Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?

[Chris A]

All one has to do is sit in front of a pair of Tannoy Dual Concentric's to get a demonstration of the audibility of phase and time alignment.

Yep, except the "backwave problem" (same problem as Nelson Pass' "Kleinhorn"): the Tannoy Westminster Royal HE backwave is not-in-phase over much of its wide passband (this is the same problem as a single-driver bass reflex speaker). And the Tannoys also suffer from higher distortion due to the direct radiators that are used (i.e., larger required motion of the cone diaphrams than compression drivers for the same spl). This translates into lower dynamic performance than a fully horn-loaded speaker system.

But I bet it sounds great at lower volume...

Chris []

[Islander]

P.S.: If the discussion turns to impulse response of the speaker, then phase (or delay in this case) can matter, but note the very large delay errors that currently exist in Khorns, La Scalas, Belles, and virtually any other horn-loaded-bass speaker. If you can't hear the effects of that 8.4 ms delay (which is huge, by the way) between the Khorn tweeter and its bass bin, then I'd imagine that "phase accuracy" is not big on your list of audiophile issues.

However, I find that Jubilee bass-bin delay correction IS a big deal, so I'd imagine that anyone here that is sensitive to phase distortion is already actively tri-amping their Khorns, which can simultaneously correct for the delays between tweeter, midrange and bass bin. My guess is that the issues associated with the khorn bass performance will be mostly mitigated through active triamping/driver-horn delay correction.

Using 2.2 ms tweeter delay with the JubScalas produces a noticeable improvement in sound, but it's not audible with all types of music. For me, the song where the time-alignment improvement is most noticeable is Take This Waltz by Leonard Cohen. It has a bass line that matches the vocal, beat for beat, and it sounds tighter with the delay applied.

[Chris A]

and it sounds tighter with the delay applied.

It's nice to be able to illustrate the effects of delay correction using a digital crossover (bi-amping or tri-amping) by switching the delay on and off.

I haven't done this with the Khorns yet, but it's an audible difference with 2-way Jubs that use only 2.27 ms of delay between the K402 and the KPT-KHJ-LF bass bin. Think of the difference to be gained with Khorns with their 8+ ms-delayed bass bin and 1.7+ ms-delayed midrange (relative to tweeter).

Chris

[secretplayer]

No.

[CaptnBob]

No.

I asked him once and he said: "no." He felt it was a better solution to experiment with room treatments, and his experiments showed while broadband equalizers ("graphic" equalizers) might improve the frequency response in one area in the room, they tended to make it wildly worse in another.

That said, I've had success with a three-band parametric backing off the middle a bit and pushing the extremes a little.

Of course, in a P. A. situation, an eq is a must.

A lot of graphic equalizers do bad things to your sound, even when set flat. Those of us who qualify as "codgers" remember the Advent Frequency Balance Box...

[ka7niq]

You can buy a copy of the advent frequency balance box review here, or, just have a look at some of the wonderful stuff we used to use.

[garyrc]

IMO:

• Very versatile tone controlls (like the ones on the old Luxman integrated amps like the L 580, with 3 choices of turnover frequency on both the bass and treble controls, plus a bass boost switch with two turnovers for very low frequencies) would help make up for horrible engineering in the creation of a CD. It is the need to sweeten bad recordings that makes tone controlls or parametric equalizers so usefull.
• It's possible that starting with systems like Audyssey MultiEQXT to deal with the speakers and the room, in both the frequency domain and the time domain (re: the room acoustics), then adding on subtle use of rotary tone controls (pots) to optimize individual CDs or SACDs may be considerably better than using a conventional equalizer.
• My estimate of the percentage of discs needing EQ to make them sound like live music varies with how fast I'm sinking into misanthropy on a given day, but my estimates float around 70 %. This is especially true with DVD transfers from classic movies when the transferring engineers have no idea what the original movie sounded like in a good theater, but I do! To often they use the original musical elements without adding in the EQ and the dynamic contrasts that the filmmakers insisted on in the final prints.

[Don Richard]

He definitely did not have EQ in mind when he made the Khorn since multiband EQs were invented years after the Khorn was.

