garyrc

To Roy "bodcaw boy" ... I talked to you on the phone when I was first setting up my old sound room in, say, 1983 (?). You were very helpful, thanks, and you let me know that "Mr. K doesn't like equalizers." Now that you are on this thread, can you give me your take on why there are discrepancies in the rating of either the sensitivity or efficiency of the Klipschorn, Belle, or La Scala (from 98 dB to 105 dB)? Here is an excerpt from the post in which I first raised the question: Does anyone know why the following minor discrepancies in sensitivity ratings exist? Are they due to Klipsch's later anechoic measures with a revolving door corner matching the industry's very old "midrange only" measures more closely than present day magazine reviewers can get with wide frequency range SPL measures, without a revolving door corner in an anechoic chamber? This is mostly just a matter of curiosity on my part. I wonder if the Khorn at its max continuous 100 watts really puts out SPL equivalent to a typical, 90 dB @ 1w @1m, speaker soaking up 2667 watts continuous, if only it could! Klipsch consistently rated Klipschorns, Belles, and La Scalas at 104 dB @ 1wt @ 4 feet, in the past. Now, as of 2006, the new Khorns and La Scalas are rated at 105 dB @ 1M], yet two European reviews rate them at 98 dB. The old Audio review by Heyser(1986) rated the Khorn at "well over 98 dB." The article states that his tests using free field response used a simulated free field using computer software. He follows his "well over 98 dB" statement with, "This system really will give the rated 104 dB SPL at a distance of 4 feet into a room," but doesn't say whether this was a guess, an enthusiastic expression of faith, or the results of a test. Back when both Klipsch and JBL were including EIA ratings in their specs, both the Khorns and the JBL D-130 (no network) were rated at 54 dB EIA. The two companies agreed fairly closely as to what 54 dB EIA translated to; Klipsch listed it as equivalent to 104 dB, 1wt, 4 feet, and JBL listed it as equivalent to 103 dB, 1wt, 1M. I think, but don't know, that the EIA measurements used a narrower range of frequencies than modern measures.

Interested at all in theater (cinema) speakers (esp Altecs) and sound or big screen (e.g., 70 mm) theatrical presentations vs. Home Theater? Please see the posts in Updates and Modifications (not sure how we ended up there) in the thread: HOLLYWOOD BACKLOT

CONVERGENCE: I think there is a huge market for 70 mm theaters in big cities. The experience cannot be duplicated on any other format. I agree completely. The magnetic analog tracks on 70 mm prints were much warmer, richer, and less offensive (less "knife in the ear") than many (most?) digital tracks. Maybe if they recorded Dolby Digital and DTS a little more carefully, with care to never overrecord, most might be better, but I'd like to hear the two side by side: the best DTS or Dolby Digital v.s. 6 channel analog magnetic (as was used in 70 mm presentations), especially double system mag, with the 6 tracks running on a separate piece of full coat 35 mm film in sync with the 70 mm picture, something that was done a few glorious times in 70 mm presentations in San Francisco, as well as in Cinerama (which usually sounded a bit worse -- slightly harsh -- maybe it was something about our local Cinerama theater. Someone may be wondering why we make such a fuss about 70 mm projection, at least about the visual aspects, when photographic film has improved so much that 35 mm now can have finer grain and higher resolution than 70 mm used to, and besides, there is now the option of digital images in theaters. The reasons: 1) 70 mm, with its much larger aperture in the projector gate, let a lot more light through than 35 mm, and carbon arc lamps were used for both 35 and 70, which made the projection of 2006 look dim indeed. The images sparkled, but were not washed out, particularly with the opportunity of more dye per degree of angle of vision in 70 mm 2) The resolution of film, particularly 70 mm prints, then and now, is potentially (with the right emulsion) far higher than digital projection. Lucas claims that the audience can't tell the difference, but I'll bet they can when sitting close to a big screen, with the director seeming to manipulate the arc of vision (especially with a curved screen). Sitting in one of the front rows for a 70 mm presentation of Grand Prix, or 2001; a Space Odyssey, is an experience that digital projection cannot equal, thus far. 3) The usual 70 mm aspect ratio (2.2:1) is more pleasant than 35 mm Panavison (2.35:1), IMO. There is slightly less need to scan, and one can usually look straight ahead, and let the director direct one's field of vision 4) Analog magnetic sound has not been equaled, IMO. By comparison, IMAX is too dark, by far, too nearly square, and the speakers used are often too small and "wingless" to put as much power (SPL) into the theater. Domed presentations (often OMNIMAX) are too visually distorted ... the curved Todd-AO screens were pretty good (damn near perfect) from dead center, and much less distorted from the side than OMNIMAX dome projection can be from the front. Also, while IMAX can be wire sharp and very detailed, I saw an OMNIMAX dome presentation in Portland last month that was disgracefully blurry -- but the film grain was adequately in focus, so it was not a projector focus problem. We may have excellent home theater set ups, but good 70 mm, in the "film buff seats" (first 15 or 20 rows) was much bigger on one's retina. The New World (2006) may have been released in 70 mm in some cities. Anybody see (and hear!) it that way? There are some new 70 mm processes out there. Here is one: http://www.superdimension70.com/

