Jump to content

Best amplifier for K-horns?


Balmer

Recommended Posts

I had a handful of amps on my Khorns. McIntosh MC-2102, Wright 2A3, Transcendent SE-OTL, Jolida, McIntosh MC-30's and then also a handful of solid state.

Among those mentioned above, all tube amps, I (and my wife as well) found the Transcendent SE-OTL amps, bridged at 4wpc to give the sweetest sound of all of them. They were running the Khorns at full signal and frankly, 4 watts simply didn't have enough OOMPH for me when I wanted to turn it up so I sold them. Ultimately, I've sold them all.

Speaking personally, if I were to go back and purchase another amp (which I'm debating), my first choice will be to look into an OTL amp. I got to thinking why did that one sound simply more "real" than the others? Although I do not profess to know that answer, I can say that all the others had one thing in common, the transformers. That makes me wonder if the absence of the transformer is what I found getting in the way of the sound, when compared to the OTL amp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bass from the massive $150 Pioneer is more solid than any other amplifier I auditioned on my big ole horns. At low power, it sounds the same as the amazing Pass X250. Of course, at mid to high volumes, the Pass smokes everything in every aspect (except price).

Everyone seems to think that amplifier manufacturers design their products to be as accurate as possible, a "straight piece of wire with gain" being the ideal. Far from the truth, it is, said Yoda. From the Pass website:

"The F1 is super clean and dynamic... It is the real truth machine, with nothing taken out and nothing added. Ruthlessly revealing".

"The F2 adds some 2nd harmonic to this. It is putting a little color in your music... Some like that additional color, some do not. Your choice".

The F3 sound has a very light touch of sweetness. Sounds more like a great tube amp than any solid state amp I have heard".

" The F4 sounds like a cross between the F1 and the F3".

This is from Nelson Pass, certainly one of the best amp designers around. So much for accuracy, here comes the euphony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking personally, if I were to go back and purchase another amp (which I'm debating), my first choice will be to look into an OTL amp. I got to thinking why did that one sound simply more "real" than the others? Although I do not profess to know that answer, I can say that all the others had one thing in common, the transformers. That makes me wonder if the absence of the transformer is what I found getting in the way of the sound, when compared to the OTL amp.

Choosing a satisfactory OTL is not easy to do IMO. Some of their problems CAN be very high price, high heat production, noise issues like buzz and hum, and a need to carefully match them to the rest of the system. The only ones I've heard are my Joule Electra 100-watt monoblocs (see avatar). From what I've READ, Atma-Spheres are very expensive and real heat producers. On the other hand, I don't recall reading about their having noise issues, though I may have missed it.

My Joules have been plagued with moderately low-level hum and buzz issues, but at least aren't huge and do look nice. In contrast, see http://www.atma-sphere.com/awards/gea/gea3.htm for the utilitarian work-bench appearance and house-heating potential of one Atma Sphere OTL model. Generating higher power levels is a major challenge for OTL's, since it usually takes MANY tubes to bring the amp's output impedance down enough to match that of the speaker, e.g., the Atma Sphere. So does one surprisingly well-priced Transcendent (http://www.transcendentsound.com/BeastOTL.htm). In contrast, Joule needs only six low-impedance 6C33B's to get 100 watts (Transcendent hints the wattage is overrated).

Dunno about other OTL's, but the Joules are exceptionally transparent. And you may be right about the transformer -- Jud Barber, Joule Electra's designer/co. president/shipping agent/chief bottle washer, says that's where some clarity tends to be lost. He makes an excellent P/P transformer amp, the Stargate (I think Joessporster still has one, doesn't he?), but still thinks more highly of his OTL's.

That said, it appears to be a lot easier to design a cooler, more problem-free amp, like Craig's VRD's, by using OP transformers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really surprised that a Levinson 334 has any harshness with these speakers. Levinson is not known for harshness, they are actually known to be very smooth and laid back amps. If you had a Krell amp I'd say just go for another amp without an audition but it may be hard to get a smoother amp than teh Levinson.

What preamp and source are you using?

