Bi-Amping K-Horns

[AltmanEars]

Honest answer Coytee --- Again dont want to put words in your mouth but are you assuming that a company that supplies an active and a passive solution would have the same crossover parameters and hence there should be no difference in sound.

If so consider this:

Even if the crossover parameters were the same the sound of the active setup would be much better due to the short path length and impedance matching between the amp(s) and speaker.

In practice the speaker designer would not use the same parameters for the active and passive solutions since he/she would be able to select a better sounding setup on the active side which has fewer overall design compromises. Also most quality brand supplied active crossovers allow fine tuning around the optimal points.

BTW, Linn and Naim really know crossovers and their products all have level adjustments on the active side that they don't have on the passive side...

[AltmanEars]

Islander I read your response and while Linn could improve on the crossover they are crazy people and wouldnt care about making it inexpensive. The high end crossovers they sell are more than jub's partly because of a high tech, made in house, aluminum machined case.

Your answer probably raises more questions than answers --- Off the top I wonder if Klispch (Roy) would share the optimal settings for an active KHORN ?and why are the Palladiums passive given the cost no object approach...

[Coytee]

Honest answer Coytee --- Again dont want to put words in your mouth but are you assuming that a company that supplies an active and a passive solution would have the same crossover parameters and hence there should be no difference in sound.

If so consider this:

Even if the crossover parameters were the same the sound of the active setup would be much better due to the short path length and impedance matching between the amp(s) and speaker.

In practice the speaker designer would not use the same parameters for the active and passive solutions since he/she would be able to select a better sounding setup on the active side which has fewer overall design compromises. Also most quality brand supplied active crossovers allow fine tuning around the optimal points.

Heh...you seem to be giving me more credit for understanding this stuff than you really should be. (trust me, in this case, the 'joke' would be on you! [] )

I'll admit to now becoming a bit confused. I'm wondering if we're saying similar things but I'm not catching that somehow?

Iet me use the Jubilee since that is my situation.

You said "AltmanEars:much of this discussion assumes one can hear and knows how to tailor a crossover to a room/speaker

and I suggested they both had the same starting point.

to bring this to my point of understanding...

I have a pair of Jubilees, they arrived with zero crossover. Klipsch (Roy) has designed a passive crossover for them so I could have them made, plug them in and be 'good to go'.

Roy has ALSO created the paramaters for use with the Dx38. I opted to go this way. I plugged the Dx into the system, populated the unit with Roy's paramaters and was 'good to go'

What is confusing me is both situations are 100% Klipsch engineered solutions, created by Roy in his chamber. Might they sound different side by side? I suspect there might be differences, perhaps some good and some bad (?).

What I don't understand is how having two fully engineered solutions being 'plug & play' ready, correlate to your statement "much of this discussion assumes one can hear and knows how to tailor a crossover to a room/speaker"

I'm under the belief that there is ZERO tailoring this crossover since Roy's already done that for me (as far as stock configuations)

Maybe I'm missing something in semantics. Then again, if you talked to my wife today... she might suggest I'm just having one of my stupid days. []

[AltmanEars]

Coytee

Ignoring all the issues with impedance matching and insertion loss --- The higher the slope of your crossover the more passive devices you need. The steeper the slope of the passive the more phase shift you will get. Also the steeper the slope the louder you can drive the loudspeaker without blowing the tweeters...etc

In your example the "fixed" parameters for an active JUB could be entirely different than the active counterpart since you can tailor the sound with the active xover without damaging the phase relationships. This also is before we get to a compensation circuit for a time delay.

The funny thing about the original Paul Klipsch quotes is that I was around in 1972 and there was a major difference between a Marantz and a McIntosh 275. They sound totally different -- so someone who could pick one from the other was hardly a golden ear. OTOH It wasnt until the late '70s that there were a number of good audiophile active crossovers.

[Coytee]

In your example the "fixed" parameters for an active JUB could be entirely different than the active counterpart since you can tailor the sound with the active xover without damaging the phase relationships.

(putting words into your mouth now [])

I presume you meant to say "in your example, the "fixed" paramaters for a passive Jube....." ? If so, I gotcha. If not... then I'm bowing out because I'm 100% lost and there's no sense in me slowing down the OP's question with my ignorance.

[ZAKO]

Coytee,,Gets confused easily... Ive been with active xovers for 30 yrs...For tweeking xover points and EQ ,, They are faster to work with and have a better edge on sonics..

[pzannucci]

So you guys are basically telling me that I have to tear apart the wiring on my Khorns this weekend and finally try out the dcx2496 which as been gathering dust?

I have 6 ICE amps here (200, 500, 1000wat @4ohm) so maybe a tri-amp with time alignment changes would be fun and interesting. I've just been playing with the KLF-30's I bought which I didn't remember sounded so good.