[From CONVERGENCE: Do you want to know what's behind the curtain at Radio City Music Hall?] Of course! Also, was the picture you posted of the three 210s behind a screen taken in a Cinerama theater? Cinemiracle? Todd-AO ? ______? Do you have Altecs at home? Do you prefer them? Have you ever been able to duplicate the solid, spacious sound of a soundtrack associated with a 70mm film, shown in a big theater with big speakers in the home?

In Oakland, California, a small theater in a mall was equipped for Earthquake with two very large theater black plywood horns that sat on the floor ... one below the screen (where the orchestra pit would be, had there been one), and one in the rear. For Midway, a similar set-up was installed in Theater 70, a bigger house. In both cases, the speakers were marked "Sensaround" and in fine print, "Cerwin Vega." An engineer from Cerwin Vega wrote an article in one of the magazines about the system. The effect was powerful, but artificial sounding, somehow. It didn't hold a candle to the thunder, windstorm and brief earthquake during and after the crucifixion in Ben-Hur (1959) in original road show 70mm version (MGM Camera 65, which was really Ultra Panavision 70). In San Francisco, this film used the system installed by Magna (Mike Todd & Co) for Todd-A0 a few years earlier. It looks like this 6 channel stereo system may have used 5 Altec A2s behind the screen (see CONVERGENCE, above) plus surrounds on either side of the screen ..... much more convincing, and higher SPL, I'll bet.

Related question? What do you folk think of the idea of flush mounting a Belle or La Scala -- the way some studios flush mount their speakers, and Jeff Cooper recommends? That should increase deep bass a bit, but how? I assume that concerns about treble and mids spilling sideways and being reflected could be handled by putting absorptive materials to either side of the mid/tweet top of either of these speakers, which may have less side radiation than some studio flush mounted speakers, anyway.

Convergence -- thanks for the post and all of the pics, great stuff! The old Fox theater in San Francisco (torn down, despite protests, in about 1963) had what seemed to me to be even bigger Altecs -- could that be possible? As I remember they had 4 woofers for each channel, all horn loaded, with the supplementary port at the bottom, with big wings, and they looked to be about 20 to 25 feet high. Strangely, the sound was not as good, or as powerful, even with a variety of magnetic stereo soundtracks, as it was in the much smaller Coronet theater (now boarded up, to be converted to other use, despite burned out and feeble protests) in San Francisco, especially when the Coronet was running 6 channel stereo 70mm films like Ben-Hur, Around the World in 80 Days, Oklahoma!, Porgy and Bess, etc. This leads me to ask, do you know what kind of speakers the Coronet and others equipped/leased by Mike Todd's Magna Theater Corp. to set up Todd-AO had? Do you know where I could look this up? There was a rumor that they were JBLs, but the rumor was not confirmed to my satisfaction. Maybe the difference (other than the greater number of operating channels in 70mm exhibition) was that the Coronet was a medium size theater, and the Fox was the biggest movie theater I've ever been in -- big enough to include many gilded halls and passageways, and a a tennis court hidden away somewhere! Perhaps the Fox was just too big to fill with bass-intense sound? Also, I'm curious to know the kind of speakers and speaker design used in the many channel Fantasound installations (in a few cities)in Walt Disney's Fantasia. There is a good article in Scientific American (Peck, 1940?) about Fantasound, but I don't think they identified the speakers.