Harshness has never been a problem with the ML334 amp. The lack of nuance, suble detail is the culprit. As I said before, I would rather seem like I'm in the middle of the orchestral seats then in the front row which is how I feel now. The source is the Esoteric X-3; and the preamp is the Placette active with two of the passive preamps as volume controls. As you can see, quality is not an issue, but solid state is.

I don't think that your problem is your front end gear. In my experience, at the level of your equipment, tubes do not have an advantage over SS. If you are seeking the utmost in detail, Watt Puppies may be the ticket. For a more romantic sound, Sonus Faber. Or Eggleston Andra's in the middle. They all will do very well with your amp, which is an outstanding unit, and its power rating. The new Klipsch Palladium P39 may turn out to be exactly what you are looking for if you like the horn sound and want super detail and great voicing (I have never heard them).

Or maybe SET is what you are craving. Your K Horns with ALK crossovers should be a very easy load for them to drive.

I have heard quite a few high end systems and they all seem to have you "in the front row" rather than in the middle of the soundstage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the bass drivers in the Khorn operate full range. They are not choked off by the crossover. Instead, the crossover limits the bottom extension of the mid-horn and protects the tweeter horn. Therefore, you can power the bass drivers with good quality, low power amplifier directly.

I don't want to get too far from the amp discussion, but the Klipsch crossovers DO roll off the woofer's HF and so does the ALK's Balmer is running.

I got rid of the forward, in your face sound in my La Scalas (I call it "calmer", "less edgy") by wrapping hot Dynamat around the squawker horns and stuffing the upper cabinet tightly with polyester fiberfill.

Another excellent tweak is to be totally anal about sealing all of the edges of the bass horn to the walls with rubber. Surprisingly, it is supposed to improve the upper bass and make the squawker seem less forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got rid of the forward, in your face sound in my La Scalas (I call it "calmer", "less edgy") by wrapping hot Dynamat around the squawker horns and stuffing the upper cabinet tightly with polyester fiberfill.

Another excellent tweak is to be totally anal about sealing all of the edges of the bass horn to the walls with rubber. Surprisingly, it is supposed to improve the upper bass and make the squawker seem less forward.

I got Al's (ALK) wooden horns and his universal crossover to replace the metal horns and crossover that come with the Khorns. The crossover has a transformer with multiple leads that allow for volume adjustment of the midrange horns. The wooden midrange horn does not ring at all like the metal horn and the sound dispersal of the wooden horn provides a three dimensional image that is far superior to the original megaphone-like metal horn. I would recommend this approach to get a smoother, less edgy, three dimensional image from the midrange. I can not express enough just how much the midrange sound can be improved with these tweaks.

Sealing the bass horn with the wall will always give the best bass results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the bass drivers in the Khorn operate full range. They are not choked off by the crossover. Instead, the crossover limits the bottom extension of the mid-horn and protects the tweeter horn. Therefore, you can power the bass drivers with good quality, low power amplifier directly.

The stock crossovers do roll off the top frequencies of the woofer. However, from The Dope From Hope, Vol. 12, No. 2, dated March, 1972, written by PWK:

"Experiments at Klipsch and Associates, Inc. with switching out the inductor in series with the bass (woofer) voice coil indicates that its removal reduces the overall response curve peak-trough limits by about 3 dB in the 250-300 Hz range".

