DIYers and "Improvements" to Klipsch Speakers

[Arkytype]

As a contrarian, I am compelled to respond to the tenor of Amy’s note about DIYers and “Improvements” to Klipsch loudspeakers.In the Vol. 7 No. 2 February 26, 1966 (Revised March 1972) issue of Dope From Hope, entitled Quality Control, Home Construction and Trade Marks, PWK acknowledges Dr. Irving Gardner as the author of the expression, “You can’t make what you can’t measure, because you can’t know when you’ve got it made”. As someone who owns way too much test equipment, I’ve come to appreciate two other related quotes:1. “Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.”2. “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science.”The first quote is attributed to Albert Einstein and the second to Lord Kelvin.While none of the three quotes cited specifically addresses acoustic measurements, they certainly apply—up to a point. PWK’s early loudspeaker measurement capability was limited to frequency response plots and using his two ears. By the time I was visiting his lab in the 1970s, he had added the ability to quantify “modulation distortion”. He had identified an audible problem and was able to measure and correlate the electrical results with what he heard. As a result of those measurements, he wrote several classic papers on the topic. At about the same time, a young PhD upstart named Richard Heyser was wrestling with the dilemma that measurements weren’t always correlating with what he was hearing. The ultimate outcome was that he developed a revolutionary methodology, Time Delay Spectrometry (TDS) which gave us new ways to help narrow the gap between what we measure vs. what we hear.Modern day loudspeaker measurement tools such as TDS, FFT, finite element analysis, MLS, etc. are available to help us further correlate objective measurements with subjective perception. Many of these tools are available free or at low cost to the Forum member.I hope the above lengthy preamble establishes that objective measurements no matter how sophisticated still fall short in their correlation with the subjective listening experience. To claim that, “…Klipsch has the best facilities…” raises the question of ‘best at what?’ An anechoic chamber has to be huge to allow for valid low frequency measurements. TDS has all but negated the need for an anechoic chamber at least from about 200 Hz on up. Don Keele’s ingenious close microphone measurement technique can accurately fill in the frequencies below 200 Hz. I’ll concede that the automated transfer function measurements and polar plots that Klipsch probably uses is a time saver for the loudspeaker engineer. However, a Forum member can purchase either the Linear X software Klipsch uses or any number of high-quality programs that will generate (as PWK would say) “squiggles on the graph paper”. He or she can purchase relatively low-cost, high-quality mikes and have a measurement system that will have a high confidence level. As an aside, any Forum member who has measured loudspeakers soon learns there is no such thing as the frequency response of a loudspeaker. So, where does that leave the Klipsch Forum member who thinks he or she has an “improvement” to offer for their Klipsch loudspeaker? Amy’s recitation of the party line that, “…we neither condone nor approve of any “improvements” to our design, and stand firm in believing our designs are the best they can be (until proven otherwise).” serves only to reinforce the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome.Let’s take one sorely-needed and long-overdue “improvement” to the Klipsch Heritage line. The K-400 horn was introduced in 1963. That’s 47 years ago. At the time, the K-400 met PWK’s amplitude and polar response goals and was able to work in a 2-way or 3-way application. Anyone who has heard a tractrix horn upgrade from the K-400 will attest that there is no contest as to which sounds more like voice or music. Isn’t it a bit ironic that almost every Klipsch loudspeaker from the $250.00 per pair B-2 to the $20,000.00 per pair Palladium P-39F sports at least one tractrix horn except for the Heritage line?Another long-overdue “improvement” in the Heritage line is the crossover networks. According to my sources, Klipsch uses the LEAP crossover design software. This program offers a fill-in-the-blanks-and-hit-Enter key approach to network design. However, the program fails to properly address the amplifier/loudspeaker interface and the slopes are too gentle to prevent driver interaction. ALK’s popular ES networks offer a near constant impedance load to the amplifier and the steep slopes eliminate any audible driver interaction. I have to disclose that my Klipschorns and Belle have Al’s trachorn and ES networks. As Daddy Dee and fini will attest after several hours of listening, those improvements have transformed my Klipschorns to higher level of sound reproduction realism.One could interpret the line that, “…our designs are the best they can be (until proven otherwise).” to mean Klipsch knows what is “best” and you as a proud Klipsch loudspeaker owner will have no say in suggesting “improvements”. After all, it is their company and ‘He who has the gold makes the rules’.How about if Klipsch offered to consider product “improvements” from those who purchase and listen to its products? Put a “Product Improvement” form on the web site that a Forum member would fill out. The member would have to be specific about a proposed improvement. Not just say, “The bass needs to be less boomy in my Model XXX loudspeaker”. Instead he or she might write, “If you add a layer of 1” damping material behind the port, the bass is smoother and I’ve attached some before and after measurements showing a XX dB variation improvement.” If an improvement were approved by the Klipsch engineering staff, the associated upgrade kit could be made available through Klipsch dealers.Klipsch is to be commended for hosting a forum that allows its members to both praise and occasionally pillory the products it manufactures. I hope the above “tweaks” will generate some interest and discussion. Lee

[Arkytype]

Obviously, my cut and paste didn't preserve the paragraphs in my Word document.