Perhaps this subject came up during one of the Klipsch Pilgrimages, or maybe one of you did real or simulated anechoic or quasi-anechoic "with a corner" tests. Does anyone know why the following minor discrepancies in sensitivity ratings exist? Are they due to Klipsch's later, wider frequency range, anechoic measures with a revolving door corner matching the industry's very old "midrange only" measures more closely than magazine reviewers can get with wide frequency range SPL measures, without a revolving door corner in an anechoic chamber" What did you folk get measuring Khorns in your environments? This is mostly just a matter of curiosity on my part. I wonder if the Khorn at its max continuous 100 watts really puts out SPL equivalent to a typical, 90 dB @ 1w @1m, speaker soaking up 2667 watts continuous, if only it could! Klipsch consistently rates Klipschorns, Belles, and La Scalas at 104 dB @ 1wt @1M [or @ 4 feet, in the past. Now, as of 2006, the new Khorns and La Scalas are rated at 105 dB @ 1M], yet two European reviews rate them at 98 dB. The old Audio review by Heyser(1986) rated the Khorn at "well over 98 dB." The article states that his tests using free field response used a simulated free field using computer software. He follows his "well over 98 dB" statement with, "This system really will give the rated 104 dB SPL at a distance of 4 feet into a room," but doesn't say whether this was a guess, an enthusiastic expression of faith, or the results of a test. Back when both Klipsch and JBL were including EIA ratings in their specs, both the Khorns and the JBL D-130 (no network) were rated at 54 dB EIA. The two companies agreed fairly closely as to what 54 dB EIA translated to; Klipsch listed it as equivalent to 104 dB, 1wt, 4 feet, and JBL listed it as equivalent to 103 dB, 1wt, 1M. I think, but don't know, that the EIA measurements used a narrower range of frequencies than modern measures.

When I sit dead center, in the audiophile (egocentric -- "Hell with the rest of the family" as George Carlin says) sweet spot, all is pretty good and the soundstage is often amazing. But with a listening area of 3 to 5 non-bulky chairs, those in the side chairs are often shortchanged. So, I'd sure like to know: 1) Why -- on some recordings -- do my Khorns seem to fall silent, with the music coming from all around them and in a nearly ideal curtain across the front of the soundstage (with pretty good depth, as well), while -- on other recordings -- the music seems to hug the Khorn boxes, or, worse, favor one side, with very little coming out of the other, unless the listener is dead center? This happens both with and without the center channel Belle hooked up; a great and realistic wall of space differentiated sound some of the time, and clumps around the Khorns at times, but when there are clumps with the Belle connected, the Khorn clumps move slightly toward the center. 2) Why does the correct (best sounding, nearest the imagined original) center channel volume for the Belle (via NAD's simple center mix in "Enhanced Stereo I") vary from turned completely off to a level equal to the Khorns (when on, this range is 12 dB) depending on the recording? Oddly, the best sounding Belle setting does not vary nearly as much with the position of the listening chair (across 5 skinny chairs, maybe a 3 dB variation), as it does with the recording. My CDs now sport little stickers with the correct center channel setting. If it helps, here is what we listen to, in order of frequency, starting with the most frequently heard: classical, jazz, movies, folk, rock, pop, and other. Movies suffer the least from the above problems, probably because of the way they are channeled in 5.1 and the like. The center chair is about 12 feet from the center Belle, and about 15 feet from the Khorns. I usually use NADs "distance" adjustment to compensate for the different distances.

O.K.... I have Khorns and a Belle center channel, and recently added a RSW-15 Klipsch sub. When listening to MUSIC sources, even when the sub is crossed over as low as 40 Hz, it sometimes seems to take away from the clarity of the Khorns/Belle, so I often use just the horns. BUT, I use the sub for MOVIES, out of a fear that the truly outrageous level of the bass effects on some DVDs, when played at a fun level, in our fairly large room, will cause our power amps to clip, taking out my tweeters. Better for the built-in sub amp to clip, since there are no tweeters connected to it! As far as feeling a wind in the room is concerned, with the Klipschorns & Belle alone --- sub off -- the bass wave from the timpani in Fanfare for the Common Man (and some other CDs) causes my pants legs to flap in the breeze, at about 35 wts readable peak output.