He goes on to say that this change was inaudible, that units shipped from the factory had the inductor connected but the user could disconnect or short the inductor if they wished. He also said that the demo units at the factory had the inductor shorted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statements and questions about "harshness" .....
1) I agree with Artto ... I have been on a long quest to equal or better the sound of a beautiful sounding room 2 houses ago -- a room we now call Paradise Lost ..... I never heard harshness in that room, but only played a few CDs in it ... most of my music then was on either open reel tape or vinyl. Matching that room is a very difficult task ... we may finally do it this summer, now that we have a room shell very close to the dimensions of the old room (16.77' x 23.5 ' x an average ceiling ht of 11.5'), and we have patriotically decided to spend the money on acoustical treatment (diffusion, primarily) before we lose it.
2) I know that tubes will sometimes soften the harshness, and I've heard both the McIntosh 275 and the old Dyna MK IV provide that softening at the cost of an occasionally noticeable loss of clarity (compared to good SS).
But here is my Big Question:
3) Why do so many CDs end up sounding harsh? Having played in several orchestras, and being a front-row-center kind of guy, I know that live music is sometimes "harsh," but it is a different kind of harshness. CD harshness sounds like IM, or false or overemphasized odd-order harmonics, and reminds me of the sound of the kind of overload of older design microphones (diaphragm strain ?), or the sound of the old microphone preamps of the 70's overloading. "Reminds me," but I can't quite believe that pros, with their modern equipment, are allowing that kind of distortion in their systems. When we amateur engineers were doing things right, we never heard that kind of harshness coming through on 15 ips analog tape as heard over a variety of horns, including K-horns & various JBL and Altec horns.
Could it be that the engineers &producers don't know the harshness is there? I've noticed that EMI often uses B&W speakers as monitors. When comparing Khorns to a pair of rather more expensive B&W speakers right next to the Khorns, I noticed a certain amount of masking of some detail in the upper midrange and treble -- from textures within the orchestra to the quiet rattling of what was probably the singer's bracelet or necklace or something. None of the demo CDs were harsh, but the harshness I've heard on other recordings is often in that frequency range ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the underlying concept of engineering digital sound by de-constructing music into itty-bitty electronic pieces and then trying to re-construct it to musical perfection is an over-stretch that must be many megabytes too far. I am amazed at the electronic/digital manipulation that more expensive CD players have to use, to re-create the musicality that is RIGHT THERE in LPs and RTR tape. I don't think that process can ever make CDs as naturally musical-sounding as we're used to.

Maybe it's like digital photography -- one needs LOTS of megapixels to get pics as clear as Kodachrome 25 (RIP). Digital sound may need more than 16 bits (is that saying it right?) to give equivalent realism to digital music.

I agree re B&W -- they are very laid back and sonically obfuscating, and I just can't get impressed.

This business about tubes "softening" horns is not the way I see it. Tubes to me are extremely accurate in rendering timbre and transient onset and fading away. SS, except for some very pricey stuff, has an edge, or at least overemphasized transient onsets. I'm now so used to tubes that I don't really care for that quality. I do recognize, however, that there can be an extra degree of clarity, especially in the bass and sometimes in voices. This suggests that the SS "edge" is a good match for many speakers -- but NOT for the tremendous clarity of horns. Tube subtlety may get lost in most speakers. Therefore, I think tube accuracy and horn accuracy are an exceptional sonic and musical match for each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Balmer, I have two Cary CAD300se amps running my Khorns. I've run them with an Anthem pre2L preamp (low price-good value) for 2 channel. I have a sunfire tgpII for HT that sounds really, really good in 2channel and in 5.1. I have tried them with a Rotel SS preamp also. All three preamps have a different sound, but none of them are "in your face". I have the alk universal network, but am running everything else stock. I have run the khorns with a Bryston 4bst (a very good amp) and a Rotel 1080 (?) amp both around 200+ wpc. They both sounded pretty good as well but I did get that annoying intensity (best I can describe it) from them at high volumes.

With the Cary SET amps it sounds so much better. Hard for me to verbalize, but just more enjoyable to hear. When the beer gets to flowing and a good song (AC/DC live at Donnington castle-DVD, to name a few :)) I have been known to turn them to full volume and they sound just as good, and very, very loud. Dont want to do that for too long (HUH!!!), but you can! Anyway I am by no means done experimenting but really got lucky with the cary amps. Got both for 2 grand. I did try an anthem amp 1 with them but like the cary's better, although the anthem sounds better than SS amps. Hope this helps.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Balmer, I have two Cary CAD300se amps running my Khorns. I have the alk universal network, but am running everything else stock. I have run the khorns with a Bryston 4bst (a very good amp) and a Rotel 1080 (?) amp both around 200+ wpc. With the Cary SET amps it sounds so much better. Hard for me to verbalize, but just more enjoyable to hear. Marty

Marty, thanks for the tip on Cary. I'll add that to tubes to try out. You may want to check out the ALK wooden horns. Those made as much an improvement as the ALK crossover. I have a Bryston 7B-ST amp that sounds so harsh that I can't wait to sell it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am presently using Mark Levinson 334's with my K-horns. While the image is sharp, clear, and full, it is also has an "in-your-face" problem which makes the listening experience fatiguing.