[AltmanEars]

Coytee,,Gets confused easily... Ive been with active xovers for 30 yrs...For tweeking xover points and EQ ,, They are faster to work with and have a better edge on sonics..

Yeah what he said... sorry about the typo

[AltmanEars]

So you guys are basically telling me that I have to tear apart the wiring on my Khorns this weekend and finally try out the dcx2496 which as been gathering dust?

I have 6 ICE amps here (200, 500, 1000wat @4ohm) so maybe a tri-amp with time alignment changes would be fun and interesting. I've just been playing with the KLF-30's I bought which I didn't remember sounded so good.

you are in for a world of hurt since if you do it right it will sound better and worse at the same time... If you tend to listen to digital the better should outweigh the worse esp if you can run your transport directly into the crossover.

[Don Richard]

why are the Palladiums passive given the cost no object approach...

1) They are time aligned physically and need no delays.

2) Some of the audiophools who might be attracted to the Palladium series want a simple signal path, and polyamplification is anything but.

[Dylanl]

Here's the scoop on the dx http://www.electrovoice.com/products/50.html

I'll admit that I don't know what your Crown will do although I suspect one big difference between the two is the Dx has a digitial section in it and I'd bet your Crown doesn't. (some don't like the digital section, so that may be good or bad)

Mind you...my comments here are regarding the use of your Khorns.

With the Khorns you have the long bass horn. As such, I think you (speaking generically, not "you") want to delay the HF section so you can "push back" the sound to meet the sound coming out of the bass horn.

The Dx will allow you to delay the HF section and match them up.

If instead, you use a speaker like a Cornwall where you have a bass radiator, I think the distance might not be an issue or, if it IS an issue it's reversed where the horns on top are longer than the bass driver.

Maybe others who know more details will chime in here... I understand that if you were to try something like the Dx on something other than your Khorns, you might not necessarily experience its full benefits.

I already have it sitting on a table at home, I'll bring it in to work, try to find a box and get to packing it.

Thanks Coytee I appreciate that. Brett

[garyrc]

• AltmanEars: "The funny thing about the original Paul Klipsch quotes is that I was around in 1972 and there was a major difference between a Marantz and a McIntosh 275. They sound totally different -- so someone who could pick one from the other was hardly a golden ear. OTOH It wasn't until the late '70s that there were a number of good audiophile active crossovers."

  You're right ... as soon as I sent that post I realized that I could hear the difference between the McIntosh and the Marantz, too. To me, the Marantz sounded "sweeter" and "warmer," and the McIntosh sounded a bit thinner, but seemed to have more powerful dynamics (once in a while). I liked them both. A sales person and I compared them for quite a while (on a JBL S8 speaker system), in both blind and open tests. In the blind condition, we each made a very few errors as to which was playing, but the difference held, most of the time. It's conceivable that Paul Klipsch was contrasting the ability of that disgtinguisher to the Consumers' Union Reports contention of the time that all good electronics sounded the same. Of course, CU rarely, if ever, tested amps as expensive as those two. PWK's own ears were already getting a bit old ... perhaps that's why he brought in the others.

• This evidently is not a big deal, or people wouldn't love biamped Khorns so much, but I'm wondering about something .....in our current home in Corvallis there is always a slight hum through the Khorns, more 120Hz than typical 60 Hz, and also a touch of hiss, with only the power amp on (there is much more prominent noise with the control center on, too). It's subtle, I have to point it out to my family. Back in Oakland, there was a more subtle hum & hiss that was noticeable only if you got within about 8 feet if the K-horns. With biamping, would subtle power amp hum be sent to the midranges and the tweeters (rather than be filtered out, as with a passive crossover), and wouldn't this modulate with the mid and high signals? I'm thinking of FM & Doppler distortion, or any other kind.

[AltmanEars]

why are the Palladiums passive given the cost no object approach...

1) They are time aligned physically and need no delays.

2) Some of the audiophools who might be attracted to the Palladium series want a simple signal path, and polyamplification is anything but.

I've heard this logic tons of times on this forum so I am completely mystified.

1.) The physical alignment of the drivers does not mean you have the same arrival time for the sound to propagate through the medium(air). Furthermore ,if you look at a Palladium the voice coil of the tweeter and the midrange are not in the same plane. Does Klipsch say they are time aligned???

2.) The path on passive is logically much more complex than active because the passive crossover has inductors. The Palladium is a 4TH ORDER crossover and is fairly complicated. In active the signal travels from the amp directly to a driver. Passively there is so much wire in the inductor for the bass frequency you lose 30% of the amp's power before it gets to the driver.

So it comes down to ---if you have a multi driver speaker are you better off dividing the frequencies before the amplifier or after and the answer is before.

