Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?

[neo33]

If he favored EQ he would have spend at least an article explaining why we need EQ. Your quote in bit and piece does not prove anything. It is pretty clear from the article that he was more concern about distortion than EQ. Basically, he was laying the foundation for a distortion-free environment to enjoy the Klipschorns.

"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]

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.

EQ EQ, My Oh My

PWK used it low, did he also use it high ?

LOL

[ZAKO]

Ka7nig,,,,Did that blond in your avatar turn your hair white ?????

[ka7niq]

Ka7nig,,,,Did that blond in your avatar turn your hair white ?????

No, it was from all the Klipsch speakers over the years []

Seriously, my hair is white/silver, depends how much grease is in it, at the time.

I just turned 55 in October, but it has been this way since my late 40's.

My little Blondie loves it! I dont, but not about to dye it either, I wear it too short, and would look like Rocky Raccoon.

[ka7niq]

If he favored EQ he would have spend at least an article explaining why we need EQ. Your quote in bit and piece does not prove anything. It is pretty clear from the article that he was more concern about distortion than EQ. Basically, he was laying the foundation for a distortion-free environment to enjoy the Klipschorns.

If tonality is not correct, would that not be considered Distortion ??

[Chris A]

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

You can find them here.

[JJkizak]

I use the loudness control, midway on amp #1 the tone controls, an equalizer +6DB at 30hz, and expander/compressor at 98 db spl. with two Denon receivers with 7.1 speakers one feeding the other in tandom----K-horns with Cornwall center channel and Klipsch side and back small speakers---set at 5.1 dolby PLC-II. Without the tone controls and equalizer and loudness control the system sounds like a table model radio. If I had to listen without these controls I would sell all the Klipsch stuff buy a Bose table radio.

JJK

[mikebse2a3]

I posted this before and will repost for anyone interested in doing this with a Behringer or similar DSP based processor with these capabilities.

Behringer Program to simulate "Cello Palette"

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/p/112125/1127553.aspx#1127553

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EQing..............Its in our equipment,our active and passive crossovers ,our rooms and our recordings!

It's a dirty word to many purist audophiles!!! I myself have used some forms of it in the past and wasn't satisfied with what it offered me but what I'm able to acheive with today's DSP based Crossovers and Equalizers has changed my mind and my system for the better IMHO.

One thing that many people who acheive a very accurate reproduction system will notice is the widely varying quality of our recordings and when very high quality recordings are reproduced through very good systems it can be a wonderfull experience but unfortunately far to many of our favorite music was recorded using bad methods, equipment, and often with an eye/ear on what will sell good soundwise(ie,, over a boombox or car system) instead of trying to faithfully capture the sound of a real event with the best equipment and methods we have today.

Even when the best methods and equipment are used to make recordings there are still many variables that will effect the tonality that the recording engineer heard and recorded versus what we will hear when we reproduce the same recording over our own unique system/room. This alone IMO shows the need for us to have the ability to compensate the best we can for the recordings we want to reproduce in our own listening rooms.

One ear opener for me was about 10 tears ago when I was repairing a Marantz 7C for a friend. I installed the pre-amp in my system and as I listened over the next couple of weeks I noticed how much I enjoyed more of my music by the subtle use of the bass and treble controls of the Marantz 7C.

As many know there are very few high quality pre-amps made with tone controls and even when they do have them they have been of limited use.

Another product caught my attention when it was produced and to me made more sense when it comes to EQing for various recordings was the Cello Palette Preamplifier and of particular interest was the EQing features it offered.

So if anyone has a desire to see what being able to EQ like the Cello Palette would offer them and they own a Behringer DEQ2496 or similar processor I have come up with the PEQ settings that will very closely mimic those of the Cello Palette.

For the Behringer DEQ2496 program into the PEQ Module the following settings:

Freq. B/W(Oct) Gain(db)

20Hz 2 0.5db see note (1)
120Hz 2 0.0db see note (2)
500Hz 2 0.0db
2000Hz 3 0.0db
5023 Hz 2 0.0db
20khz 3/2 0.0db

(1) note: You must program some value of gain into one of the PEQs for the Behringer to save your PEQ module into memory so if something is already presently programed to the PEQ module before you add these Cello Parameters then this can be set to 0.0db also.

(2) note: All PEQs set to 0db Gain will be adjusted as needed depending on recordings.

One great feature of using the Behringer like I am is when I have very good recordings I just place the Behringer in Bypass Mode but otherwise I have the ability to make subtle but very enjoyable changes to the less than ideal recordings.

