to preamps, my old Dyna Pas-3 Tube model (1970s) gets dragged out of moth balls from time to time when other preamps are in the shop, and it will equal, or surpass them all, except it has way too much hiss for K-horns. Hey, Pauln ... if you ever get a hold of a Luxman L 580, I'd love to hear your assessment of it vs SET, on very dynamic material.

I've had Klipschorns since 1982. Acoustic guitar is better on them than any other speaker I've heard (and I've heard many of the golden ears' favorite speakers). So are all other instruments, and massed instruments, except violins, which can be a little harsh -- occasionally. But, I wonder why .... especially because I have never heard a harsh violin, or set of violins, on second generation tapes (from masters) I used to bring home, and, I think, never on tapes at all, and rarely on vinyl, with my old Ortofon moving coil, all played through the same Khorns. 1) Could it be something about the CD medium that the Khorns are just revealing? The violin harshness occurs on one out of, say 20, violin CDs, and quite rarely on other media. 2) Could it be the accurate sound of micing a passionate violinist way too closely, and, yea, verily, accurately revealed microphone diaphragm strain, even unto the barely perceptible onset of diaphragm crashing -- too subtle for most cone or dome tweeters to reveal, with their consonant, rich, but blurring harmonic sidebars in the way? Oh, yeah, I have also heard harshness very occasionally when a tenor (man, not sax) was entirely too close to the mic.

Oh, I'd have to add Star Trek: The Next Generation to the "best of all time list" in my previous post, especially with its imaginative scripts and wonderful stereo recording of the theme-- sounded great at more than 100 dB -- much more

Best Shows: In Production: Boston Legal Grey's Anatomy House All the CSIs Of All TIme: Northern Exposure Ally McBeal The West Wing The Practice (at least the early years) MASH All in the Family Honorable Mention for Premiering 3 Channel Stereo (TV center, FM Left, AM Right) in 1959, and always having an eye to the technical, including pushing color TV on unwilling networks, and providing an A/B comparison of regular broadcast and the first publicly aired satellite transmission (an image of the face of Uncle Walt), the Disney TV hour (Disneyland, Walt Disney Presents, The Wonderful World of Color). The 1959 3 Channel Stereo show was the Peter Tchaikovsy Story (a bit sappy, but with great music and glorious stereo) and a promo for Sleeping Beauty, with its 6 channels (70 mm format) mixed down to three. My wife and I were 11 years away from meeting -- were 400 miles apart, both in High School, but we were both following Walt's instructions setting up the three channels, and dragging our families into the "sweet spot" in front of the TV. Like minds.

I would much appreciate some input from you technically minded folk on the following. Also, what kind of power treatment/protection/regulation do you have, and how do you like it? I'm about to attempt to provide clean, adequate, steady power for the Music Room / Home Theatre, so I'm looking for the correct power treatment, perhaps including a UPS, at a less than astronomical price (under $1,000???). At the moment I just have Monster surge protectors (HTS 1000 mk II). Power Treatment & Dynamics: I've heard that certain units interfere with dynamics, underpower transients, etc,. especially when power amps are plugged into them (I have 7 channels of amplification). Although I have very efficient speakers, eventually I will have a projector in the room, and perhaps some other big power draws. Since the room is large, the SPL, therefore power needs will be higher than some K-horn users need, and the surrounds are less efficient. On a few outrageous occasions I have put readable peaks of 25 wpc into the K-horns, with the briefest peaks presumably higher. What do you folks think of the notion that dynamics are interfered with by some of these devices? Do some brands/models limit dynamics, while others do not? HUM To make matters worse, I have hum. The proximal source is the AV/tuner preamp (which has been checked out by the manufacturer), and the hum is independent of volume control settings (except at volume levels that would convert the house into a crater). The odd thing is that the hum level varies from time to time (time of day?). Sometimes I can just barely hear it when the equipment is on, with no music. Other times it is obvious (I would say 6 - 8 just noticeable differences louder than the "quiet" level mentioned above). Might this mean it is coming into the AV Tuner/preamp's vast circuitry through the air from some outside source? Or through the power line? I have tried everything the dealer and manufacturer have recommended, including checking lead dress, getting rid of potential ground loops, etc. Amperage, separate legs, boxes, etc. Should I install all 20, or 30, or 45 amp circuits, including the wiring? Should the projector be on the same or a different leg? Should I install a separate power main just for audio? Should I feed the projector from this separate power box, or not?