Klipsch Forum.pdf

[Invidiosulus]

See my attached reply.

Klipsch_message_pt01.pdf

[Invidiosulus]

pt 2

Klipsch_message_pt02.pdf

[Invidiosulus]

pt 3

Klipsch_message_pt03.pdf

[Invidiosulus]

pt 4

Klipsch_message_pt04.pdf

[Al Klappenberger]

I am in total agreement with Lee’s comments.

The case of the K400 horn compared to a modern Tractrix is obvious to everyone who has bothered to listen. Why has Klipsch retained a totally outmoded design in it’s “flagship” product? Every other speaker they make has this enchantment.

As to crossover networks. Let me make an analogy. Would you depend on the teachers in a medical school who trains doctors design an M.R.I. machine? NO? Why not? The reason is very simple. These are two entirely different areas of technology. Consider a loudspeaker. It combines acoustic and passive filter technology in the form of mechanical transducers and acoustic waveguides (horns). It also requires electronic filter technology to design the crossover , which is actually a “multiplexer” to a filter designer. It is an industry wide given that the people who design the drivers and horns are also designing the networks. Take it from a person who has spent nearly 40 years designing passive filters, namely me, that the networks designed by these people are a far cry from correctly designed filters. Even the terminology used as different! Nobody in the filter industry would specify a filter order in terms of “dB / octave”. This refers strictly to the “Butterworth” transfer function. This is very seldom used as it provides a very poor “slope” to gain flat passband response and extremely good impedance matching. Lowpass and highpass filter slopes are defined as the “radian location” of a point in the stopband for a given dB attenuation. The response normally used for “all-pole” filters is “Chevyshev” which has carefully controlled passband “ripples” which dramatically improve the “slope” with the same number of elements when compared to a Butterworth response.. Higher order filters are done using “pole placers” or Elliptic function software to generate “slopes” as sharp as 60 dB down 1.05 Radians from a passband corner. A 21 element Butterworth filter having PERFECT components will only yield 31 dB at that point and represents 126 dB/octave. Now, does Klipsch have software to do the simplest pole-placed filters like I offer as the “Extreme slope” series? I doubt they even know it exists! I doubt there are many speaker manufactures that do.

To make the statement “Klipsch has the best facilities, follows up with controlled listening tests, and has seasoned veteran engineering talent to ensure our finished products are just that: finished.” is nothing more than ignorance of what is possible. I made several attempts to introduce modern filter design to a certain Klipsch engineer and was totally ignored. This is nothing more that arrogance!

That having been said, I must acknowledge that being allowed to say such a thing about a company on its own forums represents a tremendous tolerance of open thought and expression. Why does this attitude not extend to the engineering side of the company?

Al K.

[Al Klappenberger]

Josh,

"Otherwise" has been shown may times. Everyone who has installed a Trachorn, a V-Trac, A "fastrac" or one of my networks as done so.

Al K.

[thumperxes]

Here is my thoughts and I could be very well wrong. Are these updates really cost effective for
klipich on the heritage line, cause I wonder how many new heritage line
speakers would be actually sold as new if changes were made to the existing
line with the so called improvements that can be made to the horns or network
upgrades. It seems to me most of us that
get into klipsch buy the products used and upgrade the old to what we like as
new to ourselves. Maybe the reason the other lines have some of the
improvements that we all talk about in them is cause its more cost effective to
design from the start of the project instead of doing a late model upgrade in
the heritage product line.

Me I kind of like the line the way it is. To me its them
staying true to what they started.

This may not even compare but how nice it would be to go to
a GM dealership and buy a 1966 corvette stingray just as it was then. Some like things how they are and I'm cool
with that and thanks for allowing us to upgrade and try thing out for our own
so called improvements.

with that said btw thanks alk for my es500and es 4500
networks I love them but my speakers are in storage and haven't heard them for
like 4 months arrrrgggghhhh

I hope this make sense or you can at least understand what I
meant.

[Amy]

I'm sorry, I should have clarified my note. I was posting on behalf of Jim Hunter.

No discussion is necessary, it is simply a statement on where we stand.

We do not intend to argue, so anything more said would be one-sided. You've said your peace, we've said ours, now let's move on.

Thanks!

[Al Klappenberger]

For the record, that "certain Klipsch engineer" was NOT Jim Hunter!