I would suggest reasonable adjustment limitations so far based on what I have experienced are; the bands of 20Hz, 120Hz and 20khz should be limited to approximately +/- 6db with something around 2db to 4db being more common. The 500Hz , 2000Hz and 5023Hz will often stay within +/- 2db with (1/2 db adjustments being discernable in these bands). On vocal recordings it is really pretty easy to tweek these 3 bands for the best tonal balance and the reproduced image is often improved in a meaningfull way also.

This ability to compensate tonally has definitly improved my ability to enjoy more of my recordings.

Something I didn't expect was how easy it is to use these bands for compensation (because they are very wide bands) and used within reason there effect is subtle yet clearly discernable and I never really could srew up the sound.

This is another tweek I added after forum member Cask05 brought some articles to my attention about room gain. I could easily see a recording being made and the engineer's tonal balance choice being made based on a unique room gain and other variables in the recording studio and even studio monitor system. Also our own rooms unique construction and room gain could easily come into play and after using it I do consider it a very usefull adjustment.

I actually found myself using this more and in preference to the 20Hz and 120Hz PEQs mentioned earlier. For my room and recordings I tried this with I used 100Hz and gains of usually around +2db to +4db maximum for the most realistic reproduction.

Using the Behringer DEQ 2496, program one of the (10 available) PEQs for a Lshelv 6db slope and by varying the frequency from around 100Hz to probably a maximum of 200Hz ( I'm assuming unique room size, types and other variables like modes might alter the best frequency for this purpose) and also by adjusting gain you can again add some compensation for differences in recordings and your own listening room possibly.

Not sure how many have the equipment to do this or interest but I of course would be very interested in anyone elses thoughts on this subject and especially if you have the Behringer or something equivalent and try this.

Note: Remember this EQ program is best and proprely used when used with subtle adjustments and any large increases at the extreme low or high frequencies aren't necessary and could damage equipment and/or loudspeakers.

Enjoy your music!

mike tn

[colterphoto1]

I am told Digital EQ is free of the penaltys you get with analog EQ ?

Except that from a purists perspective, you're chopping your music up into tiny bits and assembling it again at the other end (A/D and D/A converters). Unless these are high quality, some would say that there is a certain digital graininess. Some would consider this a high price to pay for the ability to add eq.

Also the EQ's available in digital receivers is usually of a parametric type, where the user (or software) selects not only the center of the eq band and the amount of cut/boost, but also the Q or width of the band. This almost certainly takes test equipment to set up properly in a home environment, unless you are just eq'ing for variations in source material by ear.

[mikebse2a3]

Please read this Link to the Cello Palette review because it highlights IMO some very important reasons why the ability to EQ is very logical when done properly.

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/692cello/index.htmlhttp://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Stereophile%3A+Cello+Palette+Preamplifier&expire=&urlID=15374165&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstereophile.com%2Fsolidpreamps%2F692cello%2Findex.html&partnerID=3834'>

Note: The graph showing the bands and their maximum ranges but of course small adjustments would be the proper way to use this method of EQing.

mike tn

[ka7niq]

I use the loudness control, midway on amp #1 the tone controls, an equalizer +6DB at 30hz, and expander/compressor at 98 db spl. with two Denon receivers with 7.1 speakers one feeding the other in tandom----K-horns with Cornwall center channel and Klipsch side and back small speakers---set at 5.1 dolby PLC-II. Without the tone controls and equalizer and loudness control the system sounds like a table model radio. If I had to listen without these controls I would sell all the Klipsch stuff buy a Bose table radio.

JJK

Yeah, and if I would have TRIED EQ, I might still have the 4 pairs of corner horns I gave up on, over the years!

2 klipschorns, one speakerlab super K's, and Speaker Factory ones.

[colterphoto1]

Although it is not a direct quotation from Paul W. Klipsch, this snippet from the company history, found on this website, is the basis of his speaker design philosophy. It could be added that this philosophy has been a driving force in the engineering of Klipsch loudspeakers subsequent to Mr. Klipsch's immediate engineering supervision as well.

"While the designs have changed along the way, the foundation of
Klipsch's work — horn-loaded technology — has remained constant. The
hallmark of Klipsch loudspeakers, horns offer high efficiency, low
distortion, controlled directivity and flat frequency response,
allowing them to more closely reproduce the quality and tonal
characteristics of live sound."

These four characteristics are considered in this particular order because each affects the next. I think it could be said that PWK appreciated flat frequency response, but not ahead of the other three design precepts.