Trey, can you give us a heads-up if Stereophile (or any other mag) borrows a pair of Klipschorns? Also, do you know when the LS II review will be printed? I get the impression that they let the manufacturer read the review first, so that they can comment in Manufacturer's Comments. Why would they start with the LS II? Why not start with the one that is full range, the Khorn? Do they not know that the Khorn has been upgraded in its crossover, etc., in the last few years? At least one European reviewer (can't remember the name), in a review of someone else's horn seemed to think that the Khorn has been unchanged for many decades.

I didn't go on the Pilgrimage, but would be interested in the DVD!

Tom, I guess what I was visualizing was the first generation 1" or 2" 30 ips analog tape being mixed down and sweetened in the process; the second generation analog tape (the sweetened one) might not be used in the transfer to CD, because it would have one more generation of distortion on it .... now if the transfer people did their own digital mix down from the first generation tape (as in ADD), and didn't happen to hear the original mix down, with the original artist's and producer's final, tender loving mix, they might remain unaware of its potential. Offhand, I can't cite examples of hi tech remasters that this happened to, but here are three ordinary CDs that fail utterly to come up to the quality of the original, when played on the same amplifiers & speakers, and in the same room: 1) Original Lp Surrealistic Pillow, much better than the CD I have (not a true remaster). 2) Film (VHS HI FI video cassette) 'Round Midnight, infinitely superior to the congested CD 3) Film (DVD) Shakespeare in Love much better in every way, especially more "open," and "airy" than the grounded CD. Ironically, films on tape or DVD would be expected to be at least one generation farther away from the original music tracks than CD, since the films must have dialog and sound fx mixed in. Which is supposed to be the better medium for sound -- the sound portion of an ordinary DVD that also has the visual portion on it, or an ordinary CD? I honestly don't know about the comparitive audio resolution and other qualities, and would like to. Sadly, any of the early Dylan Lps seem clearer and more articulate than his latest CD.

I get the feeling that those who remaster have (sometimes) not heard the original versions as they were on Lp, and assume that the quality was not very good. It should be SOP that they listen -- and savor -- the Lp, with a good cartridge, to appreciate the artfulness of many of the originals, before attempting a remaster. The same goes for the people who transfer old movies to DVD. It seems to me that the magnetic track movies of the 1950s & 60s, as well as the Lps of the 60s and 70s are often not near as good as the originals (which I have, in the case of Lps!).

My old recording teacher was in the business from about 1939 on ... he pointed out that digital is young (he said this in about 1986), and recordists had many decades to learn how to baby and get the best out of the various forms of analog: records (mono & stereo), magnetic tape, magnetic film soundtracks, and the old optical soundtracks. They managed to develop techniques to make all of them, except the old optical soundtracks (not Dolby optical), sound excellent, but it took time to get to the point of reliably achieving FM, which he said was the industry term for Fu**ing Magic.