Al K.

[JJkizak]

Techknology gets better, costs more and everything gets smaller. At one time in 1976 I was going to build my own bass horn with a 15" driver and an openning of 66 feet. My House living room would have to be something like 300 feet wide to accomodate them and I was glad that PWK folded them up and compressed them and figured out how to make them work. It saved me from building a 3 million dollar house which I couldn't afford. But I still drew up the plans however.

JJK

[popbumper]

No expert opinion here, but the debate is a lively one and deserves its own limelight. For myself, I will however speak from my own profession as a manufacturing engineer, and a point of neutrality. I can see both sides for what they are.

From the beginning of time, anything that has been made can be improved upon. "Improving upon" is unfortunately a very subjective statement, hence the sheer numbers of companies in any single business. Sure, a simple premise, but the facts are clear. Given any problem, several solutions are found, especially when posed to a group of "solvers". Is any one solution better than the next? To remain neutral, an automotive industry example - does PPG >necessarily< make a "better" paint than say, Glasurit, a well known European brand? Or, does Samsung make a better television than Panasonic, at the same size/technology/price point? Could either be improved upon? Do you care?

How many speaker manufacturers are there in business today? I am nearly certain that the majority of them would claim very specific characteristics and/or engineering practices that make their products superior, especially where they are considered "boutique" speakers. Is any one of them wrong? From their individual points of view, probably not, and many of them, through subjective exercise, gain customers by the truckload. Are these customers wrong? Maybe. Have you ever enjoyed another loudspeaker? Can you honestly say no?

Now to point. Klipsch has been kind enough to "tolerate" the discussions here, and more power to them. They have an image to uphold, a history to stand on, and obviously products which are, from their very inception, wonderful from the start. Enough, this is why we LOVE them. Manufacturing companies exist to build products, make money, and provide their specific audiences with products that meet satisfactory safety, integrity, and quality requirements - ALL AT A PRICE POINT. Sure, Klipsch >could< design filters with extreme slopes, but at what cost? The cost of customers? The cost of livelihoods? The cost of careers? The business itself? In any business, a fine line must be struck between what the public wants and what the company is willing to do. Companies spend money on what makes "sense". The Kia is not the Maserati, because not everyone can afford a Maserati. This is simple economics, nothing more.

Now, we all are here enjoying our speakers, and tweaking them. Isn't it GREAT to have such a great number of speakers to start with? Isn't it GREAT to have the support of this forum and website? Let's respect them and don't bite the hand that fed - and feeds - us.

Chris

[greg928gts]

To make the statement “Klipsch has the best facilities, follows up with controlled listening tests, and has seasoned veteran engineering talent to ensure our finished products are just that: finished.” is nothing more than ignorance of what is possible. I made several attempts to introduce modern filter design to a certain Klipsch engineer and was totally ignored. This is nothing more that arrogance!

I'm glad Klipsch is not upgrading the Heritage line. Let's not encourage it.

For the record, the Khorn is not the flagship of this company anymore. Maybe the laws of physics CAN be changed.

Greg

[kumayama]

I applaud Arktype for his post, and applaud Klipsch for having allowed such an open discussion in this section of the forum.

I too am disturbed by the tone of Mr. Hunter's comments, as delivered through Amy. Arktype and Al have presented a strong case for why those comments have struck a nerve in some of us. I'd like to comment on another aspect of the remarks that simply seems to overlook a bit of Klipschorn development history, a history that involves changes in the Klipschorn design that it seems (at least to me) came from my own early modifications. I've never talked about this on this or any other forum before, but when I read a sentence from Mr. Hunter like "While we allow suggestions to be made on this forum and certainly want to foster creative freedom, we neither condone nor approve of any "improvements to our design, and stand firm in believing our designs are the best they can be (until proven otherwise)" I am disturbed at the lack of acknowledgment that Klipsch has learned from owner improvements and previously has used that knowledge to modify, and presumably improve, its designs. So I hope you'll indulge me in this little bit of history.

I bought my first Klipschorn in 1970, bought a second pair in 1973, and a few years later bought a Belle. They were used with Audio Research equipment until 1980 when I met a young electrical engineer by the name of Carl Staub. Carl helped me improve my Audio Research pre-amp, which led to us to other audio projects. We were some of the first people to be involved in modifying the new Hafler amplifiers for improved performance. At that time P. Woody Jackson was the Klipsch rep for the Western States. He was interested in us modifying a Hafler for him, and though he lived at the time in Santa Cruz, he spent quite a bit of time over at my house in Carson City, Nevada listening to my Klipsch system and talking audio. He would often rather enthusiastically comment that my system was the very best Klipsch system he had heard, and how much of the increased realism seemed independent of the amplifiers we switched between.

