Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?

[ka7niq]

You guys have not provide any reference materials that prove PWK was in favor of EQ.

We are still waiting for an answer If PWK was OK with EQ ?

Many people feel this way about Klipsch, that efficiniency is everything, and Klipsch will ignore deviatons from ideal response to get that LAST drop of efficiency out of their speakers ?

Feeling that the consumer will EQ it, or use tone controls anyway!

This is in stark contrast to the Canadien school of speaker design, and perhaps the Energy Enginers will assist Klipsch to make a better, more people/room friendly speaker ?

The Canadiens care about HOW a speaker sounds in a real room, not an anechoic chamber.

Think about it ?

You dont see owners of Canadien speakers buying aftermarket crossovers, changing drivers/diapraghms, and rope caulking their speakers, do you ?

Or, see them intentionally using inherently flawed SET with terrible frequency response amps to 'take the edge off" ?

To a stranger to this forum, it is like having a Pontiac trans am, and being forced to yank the motor, and slap in a big block chevvy to make it perform and Last.

Quick, name me ONE other speaker brand that has 3 guys selling aftermarket crossovers for it ????

Now, the question I am attempting to find out is IF Klipsch intended tone correction and or EQ to make their speakers sound right ?

If so, then I shall just get an EQ, and try it ?

Maybe Klipsch was right, make a speaker as efficient as possible, ignore a peak or dip here and there, and rely on the CONSUMER to voice their speaker ?

If that is the case, an EQ is a hell of a lot more effective to voice a speaker then some things I see folks do on the forum.

As I said before, Mark Levinson told me that EQ'd Klipschorns are awesome speakers, and he also told me w/o EQ he did not want to listen to them!

IMHO, we NEED a definitive answer to this from someone who KNEW PWK's feelings about EQ ?

It could sure as heck save a LOT of frustration and needless expense by Klipsch Heritage Owners going to heroic measures trying to make their speakers sound right.

[mike stehr]

IMHO, we NEED a definitive answer to this from someone who KNEW PWK's feelings about EQ ?

I just channeled Paul. He say's just buy a cheap 10 band graphic EQ, throw a smiley face on it, and call it a day..........

[ka7niq]

IMHO, we NEED a definitive answer to this from someone who KNEW PWK's feelings about EQ ?

I just channeled Paul. He say's just buy a cheap 10 band graphic EQ, throw a smiley face on it, and call it a day..........

LOL Mike ! Beat me to it, I just joined Psycic Friends Network, hoping to talk with PWK about his feelings on EQ [:@]

[russ69]

We all know that Dr. Bose and PWK were polar opposites, well Mr. Bose believed in equalization..............

Thanx, Russ

[neo33]

That's why Bose is screwed!

Mr. Bose believed in equalization..............

[ka7niq]

We all know that Dr. Bose and PWK were polar opposites, well Mr. Bose believed in equalization..............

Thanx, Russ

no bose was a muslim !!!

[ZAKO]

Bose also believed in stealing other peoples ideas and claiming it was his,,,,,such as the acousticle labyrinth,,,from Stromberg Carlson 1937

[ka7niq]

Bose also believed in stealing other peoples ideas and claiming it was his,,,,,such as the acousticle labyrinth,,,from Stromberg Carlson 1937

No highs, no lows, must be a BOSE ?

[Dennie]

You guys have not provide any reference materials that prove PWK was in favor of EQ.

We are still waiting for an answer If PWK was OK with EQ ?

Now, the question I am attempting to find out is IF Klipsch intended tone correction and or EQ to make their speakers sound right ?

If so, then I shall just get an EQ, and try it ?

Maybe Klipsch was right, make a speaker as efficient as possible, ignore a peak or dip here and there, and rely on the CONSUMER to voice their speaker ?

If that is the case, an EQ is a hell of a lot more effective to voice a speaker then some things I see folks do on the forum.

As I said before, Mark Levinson told me that EQ'd Klipschorns are awesome speakers, and he also told me w/o EQ he did not want to listen to them!

IMHO, we NEED a definitive answer to this from someone who KNEW PWK's feelings about EQ ?

It could sure as heck save a LOT of frustration and needless expense by Klipsch Heritage Owners going to heroic measures trying to make their speakers sound right.

It sure seems like it would be personal preference. Doesn't it?

PWK did not have your listening room or your gear or furniture. I don't think a $100,000 speaker is going to sound right in every room. So why would a $5000 speaker?

Maybe "Mark Levinson's" room sucks? Why would you want to do what "Mark Levinson" does? You don't have the same room, you probably do not have the same gear. So, what he does is irrelevant to me, my room and my gear and I think it would be for your room and gear, also.

I would say if you don't trust your ears, get a RTA and go to work. What PWK "intended" does not seem to be the question?

What you intend to do in "YOUR" room is what matters. It would seem!

I've mentioned what I do in my room, but that should have no effects on what you need to do with your room, gear etc. I just don't get why it would matter what PWK intended? My La Scala's were made for a man to have a crowd hear him as he campaigned for Governor, they were not intended to be in a living room with furniture, kids, a dog running around. So I have to do what I have to do to make them sound good to me, in my room with my gear etc.

I hope this makes sense and remember, I am no expert. [*-)]

Dennie

[ka7niq]

I just don't get why it would matter what PWK intended?