Gill, IMO. some of those technicalities can make a great emotional difference. [] I agree that the overall work gets through in the case of 2001, and it suffered less than the others I listed as having disappointing transfers. That said, it was not, for me, anyway near the awesome experience it was in 70 mm -- I don't expect the visual to be as effective as it was on deeply curved screen 85 feet across the chord of the arc (in 70mm @ Century 21 in San Jose, California), still sharp and with very fine grain even in the front row, where I sat to see it the third and fourth time, but I really believe the sound could have been better on the DVD. I have hopes that the added resolution of Blu Ray and HD motivate the people doing the transfers to try to capture every bit of quality in the originals, and assume that every film had great sound and sight (even though they didn't) -- even if they are not as old as me and thee, and may not have seen the marvelous quality of projection and sound we sometimes witnessed. I'll make a point of renting Ryan's Daughter, the gorgeous Days of Heaven, and Grand Prix on DVD. I saw all three when they came out (70mm projection again) and found all three to be visually compelling.

Please list the 3 or 4 movies that you think come over the best in Home Theater... and also have excellent sound and image quality. Because of bad DVD transfers, damaged prints, or the moronic practice of limiting dynamic range on some films (and not others), some films that came over well in the theaters are pale imitations of their former selves in home theater. What 3 or 4 films come over as the best in the home? My list of the best off the top of my head: Amadeus Fiddler on the Roof Moulin Rouge (Baz Luhrmann version -- weird, but good) American Beauty Evita Films that fail to come across in home theater, due to inferior DVD transfers/ restorations, but were very intense, exciting or joyful in their original theatrical presentations (often in superb, dynamic stereo, and sometimes projected from 70 mm film) are some of the ones that suffer from tasteless dynamic range constriction, and relatively impaired image quality on DVD. Most generated huge box office returns, and at least some critical praise: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version 70mm Todd-AO and 6 channel ultradynamic and shimmering stereo), Ben-Hur (70mm, 6 channel ultra dynamic stereo, and prints so sharp that one could see detail in every sweaty pore--to make some of the compressed music and sound effects in the DVD version loud enough, one would have to turn the dialog up way too loud -- in the theater, the first few notes of the prelude made the hair on my arms stand up, and I could feel a breeze -- and that was just the beginning), ET the Extra Terrestrial , Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and a host of others. Also, practically every Black and White film I've seen on DVD fails to capture the full scale, gorgeous B & W of the originals, which sometimes had the clarity, rich blacks, and infinite shades up to brilliant white that one sees in the museum prints Ansel Adams made. Could it be that the people who make the transfers have no idea how the originals looked and sounded? Or could it be that they simply don't care?

Fire Maidens of Outer Space, by a mile! If you like Borodin's Polyvetsian Dances, or fire, or maidens, or outer space, you won't after seeing this movie! Actually, The Joy Luck Club was quite good -- I can't imagine why it would be on anybody's "worst" list. "Worst" is fun -- but how about "Best," specifically the ones that actually come over the best in Home Theater. I am going to start a thread on the Home Theater section of the Klipsch Forum ... please respond over there. The invitation will include these words: because of bad DVD transfers, damaged prints, or the moronic practice of limiting dynamic range on some films (and not others), some films that came over well in the theaters are pale imitations of their former selves in home theater. What 3 or 4 films come over as the best in the home?

Thanks, mas! I'll look forward to hearing about the results of the tests that are being done now. If you are enjoying it, stay in the loop, but I don't mean to ask you to keep watch on this research just to meet my needs. If you have any websites or shareable email addresses I can use to check on the results in September, or later, I'd be glad to do so. Thanks again

A quick correction ... my spell check evidently changed Magna Theatre Corporation to Magna cum laude. Well, the Magna theaters, were of that quality ...