Between 1976 and 1981 I had made quite a number of modifications to my Klipschorns and Belle, most of which none of us (Carl, Woody and myself) were aware of having been applied to any Klipsch product previously. I may have been the first to enclose the backs with sheet lead lined plywood, mount the horns to the front of the panel, and I know that Woody was unaware of anyone else having modified the crossover design and upgrading its components to polypropylene capacitors, large gauge air coil inductors and the like. I showed these all to Woody and gave him the explicit instructions on making these modifications to the speakers. Carl and I made for him new crossovers for his Cornwalls as well as modifying his Hafler. There were many other modifications I showed Woody, including our early efforts at dealing with the time delay, but these were the one's he was most interested in applying to his own speakers and he told me he was taking these modifications to the factory.

In the next couple of years I went off to become a neuropsychologist and Woody went on to become National Sales Manager for Klipsch. Interestingly, at this same time Klipsch made changes in its (now) Heritage line that closely followed on several of the modifications I had shown and provided to Woody. In 1988 Woody became President of Klipsch and Associates and continued in that role throughout the 90s. Now I have no idea if Woody ever explained to Klipsch where these ideas came from--and just maybe they were being developed coincidentally at Klipsch at the same time I was making them available to Woody, but the changes in the production models did occur, and within a couple of years after Woody became aware of them.

I haven't felt there was any point in commenting on this for over 25 years, but in the context of my knowledge, Mr. Hunter's remarks were particularly grating. I suspect my early modifications are not the only one's that were translated into factory production changes. To imply that modifications are not to be taken seriously if they don't arise from the Klipsch engineering staff simply does not jibe with my own understanding of Klipsch history.

Lyn J. Mangiameli

[Edgar]

In the engineering world, there is no such thing as "best". The value of every engineering decision, every component selection, every aspect of a design is judged in the context of the constraints that are in place, and every conclusion is a compromise. So when you read an advertisement that states that some item is a "no-compromise design", reach for your BS button. And when an engineering design is proclaimed to be "best", what it really means is "best, within the design constraints" -- and you may not be aware of all of those constraints.

In the marketplace, the number one constraint is almost always cost (or, at least, some computation involving cost -- think back to that course on microeconomics that you took in college). So, while someone might, for example, offer compelling evidence that replacing the K400 with a Tractrix horn improves sonic performance, the cost of such a substitution might not be justified by the anticipated change in revenue for Klipsch. The end-result of this is the healthy aftermarket that we observe, through which those individuals for whom the sonic improvement justifies the added cost can make the change. But it is unrealistic to assume that, just because a modest number of Klipschorn owners think that the sonic improvement outweighs the added cost, enough others will feel the same way to make the change profitable for Klipsch. And that's really the bottom line, isn't it?

Also, even when solid, objective data are available in support of a change, highly qualified people can honestly disagree upon their interpretation. For example, though I hold Al Klappenberger in very high regard, I respectfully but strongly disagree with him that "extreme slope" filters are a good idea. Why? Because my crossover designs emphasize time domain performance (see here), while Al's emphasize frequency domain performance. I am not proposing that we debate the subject; I am only saying that even reasonable people can disagree as to how to satisfy the engineering constraints.

Finally, even in the presence of objective measurements, we cannot forget that audio quality is ultimately judged subjectively. And we can still perceive things that we do not yet know how to measure. (I'll offer a concrete example: I was recently involved in a project where my objective was to find an analytical method to detect a certain type of audio signal manipulation. I threw every mathematical technique at it that I knew, and a few more that I had to learn. Ultimately, however, the single best way to detect this particular manipulation was to listen to it with a set of human ears. None of the analytical techniques even came close to the performance of a human who knew what to listen for.) And, once perceived by a human, the subjective assessment of whether it is "better" or "worse" comes in to play. In that case there is no right or wrong, only consensus.

Greg

[Marvel]

Greg, great post, and probably the best explanation yet. I think that, deep down, we all know this, but don't want to admit it.

That's why, for the most part, I'm just going to kick back and enjoy the music!

Bruce

[thefluffy]

This is all great reading! I do love to read what some of the great minds come up with. Kudos to Klipsch for allowing the type of discussions that they do on the forums. I think a lot of that credit goes to Amy since it appears she spends the most time on the forums out of the Klipsch employees. Personally, I am always open to affordable upgrades to Klipsch products. I can understand the desire to keep the Heritage series some what original as well as the desire to hav them improved from the factory. But, I will not jump into that arguement.... I can only afford used Klipsch Heritage. So, it does not affect me personally. I dream of the day I can afford new heritage... because that means Jubilees! BUT, i never tire of reading about the upgrades! I especially enjoy when there is technical data to support those upgrades.

Daniel