[seti]

If I speculated I would quess he would say his speakers are fine and to go fix your room. Perhaps with colorful metaphors thrown in for good measure.

[mark1101]

Garyrc:

• I talked with Roy Delgado on the phone in about 1988 .... in the course of the conversation he said,
  "Mr. K doesn't like equalizers."
• My guess is that he thought people would mis-adjust them the way audio stores commonly mis-adjusted tone controls
• That being said,
  I
  like both tone controls and equalizers, if properly designed and used.

If you look at commercial audio, the verdict is in: EQ is integral to doing business. In fact, I believe that the commercial horns that Roy has worked on basically assume that you are using EQ.

If you look at why PWK might not have advocated EQ, i.e., the technology of the day, then I believe his view on the subject would likely be in favor of EQ today if he were still alive (...this is a guess). EQ back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s wasn't very appealing to me either but with digital EQ today (and active biamping and triamping), my opinion on this subject has definitely changed.

Is it good if you don't have to use a lot of EQ? Well typically, yes, but maybe not always. I think that the advent of good EQ electronics allows for a wider latitude in design in order to achieve the holy grail of horn design: constant coverage (CC)--at least in the commercial realm. This means to me that good CC horns will require hf EQ-boost due to hf losses, etc., all other things being equal.

Low freq boosting is the norm in all direct-radiating subs, and in most horn-loaded subs (except perhaps the SPUD design).

Chris

I agree with Chris. Today's EQ is not what PWK had an opportunity to either accept or reject back in the day. They sucked back then. Even in 1988 the up and coming digital processors were nothing like what we have today. I would never have used one either back then although I did use an anaolog EQ from the get-go with my Heritage speakers back in the 80s. Today I live by my Ashly Protea 4.8SP. Since I have a commercial Klipsch system, EQ is required, intended, designed in. You have to have it.

Roy said that Paul liked to progress and had an open mind. He eventually accepted Tractrix horns...........I beleive he would embrace what some of the better digital units can do today.

[Ironsave]

He definitely did not have EQ in mind when he made the Khorn since multiband EQs were invented years after the Khorn was.

A T&T did not have cellphone usage in mind 50 years ago either; but that does not mean they do not approve it.

PWK was arounnd when EQs came out and deinitely was exposed to that technology.

(He did not incorporate it into K Horns, like say a JBL L100 though).

The thread title is "Did PWP Intend "..... I think he did not originally.....

I wish to know " Did he APPROVE".... (Or would he approve of doing so now; with digital EQs as well as PCs; etc.).

[Groomlakearea51]

I still use a completely restored, mint SAE 2800 PEQ in the man cave. With Khorns, Belles and Heresy's. That being said... the room is designed with a slight side flare, sloped from 7 to 9.5 ceiling, proper insulation, assymetric bookshelves on rear sides for diffusion, acoustic foam panels in the center area (all equipment is on rear wall), and the 2800 is used very, very sparingly to correct just those odd areas/ frequencies that need it. I've tried it passive (simple pass through on the 2800) and "on". The difference is subtle, but desired as when on, I can move about the room without running into any "nodes"...

Interestingly, when I changed the amps to all McIntosh, the previous settings on the 2800 had to be changed again, and actually almost no "dB" in the correction, only the affected freq and the bandwith of that particular freq spread. The 2800 is not in a "loop" (loops are notorious for adding undesirable artifacts). It is "downstream from the three sources (FM, CD and music server), and the amps, in turn only see that one input signal whether is flat pass through, or P corrected.

I also noted that when I changed to a music server computer and installed the really, really good xFi Titanium HD "audiophile" stereo card, that the required corrections were even less.

I now believe that provided the room is "treated", the speakers are "up to standard", and the source material is from a high quality playback device (high end CD player or high end stereo "card"), then the EQ becomes relegated (as it should be) to very minor corrections of anomalies.

Just my thoughts and experiences.

[H]

I could pull it, and after a week or so, perhaps not really miss it. But every once in awhile, I'm glad I leave it "in the circuit" so to speak.

[MikeFord]

I think in some situations EQ is critical, mixing requires some common reference point.