I heard the Altec A-7s many times in the '60s and '70s, including in an A/B comparison with Klipschorns at Berkeley Custom Electronics, a couple of times (many customers wanted to hear them compared). In this equal SPL comparison both were very impressive, and made the Bozak Concert Grand seem muffled in very brief A/B/C comparison (people didn't want to listen to the Bozak, after hearing the other two). The Altec seemed to have effortless midrange that sounded excellent on most recordings they used, but a little "hard" on others. The Klipshorn had much better highs, was more natural on cymbals, brass, and the like. Overall, the Klipschorn seemed the better balanced, wider range (esp in the shimmering highs and deep bass), and slightly sweeter. Both were much cleaner and clearer sounding than any other speakers in the store, and about equal in those qualities. Once in a while, I thought I heard a cabinet resonance with the A-7. Also, the A-7 sounded a little "colder" and the Klipschorn a little "warmer." A few years later, I was surprised to discover that the A-7s sounded a little better in various recording studios I visited. It turned out that they had EQ applied to make the A-7s flatter. In one studio, they switched the EQ in an out for me, and the EQ obviously included a boost in the extremely high frequencies. Later yet, a custom store in Hollywood crossed A-7s over to JBL 075 "orange squeezer" supertweeters, and the increased high frequency response was, in my view, welcome. Most theater speakers were much bigger Altecs than the A-7s, except in the horrible little "pill box" theaters that sprang up in the late 60s. Some of these Altec behemoths had four horn loaded woofers per channel, with as many as 6 channels in 70mm (7 channels for D-150 ...Patton, and John Huston's The Bible In the Beginning in just LA and New York, I think -- we missed out on D-150 in San Francisco, after some poor guy equipped his theater in Northgate ... Marin county, just over the Golden Gate Bridge .... The true quality of the big Altec systems did not show, except with magnetic soundtracks. Optical soundtracks were execrable until Dolby redid them in the very late 70s, and early 80s. The soundtrack that sold "Dolby Stereo," Star Wars (1977) however was magnetic in it's 70mm incarnation, and, surprisingly, not as good as it could have been. The first digital soundtracks were (and all too often, still are) too harsh and "hard." Some theaters used JBLs, including the best sounding theater I ever heard, a Todd-AO equipped 70mm house that was "four-walled" by the company Mike Todd started, Magna cum laude. I understand that many theaters now use Klipsch, including some Regal cinemas ... does anyone know of a list of theaters using Klipsch, or better yet, a website or list where we can look up the makes and model of the speakers in any given theater? Yeah, they are pro models that are unlikely to show up in our homes, but I'm curious nonetheless.

Thanks, everyone! Mas, you mentioned that the effectiveness of the Berger gratings was measured at the TEF seminar in Dallas. I would love to take a look at those results. In fact, since it is impractical to get a large enough number of diffusers into our room to assess their effect by ear (before buying or building them), it would be great to get copies of test results (or verbal descriptions of same) of the range of frequencies diffused, and the pattern or angle of coverage and dispersion of the diffusion, for a few contenders, like the Berger diffraction gratings, the RPG skylights, Flutterfree, etc. Do people test these things the way some people test speakers? I guess I'm looking for information something like "at least xxx degrees of dispersion of frequencies from yK Hz to zzK Hz, when the angle if incidence is between aa and bbb degrees. Any idea where I would look for this information? The Berger gratings certainly look less obtrusive than the skylines, so it would be neat if they did as good a job. Hope so. Does anyone know if the Space Coupler can be used successfully when it is only spaced a little way out from a surface, rather than over a cavity, or in the door aperture of a closet? I'm thinking of mounting a few with about a 1" or 2" space between them and the wall, and others about 15" from another wall.