I have used the following Solid State amps with my Klipshorns; they are rank ordered for quality, with #1 being the best sounding. 1) Luxman L 580 100 wpc integrated amp. Best sound, slightly warm. 2) NAD 272 Power amp, possibly higher resolution than the Luxman, above, very good sounding, but not as warm as Luxman. The NAD got an excellent review from The Absolute Sound. It is rated at 150 wpc, the equivalent into a Klipschorn of about 2,000 wpc into a typical speaker of 90 dB / 2.83 wts / Meter. Rocks the floor, creates a wind in the listening room that will flap one's pants legs with timpani and the like (not exaggerating). 3) Yamaha 135 wt power amp. Not as good, but still O.K. On the meter ("peak reading," Yamaha claims) very loud was 6.3 watts -- once I got it up to 25 wts, with all the doors and windows shut tightly, and neighbors three houses down let me know they enjoyed the music (Mahler). Don't buy a 25 wt amp though, because there are superbrief unread peaks that are much higher, in theory. 4) While one of the above amps was in for repair, I used a Marantz solid state 16 wpc amp! It wasn't terrible, but it didn't sound nearly as good as any of the above. Paul Klipsch used to amuse himself at Hi Fi shows by driving a Klipschorn with a hidden, battery operated, transistor radio (probably 3 wts), getting it good and loud, and then pulling it out and revealing it. That was as much a demonstration of his personality as it was of his speakers. When he switched over to a nice McIntosh or Marantz tube amp what the listeners heard was higher quality, rather than higher volume. I don't recommend this, though, because low powered amps driven into clipping can annoy or burn out tweeters.

Thanks, CONVERGENCE! The Lansing Heritage site was a good read. There was actually a record store in Oakland -- Stairway to Music -- that used a JBL "scoop" for people to audition their Lps on! He had the "scoop" with two 154c woofers and a 375 with horn and lens mounted on it. Do I need to say that the man was a fanatic? Fanatic, but very helpful ... Gene had (has?) a photographic memory, and if you asked for a hard to find recording, chances were that he not only knew it, but knew its number, "Oh that would be Col 4018 -- I can get it for you!" The three Todd-AO theaters I was familiar with, The Coronet, the Alexandria, and the Taravel, all had ever so much more bass than Gene's JBL "Scoop" would put out. Granted, Todd-A0 soundtracks didn't roll off the bass like Lp manufacturers were forced to, to prevent mistracking, and to get a full length classical piece on one disk, and granted, Todd-A0 had five channels behind the screen (and one routable surround), so there was probably some woofer synergy in reproducing bass, but I'm wondering if some Todd-AO theaters used a "Super Scoop" that wasn't mentioned in the Lansing heritage article?

Oh, I forgot to mention Fantasia 2000, when, and only when, played in DTS. Although the sequences vary in quality, and are not, in general, as good as those in the original Fantasia of 1940, there are some very impressive ones, with the animation and music fusing well, and the orchestra recorded wonderfully all except for the first selection (the Beethoven), in which there is some compression. If the final selection, Stravinsky's Firebird, is played at high SPL, and in DTS, there is one moment in which audience members will jump out of their skins -- I don't recommend it for those with heart conditions. By the way, those interested in the history of movie audio might want to check an article in Scientific American (Peck, 1940) on the sound for the original 1940 Fantasia, which was the first time large numbers of people heard stereo (in a few theaters; New York, San Francisco, LA, etc.) An old sound recording teacher of mine helped set it up in San Francisco, and said that in that city, there were 96 different sound locations in the theater, fed from three discrete tracks, and manipulated -- I never was clear on whether the manipulation was automated (knowing Disney, it probably was) or handled by live mixers in the theater. My teacher said the effect was hypnotic. There was always at least some subtle outrigger ambiance from the side, which made the orchestra sound spacious, and sometimes the outrigger speakers were used creatively. And some people think "surround sound" came in with Dolby (1970s), or Cinerama (1952)!! Leopold Stokowski had been part of the landmark stereo recordings at Bell Labs, and introduced stereo to Disney, who decided to allow it to move around the screen to follow the animation at certain moments. A few times, part of the music left the screen. At one moment a goddess (Artimis?) bends the crescent moon like a bow and shoots a gleaming arrow up toward the right top of the screen, and music follows the starry arrow to the edge of the screen and beyond, passing across the proscenium arch, when CUT, the audience is now traveling with the arrow, which we now see in a medium close shot as comet-like, with stardust or glowing ice streaming off of it, as the orchestral sound whooshes past both our ears. Old Uncle Walt called that kind of stereo Fantasound. My old teacher said that the original Fantasound protocols had been lost, but I hope they have found them by now. I haven't bought that DVD yet, to find out.