I think the confusion on this subject stems from a belief that adding 3 additional boxes (2 more stereo amps and one crossover) to a system means the signal is complicated. While the box count is up the path is simplified. By the same box count logic you would never buy a separate preamp and power amp since that would complicate the signal path...

Now for the rest of the story --- The biggest reasons you don't want to introduce an active crossover into the Palladium mix are as follows:

1. Due to the market segmentation a Palladium prospect would have to be educated to the advantages. Dealers dont like to educate --- thats old school

2. The Jub customer is assumed to be more intelligent/knowledgeable and in some case is in the pro audio field which takes all this for granted.

3. If you had an active and passive version, reviewers would listen to both and proclaim that the speaker is pretty good passive but really comes alive when it is active. Potential customers who can't hear and take everything they read as gospel would interpret the reviews as you need to go active which would push the speaker into a much higher price bracket when one includes the cost of amplifiers and the electronic xover....

[Coytee]

2. The Jub customer is assumed to be more intelligent/knowledgeable and in some case is in the pro audio field which takes all this for granted.

Meandering comments...

There are definately some sophisticated guys who have the Jubilees. I can assure you however, (as I raise my hand) there are certainly some 100% dummies who own Jubilees and needed to be hand held through the entire process. I know there is more than one Jubilee owner who was never exposed to biamping & actives, me being one.

I will say though, given my starting point, I sure have learned a lot about biamping over the last 3 years. (doesn't mean I know much...just that my starting point was that low!)

Going active doesn't necessitate a net higher expense. Perhaps in some circumstances it does, but you can use something like the Crown Xti's and have a VERY cost effective solution that also sounds PDG!

Rigma spent somewhere around $3,000 on parts alone for his passives. Although he plans to showcase them on his wall in full view and I'm comparing to used Ebay prices... I just bought a used Dx38 on Ebay for $405.

I'm still confused on something (Altmanears)

Are you a net fan of biamping & actives or are you more of a net fan of passives? (presuming something like a Khorn since that was the start of this thread)

I'm inferring you to be a fan of both at times and there's certainly nothing wrong with that!

[consistent]

Hey Colin,

I have just picked up your thread and I too "dual-amp" my AK4 Khorns. I use 2 shunts (volume pots) I made (similar to Luminous Axiom but better) connected to an Altmann 10w BYOB for top end and Pass Aleph 30 for the bottom end. I get all the control I need through the shunts, dialling in volume . I converted the mid horns to tractrix I built and sit Crites tweeters a top on the vertical. I am amazed at the the clarity I now get with greater imagery. It is ugly, I need to build a top hat to fit but even the wife thinks the sound is a vast improvement. Very happy!

Cheers

[AltmanEars]

2. The Jub customer is assumed to be more intelligent/knowledgeable and in some case is in the pro audio field which takes all this for granted.

Meandering comments...

There are definately some sophisticated guys who have the Jubilees. I can assure you however, (as I raise my hand) there are certainly some 100% dummies who own Jubilees and needed to be hand held through the entire process. I know there is more than one Jubilee owner who was never exposed to biamping & actives, me being one.

I will say though, given my starting point, I sure have learned a lot about biamping over the last 3 years. (doesn't mean I know much...just that my starting point was that low!)

Going active doesn't necessitate a net higher expense. Perhaps in some circumstances it does, but you can use something like the Crown Xti's and have a VERY cost effective solution that also sounds PDG!

Rigma spent somewhere around $3,000 on parts alone for his passives. Although he plans to showcase them on his wall in full view and I'm comparing to used Ebay prices... I just bought a used Dx38 on Ebay for $405.

I'm still confused on something (Altmanears)

Are you a net fan of biamping & actives or are you more of a net fan of passives? (presuming something like a Khorn since that was the start of this thread)

I'm inferring you to be a fan of both at times and there's certainly nothing wrong with that!

Thats both a technical and a personal question. Given my background I would always gravitate to active. Also when you consider the incredibly low cost for good equipment in 2009 --- the case for active is a bit stronger.

The logical exception would be a 2 way horn system with a first order crossover and exceptionally expensive drivers. You could then make a strong case for passive.

Companies selling 3-5 way "monkey coffins" priced from 10K-150K with passive crossovers are most likely frauds...On the other hand, the good engineers at razor are selling a biamped desktop pc system with 5 active channels of digital amplification for under $300 dollars. (the sound is superb)

[Don Richard]

1.) The physical alignment of the drivers does not mean you have the same arrival time for the sound to propagate through the medium(air). Furthermore ,if you look at a Palladium the voice coil of the tweeter and the midrange are not in the same plane. Does Klipsch say they are time aligned???

Time-aligning a loudspeaker system physically does not necessarily mean that the voice coils are in planar alignment. It means the sounds hit ones ears simultaneously. BTW, unless the drivers are coaxial or are part of a "synergy horn" system, time alignment is exact for one listening height. Exact for only one vertical height, but improved everywhere.