To Artto, and all who have knowledge in this area: I'm looking for acoustical advice, re raising ceiling ... We found out that we can't afford to raise the ceiling of our music room the way we really want to (we would prefer a high ceiling, with a > 1foot/10feet slope, a la Jeff Cooper), because that would involve tearing off some of the roof, building a new, higher roof, taller walls, ad nauseam, ad nightmarium. But ... the 7' 7" flat ceiling must go. It sounds terrible, claustrophobic, compared to the music room in our old house (same speakers, but with a high ceiling -- length to width ratio much the same). The room has adequate length (25 feet) and width (17 feet). I believe the reviewer who said Klipschorns sound best with a high ceiling (Klipsch is now recommending 8.5 feet or more). Various contractors looking at it have offered to remove the sheet rock ceiling, and rebuild the underside of the roof by putting in a gargantuan ridge beam (15" or more ... they're off to consult their engineering software), removing the joists, placing insulation in-between the roof rafters, and covering all with Visqueen (the plastic membrane, not the band), 5/8 sheetrock and a plaster coat over the sheetrock. This would leave us with an "A" shaped pitched ceiling, of moderate slope, with the Klipschorns and Belle Klipsch center channel on the short wall (of necessity, but the sound stage is wide enough, and not bad) looking down the long dimension of the room, down the channel of the proposed A shaped ceiling. Good news and Bad News (issues): 1) The new ceiling would be be non-parallel to everything, and its average height would put the room dimensions closer to being within Bolt's contour (but not within it, because most of the ceiling would not be high enough), and the modes would be better, we think (we'll run the software, using the average Ht). 2) The ceiling would be higher, hitting 8' high about 1' out from the wall (apex of the corners with the Khorns), hitting the recommended minimum 8.5 ' at a little less than 3 ' out from the corner, and then rising to > 10.5' at the peak without the difusser/redirector I'm about to talk about, and rising to about 9' to 9.5' with it in place. 3) I'm aware that a concave ceiling is a "no-no," with the underside of a dome being the worst, because such shapes tend to focus, rather than disperse or diffuse, the sound. I can see how that would be true with a speaker in center the floor, aimed straight up, but I'm wondering if it would be less of a problem with the main Khorns in the front corners? The Belle, dead center of the short wall, might still be a problem, right? 4) I'm toying with some ploys that might or might not be solutions: a) Covering the ridge beam (the lower part of it would protrude into the room 9" or more) with a giant convex curved diffuser/redirector -- a "Bonner" that would be maybe three feet wide, and run the full length of the ceiling, right down the center, between the crossing radiating paths of the Khorns, and directly above the path of the Belle. Are you online Artto? What, with your extensive experience with Bonner-like curved surfaces, do you think of that? Would it disrupt the unwanted focus? Do you use bent masonite? How thick? Or ... create a Bonner shaped surface, as described above, that, for part of its length, is really Acoustone acoustically transparent grille cloth (perhaps FR 94, which is only about 1 or 2 dB below complete transmissibility @ 15 Hz), wrapped around spaced, strong and non-resonant curved wood surfaces (several spaced Bonners, with large gaps between them with the same span across the ridge beam, and the underside of the point of the "A," as above) then put all kinds of diffusers in the gaps, behind the grille cloth, perhaps with some mounted askew, aimed at the speakers. I'm thinking of RPG skylines, &/or Flutterfrees, or near clones, or similar diffusers, alternating these with Bonners over the ridge beam. The direct sound from the speakers would be at grazing incidence to the grille cloth, rather than going straight through, so I'm assuming that some would be reflected by the vinyl coated fiberglass grille cloth (at least it'll be curved), some absorbed, and some transmitted to the diffusers beyond the grille cloth. What do you folks think? Would any of these solutions adequately disrupt the focus, and give us enough diffusion (there will be open ended shelves attached to some of the walls, with books and art objects, and a few wall mounted diffusers, and absorbers if necessary)? If we had to choose, we would prefer slightly live (and diffuse) to slightly dead (and diffuse). Any other ideas? We are open to suggestions, reactions, articles relating to what to do about "A" shaped ceilings, etc. Thanks,