OTOH the reason that its critical is that our ears over time accomdate, get used to, whatever EQ we expose them to. Listen to a system with a forward midrange, and in a few weeks that is what your ears think is normal.

I don't use EQ. I might tweak a crossover, or work with room treatment or speaker placement, but I kind of see EQ as giving up on fixing something the right way.

[Don Richard]

I don't use EQ. I might tweak a crossover, or work with room treatment or speaker placement, but I kind of see EQ as giving up on fixing something the right way.

In one of his papers, Loudspeakers and Acoustics, IIRC, Floyd OToole states that EQing a boundary reinforcement issue may be preferable to room treatments because you are lowering the amplifier output to the speaker, thus lowering distortion.

[Dennie]

I use an "Audio Control C101 III" to correct problems with the room. It is my living room, so I don't have a lot of choices.

It is only use to "Cut" the offending frequencies, never to boost. It is a full octave Eq, with a built in "Real Time Analyzer" w/microphone and it has made a big difference.

When I press the "defeat" button, it is so loud with sound bouncing around the room, I don't know how I lived without it. Everything is so clear and clean now, it is like the room is no longer a factor.

I'm not saying this is for everyone or anyone, but for me, it has made an improvement in my enjoyment of my system.

Did PWK intend this? But I think he would want me to be happy and I am!

Dennie

[Ironsave]

Dennie;

That is exactly the goal; isn't it?

Even with my PC sound cards' (digital EQs); I mostly cut the mids a bit; never boosting anything.

Your description of non EQd at higher volumes is accurate........

Kinda out of control........ and certain parts of certain songs almost offend my ears slightly.......

[T.H.E. Droid]

I too, use an SAE 2800 to tweek my system. The Cornwalls seem to resonate around 3500hz in my room and I dial that down a bit. Of course the golden rule with EQ is never boost, only cut, and the Cornwalls don't seem to need anything else. My JBL summits have level controls for tweeter and midrange which I have adjusted to my liking so I tend to run the rest of the system flat with the eq cut out. The Khorns.... well, that's another story that's on a different thread. Whether they were ever intended to be used with EQ isn't really relevent. I'm sure Ford didn't intend the '49 Mercury to be used with Lakes pipes and fuzzy dice, yet these are owner preferences, and as Klipsh owners, we can do whatever suits our ears. I'm it never bothered Paul as long as your check for the speakers didn't bounce.

[RRFL]

NO

The brochure back in the 70's said to use curtains and furniture to dampen the room.

Two wrongs don't make a correct,

[ka7niq]

OMG, I can hardly believe this thread has gone on this long since I started it. I met Mark Levinson when he came to see a dealer in Seattle. I sat next to Mark Levinson at dinner,, and asked him what speakers he thought were the best, and he shocked the chit out of me by relpying Klipschorns were, as long as the tweeters were turned vertical, and they were equalized with his then experimental EQ that became the Chello Pallette Equalizer/

I have owned 3 sets of Klipschorns, in 3 different rooms , all with no luck, yet I have heard Klipschorns sound great in basements, and some rooms.

I met PWK in Detroit back in 69, I was just a Kid then, I think he was obsessed with efficiency, and Pro Tone Controls. He told me to adjust my grandpa's Klipschorns using the tone controls till it sounded good to me.

Think aboout it Guys, Klipschorns are stuck in a corner, they aint Magnepans you can simply move for best tonal balance., Of course PWK would alllow EQ, or tone correction! What IS the difference between EQ, and tone correction ? It all alters sound, right ?

[MikeFord]

I don't use EQ. I might tweak a crossover, or work with room treatment or speaker placement, but I kind of see EQ as giving up on fixing something the right way.

In one of his papers, Loudspeakers and Acoustics, IIRC, Floyd OToole states that EQing a boundary reinforcement issue may be preferable to room treatments because you are lowering the amplifier output to the speaker, thus lowering distortion.

That effectively compresses the sound, reduces the dynamics by cutting both the attack and decay of the original sound and substituting slow rising energy from resonance in the room reinforcing only the decay not the attack. I can see needing to do it in a commercial venue where other options aren't practical, but audiophile sound is all about not limiting ourselves to the practical.