Klipsch cannot say that their speakers are "time aligned" because that term has been copyrighted by another manufacturer.

2.) The path on passive is logically much more complex than active because the passive crossover has inductors. The Palladium is a 4TH ORDER crossover and is fairly complicated. In active the signal travels from the amp directly to a driver. Passively there is so much wire in the inductor for the bass frequency you lose 30% of the amp's power before it gets to the driver.

Signal path refers to parts count between the source and the speaker. An analog xover has more parts involved than a passive one, usually including several amplifiers, commonly IC op-amps. Some active analog units do use inductors in their filter circuitry. If the active xover is digital, it would have an input ADC, a processor, and an output DAC, per channel. Then multiple interconnects, multiple amps, multiple speaker cables. This is not a simple signal path.

[AltmanEars]

1.) The physical alignment of the drivers does not mean you have the same arrival time for the sound to propagate through the medium(air). Furthermore ,if you look at a Palladium the voice coil of the tweeter and the midrange are not in the same plane. Does Klipsch say they are time aligned???

Time-aligning a loudspeaker system physically does not necessarily mean that the voice coils are in planar alignment. It means the sounds hit ones ears simultaneously. BTW, unless the drivers are coaxial or are part of a "synergy horn" system, time alignment is exact for one listening height. Exact for only one vertical height, but improved everywhere.

Klipsch cannot say that their speakers are "time aligned" because that term has been copyrighted by another manufacturer.

2.) The path on passive is logically much more complex than active because the passive crossover has inductors. The Palladium is a 4TH ORDER crossover and is fairly complicated. In active the signal travels from the amp directly to a driver. Passively there is so much wire in the inductor for the bass frequency you lose 30% of the amp's power before it gets to the driver.

Signal path refers to parts count between the source and the speaker. An analog xover has more parts involved than a passive one, usually including several amplifiers, commonly IC op-amps. Some active analog units do use inductors in their filter circuitry. If the active xover is digital, it would have an input ADC, a processor, and an output DAC, per channel. Then multiple interconnects, multiple amps, multiple speaker cables. This is not a simple signal path.

Come on Don---

I'm not sure I understand --- I say time alignment refers to the arrival time at your ear of the audio signal and you say that it is when the sound "hit's" your ear and this is some massive technical difference???

You stated the Palladiums are "time aligned" --- not me... I'm not a lawyer but it is common knowledge one can use the terms time aligned or time coherent when referring to some aspect of loudspeaker design.

The common usage of "signal path" in audio really has taken on a few meanings:

1. Routes the signal has to traverse from source to destination. This has real meaning in the recording industry. Where folks are used to seeing signal path diagrams.

2. Some audiophiles refer to signal path in terms of physical length with long being bad.

3. Most folks add up devices such as resistors, transformers etc to constitute a definition of signal path within a component as amp A is better than that amp B which has a less complex signal path since it is an OTL amp... (This is pretty close to your definition, AOK cool)

If I understand you --- a passive system only has one set of speaker cables and is really simple since the leads from the passive crossover to the loudspeaker drivers don't count. They only count for those of us who have active loudspeaker setups.

As you know the vast number of active speakers sold have only one set of interconnects to the loudspeaker with the crossover and amps within the speaker or attached to a plate on the back of the speaker. This is the Linn, ATC, PMC/Bryston and Harbeth approach. Beyond this I know you are pulling my leg --- I appreciate it...

I would like to expand on a point you made and that is of the active digital crossover. I always thought it would be crazy to introduce a needless set of conversions but in practice it doesnt seem to matter. The benefits of the signal processing seems to compensate for the additional conversions. When I first heard it I couldnt believe it...

I guess the proof is really in the pudding:

I've heard extensively, owned or still own ---

The HQD system, the top of the line PMC, Westlakes, Naims, Linns , ATC's a few custom Altec systems, numerous active Magnepan's of various vintages, all highend Martin Logans except the CLS's(I have an early pr). Lyngdorf/Steinway All good --- all active.

I'm actually willing to accept that you would think the above systems are all trash or are good in spite of the stupid decision the designers made to complicate the signal path.

[Don Richard]

I've heard extensively, owned or still own ---

The HQD system, the top of the line PMC, Westlakes, Naims, Linns , ATC's a few custom Altec systems, numerous active Magnepan's of various vintages, all highend Martin Logans except the CLS's(I have an early pr). Lyngdorf/Steinway All good --- all active.

I'm actually willing to accept that you would think the above systems are all trash or are good in spite of the stupid decision the designers made to complicate the signal path.

What you own, or what I think about anything, has nothing to do with Klipsch's decision to use passive networks in their Palladium series, nor their reasoning behind that decision.