I think that I may have found a partial solution to the "in your face" problem. The TacT RCS-2.2 XP processor has a built-in ambiophonic digital processor that will make the sweet spot sound like it's at any location in a theater, or symphony hall by making sonic changes in time delay, and cross talk cancellations. I had one of these units twenty years ago made by Sony and was very disappointed. I understand that this technology has come a log way and TacT is leading the way. Has anyone actually heard this processor and can you recommend it. Does it convincingly make you feel like you are in the middle of a symphony hall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been known to turn them to full volume and they sound just as good, and very, very loud. Dont want to do that for too long (HUH!!!), but you can!
"Full volume" (full rotation of the volume control????) must produce quite a different SPL out of our K-horns with different pre-amp & amp combinations. I can't get anywhere near full volume in my set up (see below) with a nominal 150 wpc (really more like 120 wpc RMS, if .707 x 171w @ clipping, 8 ohms, both ch operating = RMS). I usually have - 14 dB as the very highest setting, and there are 6 dB volume control positions above 0, making my max setting something like 20 dB below "full volume." Yet, very loud passages at the -14 dB setting can produce Radio Shack meter "c" weighting "fast" levels of 110 dB -- momentarily -- 13 feet back in the approx. 4,500 cu ft room , which PWK pointed out can indicate unread peaks of 13 dB higher.
The sound is still clear and clean at that level ... my problems with harshness seem to be recording specific, rather than volume specific,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 82’ Khorns and I like how the sound with my DIY SE45 amp. My room is only 10’6”x16’6” though. I had to modify the upper x-over to get rid of some overlap in the 4k-6K range and use a 5k:8 ohm output transformer. The power band of this amp is goes is a little down at 4 ohms and 16 ohms with this transformer.

A sign wave at 1kHz will put out 105db from one speaker without clipping and sweeping 20-20k will not clip at this input level. Of course the spl varies +/- quite a bit through the range like with any other amp.

I want to try a 300b amp next.[H]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LarryC: one needs LOTS of megapixels to get pics as clear as Kodachrome 25 (RIP).
Yeah, sometimes we seem to move toward lower quality than we had in the past. To take your point, I actually haven't seen any digital still photography display that is as sharp looking (a psychological combination of resolution and acutance, influenced by things like contrast, the types of film dyes used, etc.) as the Kodachrome II film (ASA 25) in the '60s, when shot in a primo Nikon or Leica.
For that matter, I have only seen a few digital motion picture images --- always in a commercial theater with digital projection, never in home theater --- that equaled the sharp look of 70 mm movie prints of the '60s & '70s. Unfortunately, those digital prints were displayed at a very low level of brightness.
As to sound .... I resisted concluding that both analog recording and tube amplification were superior to digital and solid state, but I reluctantly came to that conclusion, after several years of denial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LarryC: one needs LOTS of megapixels to get pics as clear as Kodachrome 25 (RIP).
Yeah, sometimes we seem to move toward lower quality than we had in the past. To take your point, I actually haven't seen any digital still photography display that is as sharp looking (a psychological combination of resolution and acutance, influenced by things like contrast, the types of film dyes used, etc.) as the Kodachrome II film (ASA 25) in the '60s, when shot in a primo Nikon or Leica.
For that matter, I have only seen a few digital motion picture images --- always in a commercial theater with digital projection, never in home theater --- that equaled the sharp look of 70 mm movie prints of the '60s & '70s. Unfortunately, those digital prints were displayed at a very low level of brightness.
As to sound .... I resisted concluding that both analog recording and tube amplification were superior to digital and solid state, but I reluctantly came to that conclusion, after several years of denial.

