DizRotus Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 EDIT: 6/22/09 @ 10:23 AM EDT The subject of the thread has been changed. Now the question becomes when and how PWK's 3 channel model was promoted and received. EDIT: 6/21/09 @ 2:13 EDT - The Forum seems to dislike pasting in text from a document created in MS Word. The gibberish above is the result. A thread in the Garage Saleforum: '54 & '56 Khorns $1,550 in Detroit, spawned a digression regarding the extent--ifany--to which PWK foresaw stereo when he built the first Khorn in 1948. That discussion seems more suited to2-Channel so I've moved it here. Regarding the extent to which PWK might haveanticipated and then ultimately embraced stereo, I feel that High fidelity wasalways paramount to him. There are two aspects of this analysis that arebrought to mind, especially today, Father's Day. First, I can hear my late father telling methat a good monaural hi-fi (which he owned) was better than a bad stereo. I suspect PWK initially felt the same, although he had an economic interest inembracing 2-channel, the accurate reproduction of live music seemed to be hisunwavering focus. Second, in 1967, as a freshman at Michigan State University, I first heard a Zenith "Circle of Sound"stereo. To me, it proved my father's mantra to be wrong. Thatcrappy stereo sounded better than my father's hi-fi. To some extent, thesame phenomenon takes place today when comparing 2-channel tomulti-channel. To many peoples' ears, a mediocre home theater in a boxfrom Wal-Mart sounds better than an excellent 2-channel system, especially whenwatching explosion films. If the goal is to recreate a live musicperformance, then an excellent multi-channel system will often outperform anexcellent 2-channel sytem. PWK liked opera (hence naming La Scala after theworld famous opera house) and symphonic music. While an excellent2-channel system can recreate the intimacy of a small jazz club, it cannotrecreate, as well, the size and ambience of a large concert hall. An argument can be made that it depends onthe source material. Several Forum members have expressed a preferencefor mono when playing vintage recordings that pre-date stereo. If theoriginal recording was well produced and recorded in mono, playing it through2, or more, channels is unlikely to enhance the listening experience. Thesame would apply to an excellent 2-channel recording played through amulti-channel system. I'm reminded of efforts to "colorize' classicblack & white films. To me, it was a step backward. On the other hand, do I want to watch DarkKnight in black & white on a CRT with mono or 2-channel sound? What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 PWK's papers extensively reference the Bell Labs stereo experiments from the 30's. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 When did PWK first try to play back 2-channel recorded music? He probably had access to multi-channel reel to reel before commercially reproduced stero LPs or R2R tapes were generally available. From a marketing perspective, the sooner 2-channel was accepted byconsumers, the sooner Klipsch had the potential to sell twice as manyspeakers to each hi-fi enthusiast. It's clear that he was a leader--without many followers--of the 3-channel system. His motivation seems to have been the quest for accurate reproduction of music, rather than a marketing ploy to sell center channel speakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Yeh, interesting thread. I think with Paul, it must have been about the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Hunter would be the one to ask. Klipsch has some of PWKs recordings on reel to reel. It would be cool to hear those. Here is an Ampex in the Klipsch Audio History Museum. Nice gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 He publicized his 3-channel system at the 1958 World Fair in Brussels, where the Heresy was introduced (see under 1950s): http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/news/features/celebrating-60-legendary-years-details/. This was prominent in Klipsch advertising materials at the time. PWK summarized the 3-channel system in a 1960 article summarized here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel6%2F8335%2F26282%2F01166249.pdf%3Farnumber%3D1166249&authDecision=-203. It looks like he participated in the adoption, in a way that served his musical and business interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 It seems to me he must have been very much on top of the situation. As mentioned by others, multichannel had been used by the Bell Labs system. You can check the web but the movie Fantasia had a a multichannel set-up in major cities and a traveling system. Five or more channels were put down on a film type system which was synced to the movie. That was about 1940. The issue was probably just when there would be a consumer system of recording. The first phonograph record was in 1958, per Wikipedia. The system was patented in 1931 by Blumlein. It is interesting that PWK had his three-channel demo at the World's Fair that same year. If there is two-channel, he knew derived three-channel would be better. We should check dates about when PWK first had access to a multichannel tape machine. I can only think that the consumer industry knew there would be some trickle down from the audiophile level to the masses, but how quickly? The audiophile's must have winced a bit at the notion that now you need yet another expensive amp and speaker. There may have been something else going on which helped. In the '60's the consumer industry was making television sets which, naturally, were very sophisticated by the standards which went before. The ability to manufacture such things and demand for TVs must have supported the "stereo" industry in a way. Two channel amps and receivers became similar commodities. Let me throw in a personal story. In the late '60s my parents bought a a GE console which had FM multiplex, removable speakers, and a stereo record changer. An honorary Uncle visited. Apparently he had an audiophile-like set up from years earlier in which an FM multiplex decoder was an option he had not purchased. He said the listening experience made him want to buy the outboard decoder. The honorary Aunt did not state full approval. It just shows that consumer products eclipsed audiophile.products in a short time. In another five years it was difficult to find mono equipment. Transistors had taken over too. Eight-tracks in cars were being displaced by cassettes. In conclusion, it seems that no one could foresee the exact path that would be followed. Wm McD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I heard E. Power Biggs play the Saint Saens 3rd from, I am pretty sure, this very deck in PWK's lab in Hope. Ruined me for life, it did. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The vast majority of the RCA "Living Stereo" classical albums were three channel recordings from the 1950s on. Klipsch only built on the Bell three channel setup. so there were any number of folks in the industry who were clamoring for such. Shoot my Fisher and Scott amps/receivers from back in the day almost all have summed third channels, so it wasn't exactly an unknown commodity. The big consumer obstacle was cost. When you could buy a car for $600, a top flight stereo would set you back even more. Klipsch actually had a huge marketing advantage - his speakers could be driven with any amp - while the highly inefficient air suspension speakers of the day needed some serious watts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Hunter would be the one to ask. Klipsch has some of PWKs recordings on reel to reel. It would be cool to hear those. Here is an Ampex in the Klipsch Audio History Museum. Nice gear. I wish I were in Hope right now on Pilgrimage with everyone...(there's not one going right now, I'm wishing for y'all, too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Gil said, " It just shows that consumer products eclipsed audiophile.products in a short time." I agree. That was my experience when the stereo produced by that cheesy Zenith Circle of Sound eclipsed my dad's high end mono system. It's also the phenomenon that let's pedestrian HT in a box systems displace SOTA 2-channel systems for HT playback. The commercial market for large footprint speakers, such as Khorns, Jubilee , etc., which don't attempt to ignore the laws of physics to reproduce low notes, seems to be insufficent to make them economically viable products for a large company. That will leave it to the DIY crowd and boutique fabricators to produce alternatives to the Bose cubes and the like. The whole 2-channel concept is being pushed aside by HT. Edited September 24, 2014 by DizRotus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 This post is merely to get the edited subject into the reply chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Stereophonic Sound with Two Tracks, Three Channels By Means of a Phantom Circuit (2PH3) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.