My impression is that the Belle and the La Scala have just about the same bass. I had a c 1959 Karlson for a 15" speaker (JBL D130), and it was hard to get much bass below 75 or 80 Hz, although there was a big peak above that. My Belle has a peak at 60 Hz, and sounds a little bassier than the Karlson, but no really deep bass. Here is a copy of a post I sent to a forum member with a related question: Here are some impressions of the Belle Klipsch sound compared to the La Scala. We have a fairly new Belle as a center channel between two Klipschorns, and I've heard many La Scalas, but never in a side by side comparison, so all comparisons with La Scala will be from memory. Nor have I heard the new 2006 La Scala. Here's my take: 1) The two sound pretty much alike, as was intended by PWK. 2) The bass about the same, on balance ... neither one goes down into the sub-basement, but you should get the impression of good, dynamic, percussive bass. If you aren't getting enough bass, try putting the Belles into the room corners. 3) La Scala may have a slightly more articulate midrange (same driver, but the horn is a little longer). 4) In my casual comparisons, the Belle may be a bit more gentle and forgiving, and conceivably better balanced -- a dealer told me that PWK "toned down" the Belle, just a bit. The usual tradeoff is there; with marvelously clean, well balanced recordings, the La Scala may sound a little clearer and more "present," but with harsh or flawed recordings, I have often heard the La Scala sound too harsh. I've never caught the Belle sounding harsh. I have heard several musicians (using their own first generation analog tapes) praise the La Scala. 4) I measured the Belle's frequency response, and (in my room) there is a peak at 60 Hz, and a decline in bass below that. The treble is pretty smooth, with no significant decline or droop out to 16,500 Hz. The Belle does not sound as "forward," or as open & airy as my Klipschorns (same room), and, of course, the Klipschorns have more bass. BUT, Belles are much more forward, open, and airy, than most speakers, and sound more "live" and have much more authority than my Heresy II surrounds (same room). Belle's are capable of playing much louder than most speakers, and they are clean.

Here are some impressions of the Belle Klipsch sound compared to the La Scala. We have a fairly new Belle as a center channel between two Klipschorns, and I've heard many La Scalas, but never in a side by side comparison, so all comparisons with La Scala will be from memory. Nor have I heard the new 2006 La Scala. Here's my take: 1) The two sound pretty much alike, as was intended by PWK. 2) The bass about the same, on balance ... neither one goes down into the sub-basement, but you should get the impression of good, dynamic, percussive bass. If you aren't getting enough bass, try putting the Belles into the room corners. 3) La Scala may have a slightly more articulate midrange (same driver, but the horn is a little longer). 4) In my casual comparisons, the Belle may be a bit more gentle and forgiving, and conceivably better balanced -- a dealer told me that PWK "toned down" the Belle, just a bit. The usual tradeoff is there; with marvelously clean, well balanced recordings, the La Scala may sound a little clearer and more "present," but with harsh or flawed recordings, I have often heard the La Scala sound too harsh. I've never caught the Belle sounding harsh. I have heard several musicians (using their own first generation analog tapes) praise the La Scala. 4) I measured the Belle's frequency response, and (in my room) there is a peak at 60 Hz, and a decline in bass below that. The treble is pretty smooth, with no significant decline or droop out to 16,500 Hz. The Belle does not sound as "forward," or as open & airy as my Klipschorns (same room), and, of course, the Klipschorns have more bass. BUT, Belles are much more forward, open, and airy, than most speakers, and sound more "live" and have much more authority than my Heresy II surrounds (same room). Belle's are capable of playing much louder than most speakers, and they are clean.

Thanks, Mike (Dr. Who). I like your posts too. You, Pauln, or someone else on the forum, may be able to answer the following questions: 1) What ever happened to TIM distortion? Do people still measure it? 2) Some amps seem to lack authority (and bass) in climaxes, compared to other amps, but I really don't think they have exhausted their power (unlikely with Khorns!). Any idea what's happening? 3) Does anyone measure something that could be called, for want of a better term, "Dynamic Frequency Response?" If very loud pulses (below maximum peak level for the component) of various frequencies, equal in intensity, are fed through an amp or a speaker, and the output plotted, is the result as flat as a garden variety frequency response curve done at a more moderate level? At least one amp (a c1974 Marantz 80 wpc solid state power amp), and a few speakers with cone or dome midrange and HF drivers seem to "thin out" when reproducing very loud transients.