I just have always wondered Denny if That was PWK's design philosophy, make the speaker as efficient as possible by running the drivers as "HOT" as possible (within + or - 5db or so) and let the consumer apply the final "Voice" to the speakers.

I once owned Cabasse speakers, they sounded like chit, bought them strictly on reputation w/o hearing them first. I actually called France, talked to them, and here is what they told me. THEY make their speakers as efficient and as Flat as possible. Georges Cabasse does not believe in "voicing" a speaker. I was advised to use my tone controls OR an Equalizer to make my speakers sound as I wished.

[mungkiman]

Doesn't the crossover itself provide some equalization??

[mungkiman]

You guys have not provide any reference materials that prove PWK was in favor of EQ.

High-Fidelity Vol 1 Issue No.1

[mungkiman]

On page 4 of this article, PWK describes why the Brook 12A3-K-1 is his preferred amplifier:

"3) it has a very refined preamplifier with proper equalization provisions"

[Don Richard]

Many speakers use EQ in their passive crossovers, such as the BBC designs and variants. Early Klipsch didn't use any. Do what you need to do as far as outboard EQ. The newer units are quiet and effective.

[ka7niq]

On page 4 of this article, PWK describes why the Brook 12A3-K-1 is his preferred amplifier:

"3) it has a very refined preamplifier with proper equalization provisions"

Well, so MUCH for the "straight wire with gain" crowd, huh ?

PWK wanted EQ for his speakers, now we know!

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I'd be tempted to try it if Levinsion had personally advised you to try it. However, does it matter if PWK or Mark Levinson approved of equalization? If you want to try it, go for it and see what you think. You can always take it back out again.

The Behringer DEQ2496 units with mic are very affordable and do a good job.

One thing that I reccomend is adjustable midrange and tweeter. When I triamped, my K Horns never sounded better because I could turn both the midrange and tweeter down. It helped a lot. Next round, I will build ALK's universals and add a tweeter attenuator.

[neo33]

First of all, PWK liked the beam tube McIntosh amplifier design because it exhibited very low distortion even at high output.

The article consisted of 6 pages and this is the only place PWK mentioned "with proper equalization provisions" with no further elaboration of what "proper equalization" is. He could have at least spend half a page explaining what he means by this and why we need equalization. IMO, this does not prove that PWK is favoring equalization. I think more like he is favoring low low low distortion. It's pretty clear in the article that he is more concern about distortion.

On page 4 of this article, PWK describes why the Brook 12A3-K-1 is his preferred amplifier:

"3) it has a very refined preamplifier with proper equalization provisions"

[mungkiman]

"There are certain basic features which should be checked in selecting an amplifier to drive a Klipschorn. These are: triode output with feedback, or the beam tube arrangement exemplified by the McIntosh design should be a criterion; the correct design of lower-level stages so that they will be as distortion-free as the output stage; an adequate output transformer; at least 35 decibels of available loss in the pre-amplifier to permit that much linear bass-boost to equalize velocity-type phono pickups; and equalization to a linear range down to 30 cycles, and preferably down to 25 cycles or below."

[ka7niq]

I'd be tempted to try it if Levinsion had personally advised you to try it. However, does it matter if PWK or Mark Levinson approved of equalization? If you want to try it, go for it and see what you think. You can always take it back out again.

The Behringer DEQ2496 units with mic are very affordable and do a good job.

One thing that I reccomend is adjustable midrange and tweeter. When I triamped, my K Horns never sounded better because I could turn both the midrange and tweeter down. It helped a lot. Next round, I will build ALK's universals and add a tweeter attenuator.

Well, Mark Levinson uses a VERY special EQ that is now called a Cello Audio Pallette!

Only about 14 K, last time looked.

Mark had KHorns in his basement to use for mastering and listening, and was into to Analog Reel to Reel.

He also told me to remove the tweeters, and rig a way to place them vertically on top of the cabinets, if I recall ?

He said imaging could get spooky good on Khorns arrayed this way. My friends in Seattle were Levinson dealers, back when Mark still owned his company, and I asked Mark Levinson at dinner, right in front of my dealer friends. Mark asked the dealers if he could answer my question honestly. Reason he did was my dealer friends did not sell Klipsch, they were B&W Magnepan, Snell, Vandersteen and Thiel types! When Mark told me what he told me, they about Chit! Among many audiophiles, Klipsch speakers do not hold the high esteem they enjoy here! A shame I believe, since PWK was obviously an audiophile!

Hey, where can one get the old dope from hope articles ? Are there re prints availiable somewhere ?

[mungkiman]

First of all, PWK liked the beam tube McIntosh amplifier design because it exhibited very low distortion even at high output.

The article consisted of 6 pages and this is the only place PWK mentioned "with proper equalization provisions" with no further elaboration of what "proper equalization" is. He could have at least spend half a page explaining what he means by this and why we need equalization. IMO, this does not prove that PWK is favoring equalization. I think more like he is favoring low low low distortion. It's pretty clear in the article that he is more concern about distortion.

On page 4 of this article, PWK describes why the Brook 12A3-K-1 is his preferred amplifier:

"3) it has a very refined preamplifier with proper equalization provisions"

Klipsch may have simply been trying to compensate for a loss of sound energy in the lower registers. Did he favor EQ? I doubt it, but physics can make for a difficult mistress.

Did he favor low, low distortion? Yes. Accurate reproduction? Yes.