Amazing isn't it. Analog still more faithfully captures a copy of the original than digital which is always approximated.

Don't get me wrong, I love digital. Storing hundreds and thousands of really crappy to pretty good pictures electronically with maybe a couple qualifying as a photograph beats the heck out of boxes and boxes of printed pictures. And yeah, they're good enough for most things. But for serious photographs and portraits I'm sure digital can't touch film for photographs or movies.

The highest resolution photos I ever saw and only in a magazine at the brake shop of all places were taken by a large format film camera the photographer had built using aerial lenses and I forget what all. From a large panorama of cliffs or whatever they could zoom in further and further seeing people looking down on the beach below instead of the people close to them who had just launched themselves off a cliff in their hang glider. Further zooming revealed the nude sunbathers the people on the cliff were watching. This was from a crazy distance like maybe a mile or more away. Simply incredible. Try that with digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I love digital. Storing hundreds and thousands of really crappy to pretty good pictures electronically with maybe a couple qualifying as a photograph beats the heck out of boxes and boxes of printed pictures.

Printed pics? Hmm ...

Just counted 'em, I have 68 carousels, nearly all of Kodachrome slides! No problem to quickly set up a projector and screen and have what the viewer will see as REAL-LIFE-SIZED pics going back 20, sometimes 30-40, years of pics from places like Hawaii, Greece, Utah and the West, New England, Italy -- you name it! Yeah, so they take up 2 corners of my cool, dry basement family (sic) room, but it sure ain't very noticeable. The color is fantastic for the most part, and slides make for telling a nice, memorable prearranged scenic story.

As you can tell, I would NEVER do that with dinky, lifeless prints in a book in someone's lap, when I and my sharers together can see real-size, real-depth projected slides instead. The life jumps off the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Printed pics? Hmm ...

Just counted 'em, I have 68 carousels, nearly all of Kodachrome slides! No problem to quickly set up a projector and screen and have what the viewer will see as REAL-LIFE-SIZED pics going back 20, sometimes 30-40, years of pics from places like Hawaii, Greece, Utah and the West, New England, Italy -- you name it! Yeah, so they take up 2 corners of my cool, dry basement family (sic) room, but it sure ain't very noticeable. The color is fantastic for the most part, and slides make for telling a nice, memorable prearranged scenic story.

As you can tell, I would NEVER do that with dinky, lifeless prints in a book in someone's lap, when I and my sharers together can see real-size, real-depth projected slides instead. The life jumps off the screen.

We've probably got less than 100 slides. Even so I almost looked at a slide projector at the local Goodwill the other day. Slides would be worth storing as the images are often amazing. I'm not sure why but I just never took very many nor did my family that I'm aware. Dad left as quite a few reels of 8mm and super 8mm home movies as old as 1950 that still look very good the last time we viewed any of them.

I had a history professor in college that had slides of practically everywhere we talked about in class. They were all at least pretty good. We joked that she probably had some of the cave paintings in Lascaux France while they were being painted. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/

My college roommate, an architecture major, went on a mission trip to London and returned with at least 2 trays of slides of the architecture and stuff that were simply stunning - left you wanting more. A few students from the college of architecture went on a bi-annual trip to Europe in those days and then put together a slide presentation using multiple projectors with fade capabilities all synced to music. A simply stunning presentation. Larger than life size images. I'm not sure the best digital presentation would even come close.

I bet you have some amazing slides. The kind that are worth seeing and that one would want to see more of and see again. Good slides can fill a large auditorium screen and I'm sure even your decades old Kodachrome slides would still be better than a very good digital image at a large size.

I had thought about getting a slide projecter back in my college years.... now kind of wishing I had as I'd have then taken more slides.

Maybe someone should get some good Kodachrome images of some of the prettiest Klipsch speakers and they could project them on the walls at the Pilgrimage and other times.

I also remember the Bell & Howell cube projector. I don't think it ever really caught on but the slide cubes each held 40 I think so storage would be a lot more compact than the carousels but the carousels seemed to have a reputation of being ultra reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...