Very interesting experiments, Pauln. Because of the impossibility of playing the recording on equipment of perfect fidelity, we don't have a way of knowing what is actually on the recording -- the sound on the recording itself could be slightly harsh, and the harshness could be hidden by some slightly "mushy" or "forgiving" components, which could pleasantly soften reality. Some classical recordists (e.g., Leo de Gar Kulka re: Midsummer Mozart) have mentioned that recording the natural sound of strings as they hear them live when making the recordings, is a rarity. I have occasionally heard harsh string sound even in live performance. We judge faithfulness by fidelity to the imagined original, and sadly, by fidelity to the imagined true nature of the recording. The only exceptions to this I can think of are live vs. recorded demonstrations like Paul Klipsch used to conduct, with a (somewhat) acoustically transparent fabric between the audience and the orchestra, with the Klipshorns in artificial corners placed in the orchestra. Even though he fooled a lot of people that way, there was still the problem of the hall acoustics being over-represented in playback, since those acoustics had two whacks at the sound, once at the original playing, and once at the playback of the recording. In any case, what was being judged at PWK's sessions was the fidelity of the whole system of recording and playback vs. the live sound. Years after these experiments by PWK, someone else made a comparison of several systems vs. live, and I believe reality came in third. Was this reported in Dope from Hope? I think so. As far as experiments to determine whether an individual prefers the sound of one of the solid state or tube designs is concerned, I think one needs to use several classical recordings, as well as several from all other genres. One classical recording could sound better with tubes, and another recording of the same piece of music could sound better with solid state. The best sounding, warmest (not necessarily the most accurate) amplification I've had was a pair of McIntosh 40 wt tube amps, but they sent a lot of noise through to the Klipschorns. The failed Luxman integrated amp was probably the best sounding solid state. When I changed from a Yamaha 135 wpc solid state to my NAD 150 wpc solid state amps there was a considerable improvement, and a stark increase in resolution, but a "bad" ("questionable?" "funky?") reed now shows up (a few times) on my favorite Anthony Ortega jazz sax recording( New Dance, HAT ART CD 6065), but all the rest of my jazz collection sounds better, and airier, than before, with reach out and touch 'em cymbals, and tremendous impact. But did the increased detail have to ruin my favorite? Someone suggested that I hook up a "mushier" amp in a switching arrangement, just for the one selection on the Ortega, but I just skip that tune, or grimace, and let it pass.

After you fix your Klipschorns, please describe for us the strong, medium, and weak points of each of your speaker systems. Thanks.

Dr. Who, You said: "Editing the sound in the digital domain is a totally different issue and there are mathematical explanations for why it will sound bad, but digital purely used as a medium is awesome." Why is digital editing more of a problem than digital recording? I'm not doubting it, I just don't know why this would be true. If the editors use many generations, I can see a problem, but it would be a problem in analogue, too. Do you know of a website where we can look at the methodology used by guy offering the million dollar reward? I'm assuming it involves repeated, double blind trials, and some kind of statistical analysis, right? If one individual distinguishes between the two at the .05 level, does that individual get the million?

Yes, our best vinyl produces sound that is richer, warmer and better than our CDs. The existence of a few great CDs makes me think that CDs that equal vinyl are possible, just rare. An old recording engineer I know observed that the industry had about 80 years to learn to baby the special needs of analog recording (including tape), and to refine their FM (F**k'n Magic), and with sufficient time (and dedication!) they may learn to baby digital... One thing to consider is how the harshness adds up ... since vinyl and magnetic tape & film are mellow, somewhat forgiving, and warm, one can get away with slightly harsh original acoustics & mic placement, a bit of brief over-recording, and an instant or two of microphone diaphragm crashing. It seems that digital can't take the briefest bit of over-recording, perhaps even with the unreadable, ultra brief leading edges of peaks that may be lurking in the music more often than we think. A recording style that moves the microphones back might help but there should be no hurry in placing them to get a pleasing, complex, and warm sense of the hall. Pauln said "Mercy beats Justice," and I agree completely. I think the human species should give up on retributive justice, and leave that to the wisdom of God. Humans trying to take vengeance (sometimes presumptuously called "punishment") get in the way of solutions and peace. The Middle East problem, for instance, will never be significantly ameliorated as long as people insist on *** for tat. Mercy, setting an example, facilitation, and providing clear alternatives that help get needs met are too rarely tried. "All we are saying ......" Some might ask, "Why should we? ... They (whoever the "they" are) don't deserve it!" At least two answers: 1) We should, if we want it to work and 2) I don't think whether they deserve it is really up to us. At the very least, retribution &/or punishment should not be tried first. The odd thing about the way we usually impose punishment is that one of the prime rules behaviorists have empirically verified that makes it work (when it works -- it is rarely the method of choice) is often violated. We don't provide what the offending party can see as a clear alternative to the behavior being punished.