Insofar as the modification of Klipsch (or other loudspeakers) is concerned through aftermaket crossover networks, let us remember that this is a product manufactured at a known cost in order to be marketed to the public at a predetermined price point for a desired profit margin. Even the mighty Klipschorn was not a 'cost is no object' engineering feat. In fact, Klipsch was a master at manufacturing engineering, utilizing many of the same components for the initial Heritage line of loudspeakers. Care was taken via the anechoic chamber and listening/voicing tests to give each speaker the best response possible within some given parameters (cost, parts count, ease of assembly). Of course no anechoic test can be duplicated in most living environments, so the choice to eq or not to eq (regardless of manufacturer) would be left entirely to the consume except in situations where a special eq was part and parcel of the loudspeaker system (Bose 901 for example).

[ka7niq]

I am told Digital EQ is free of the penaltys you get with analog EQ ?

Except that from a purists perspective, you're chopping your music up into tiny bits and assembling it again at the other end (A/D and D/A converters). Unless these are high quality, some would say that there is a certain digital graininess. Some would consider this a high price to pay for the ability to add eq

.

Also the EQ's available in digital receivers is usually of a parametric type, where the user (or software) selects not only the center of the eq band and the amount of cut/boost, but also the Q or width of the band. This almost certainly takes test equipment to set up properly in a home environment, unless you are just eq'ing for variations in source material by ear.

If all is kept in digital domain, what is the problem ? We watch and enjoy digital TV, it looks great, are you telling me our ears are more perceptive then our eyes ?

Analog Records are crude, using RIAA EQ, distortion from record grooves, etc. I would think you want the digital EQ to have a digital out, put it before the DAC, and go to town ?

The DAC is "stupid", all it knows is a digital signal is to be converted into analog, and cares not if the digital signal has been EQ'd or not, I would think ?

Back when I was a "long haired hippie" Klipsch sounded really good, my thick long hair provided an "attenuator" for my ears.

But now I am a red neck, so "get a hair cut", Boy []

[ka7niq]

I posted this before and will repost for anyone interested in doing this with a Behringer or similar DSP based processor with these capabilities.

Behringer Program to simulate "Cello Palette"

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/p/112125/1127553.aspx#1127553

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EQing..............Its in our equipment,our active and passive crossovers ,our rooms and our recordings!

It's a dirty word to many purist audophiles!!! I myself have used some forms of it in the past and wasn't satisfied with what it offered me but what I'm able to acheive with today's DSP based Crossovers and Equalizers has changed my mind and my system for the better IMHO.

One thing that many people who acheive a very accurate reproduction system will notice is the widely varying quality of our recordings and when very high quality recordings are reproduced through very good systems it can be a wonderfull experience but unfortunately far to many of our favorite music was recorded using bad methods, equipment, and often with an eye/ear on what will sell good soundwise(ie,, over a boombox or car system) instead of trying to faithfully capture the sound of a real event with the best equipment and methods we have today.

Even when the best methods and equipment are used to make recordings there are still many variables that will effect the tonality that the recording engineer heard and recorded versus what we will hear when we reproduce the same recording over our own unique system/room. This alone IMO shows the need for us to have the ability to compensate the best we can for the recordings we want to reproduce in our own listening rooms.

One ear opener for me was about 10 tears ago when I was repairing a Marantz 7C for a friend. I installed the pre-amp in my system and as I listened over the next couple of weeks I noticed how much I enjoyed more of my music by the subtle use of the bass and treble controls of the Marantz 7C.

As many know there are very few high quality pre-amps made with tone controls and even when they do have them they have been of limited use.

Another product caught my attention when it was produced and to me made more sense when it comes to EQing for various recordings was the Cello Palette Preamplifier and of particular interest was the EQing features it offered.

So if anyone has a desire to see what being able to EQ like the Cello Palette would offer them and they own a Behringer DEQ2496 or similar processor I have come up with the PEQ settings that will very closely mimic those of the Cello Palette.

For the Behringer DEQ2496 program into the PEQ Module the following settings:

Freq. B/W(Oct) Gain(db)

20Hz 2 0.5db see note (1)
120Hz 2 0.0db see note (2)
500Hz 2 0.0db
2000Hz 3 0.0db
5023 Hz 2 0.0db
20khz 3/2 0.0db

(1) note: You must program some value of gain into one of the PEQs for the Behringer to save your PEQ module into memory so if something is already presently programed to the PEQ module before you add these Cello Parameters then this can be set to 0.0db also.

(2) note: All PEQs set to 0db Gain will be adjusted as needed depending on recordings.

One great feature of using the Behringer like I am is when I have very good recordings I just place the Behringer in Bypass Mode but otherwise I have the ability to make subtle but very enjoyable changes to the less than ideal recordings.