Thanks, Roy! A straightforward answer, not so curved after all. Your forthcoming communication with us about so many matters reminds me of that of PWK, back in the day. Since Klipshorns must be used in a corner, it seems reasonable to me that 1/8 space would be a realistic environment in which to test them. The corner, in a sense, can be considered to be part of the Khorn. They still wouldn't have the gain due to the absent two walls and ceiling, which are not "part of" the speaker. From your example, it seems that in a real listening room with the room gain due to the two extra walls and the ceiling, they would be slightly louder, with the same input. If I'm getting this, if for a garden variety (non-corner) speaker, AES says to test in 1/2 space, then those speakers would also be expected to be a little louder in a room, due to room gain, which may be why some manufacturers (e.g., Paradigm) specify two ratings -- a presumably 1/2 space one, and an "in a room" one that is about 2 dB louder. Thanks again!

Yeah, Frzninvt, and SCOOTERDOG I know what you mean .... I can get a lot deeper bass than can most theaters with my Klipschorns working in the "enhanced bass" position which allows them to still work throughout their range, in room corners built with high mass, studs 8" on center, walls, while my Klipsch RSW-15 subwoofer operates from 40 Hz down. Separately, the Khorns work to 31.5 (actually about 1 dB elevated there, thanks to the firm walls??) and the sub works to 20 Hz (down 4 - 5 dB compared to flat at 25 Hz), but together, they seem like they help one another create bass, and the bass has more authority than with either alone, and is only 2 - 3 dB down at 20 Hz, even though the Khorn really is not supposed to contribute anything at that frequency! But, while I don't know of a theater that can do 20 Hz or sub 20Hz very well, there were -- for one brief shinning moment -- and still may be, somewhere, 70 mm 6 channel magnetic sound equipped theaters that can produce more convincing awesome power (SPL) than we can with our Klipschorns and subwoofers. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this occurred in 4 theaters out of maybe one hundred, and certainly would not apply to the execrable optical soundtracks in any theater. At first (1955 - 1976), such theaters, with huge "winged" speakers, with 5 channel stereo behind the screen (plus surround in the sides and back) with 4 - 15" horn loaded woofers per channel, with the woofer horns flush mounted between auxiliary wings to increase bass response, had a nominal cut off of about 35 to 40 Hz. When they all played at once, those 20 horn loaded woofers seemed to simulate much deeper bass. And, they were extraordinarily powerful -- the thunder, wind, and earthquake during and after the crucifixion in the 70 mm version of Ben-Hur shook the theater floor and caused a breeze to blow through the audience. On the DVD of that film the peaks are compressed -- this is true of many films on DVD! Even the repeated not-very-loud dropping of a tree trunk-like wood pillar during makeshift street repair in the 70 mm Porgy and Bess shook the floor of the theater with authority. Later (1977 to when 70 mm 6 channel mag all but disappeared in the 1990s) the same theaters installed subwoofers, in addition to the above described systems, but that was about the time that soundtrack quality began to go down, reaching a low point with the harshest digital tracks about 1990. Now, the quality is coming back up, but still without the warmth and richness of the best analog magnetic soundtracks. Last year, I saw Phantom of the Opera in a Regal Cinema, which means that they could be using Klipsch cinema speakers. It was a digital multi channel presentation. When the DVD came out, I tried Phantom at home. After some fine tuning, I'd say the sound was about the same. Of course, their picture was vastly higher resolution, and was much bigger on my retinas, than with my 32" (good) TV, but, as in almost all modern theaters, it could have been brighter. Bring back carbon arc lamps! And 70 mm projection, too. You might be interested in some of the posts in Upgrades and Mods under the rubric of Hollywood Backlot. In case you don't go there, look at this, and watch for it in a theater near you! http://www.superdimension70.com/