I would suggest reasonable adjustment limitations so far based on what I have experienced are; the bands of 20Hz, 120Hz and 20khz should be limited to approximately +/- 6db with something around 2db to 4db being more common. The 500Hz , 2000Hz and 5023Hz will often stay within +/- 2db with (1/2 db adjustments being discernable in these bands). On vocal recordings it is really pretty easy to tweek these 3 bands for the best tonal balance and the reproduced image is often improved in a meaningfull way also.

This ability to compensate tonally has definitly improved my ability to enjoy more of my recordings.

Something I didn't expect was how easy it is to use these bands for compensation (because they are very wide bands) and used within reason there effect is subtle yet clearly discernable and I never really could srew up the sound.

This is another tweek I added after forum member Cask05 brought some articles to my attention about room gain. I could easily see a recording being made and the engineer's tonal balance choice being made based on a unique room gain and other variables in the recording studio and even studio monitor system. Also our own rooms unique construction and room gain could easily come into play and after using it I do consider it a very usefull adjustment.

I actually found myself using this more and in preference to the 20Hz and 120Hz PEQs mentioned earlier. For my room and recordings I tried this with I used 100Hz and gains of usually around +2db to +4db maximum for the most realistic reproduction.

Using the Behringer DEQ 2496, program one of the (10 available) PEQs for a Lshelv 6db slope and by varying the frequency from around 100Hz to probably a maximum of 200Hz ( I'm assuming unique room size, types and other variables like modes might alter the best frequency for this purpose) and also by adjusting gain you can again add some compensation for differences in recordings and your own listening room possibly.

Not sure how many have the equipment to do this or interest but I of course would be very interested in anyone elses thoughts on this subject and especially if you have the Behringer or something equivalent and try this.

Note: Remember this EQ program is best and proprely used when used with subtle adjustments and any large increases at the extreme low or high frequencies aren't necessary and could damage equipment and/or loudspeakers.

Enjoy your music!

mike tn

Great, and on time Post Mike !!!!

Wow man, thank you so very much, if ONLY the Behringer had remote control ????

[colterphoto1]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no purist. I have tons of Klipsch and lots of it is their pro gear. I'm a sound dude.

So I'm really all for EQ, just pointing out what some might see as pitfalls. I enjoyed the article that Mike B pointed out. Good arguments regarding the use of eq on page 1 although the reviewer lost me by claiming to hear a distinct difference between A/C power cables and dedicated v non-dedicated circuits on page 2.

Ears v Eyes would not be the issue. Processed v non-processed is the issue here. The quality of the processor is what may be at question. For instance, even my Yamaha HT receiver has a button for 'Pure Direct' wherein all the digital converters are bypassed (so there is no eq of any type also). This is again, for the purist who wishes to keep his music in the analog domain and free from the transition from analog to digital and back.

There are those who take this to the Nth degree, purchasing very high end A/D-D/A converter boxes to be used with their source components. I have no experience with this but know that they exist.

Another example - in my PA gear, I have a DBX DriveRack PA unit. This is a relatively inexpensive digital processor for my mains loudspeakers, similar to the Behringer unit mentioned by Mike B. It contains subharmonic synthesizer, limiter, compressor, graphic eq, parametric eq, crossover in a single rack space unit. However the digital processing in this unit is not nearly as high of quality as that in a friend's DBX 260 unit (with much higher cost). Digital is not perfect, neither is some eq.

My theory for home audio is that so long as I use a studied approach, exercise care in the boosting of any frequencies (sound dudes almost always only cut) , and don't put excessive demands on my loudspeakers- there are many gains to be had by using such devices. Smoothing room response to some degree, modifying the tonal balance of recordings, correcting slightly for lack of hf hearing are perfectly reasonable uses for eq. I've seen systems both in venues and homes where the user has made a real mess of things by non-judicious use of eq.

Would PWK agree or use these devices were he alive today- no one can say.

[mikebse2a3]

Please Note: My 2 previous post was mostly for the benefit of those interested in dealing with recording issues due to the many reasons as noted earlier.

The proper use of EQ as it concerns the loudspeaker and rooms should (for the most part) be seperate topics of their own IMHO.

mike tn

[colterphoto1]

Please Note: My 2 previous post was mostly for the benefit of those interested in dealing with recording issues due to the many reasons as noted earlier.

The proper use of EQ as it concerns the loudspeaker and rooms should (for the most part) be seperate topics of their own IMHO.

mike tn

understood Mike.

That being said and returning to the main topic, my bet would be that PWK had tone controls on his stereo systems and would not have been afraid to use them to correct for shortcomings in source material. I mean, he wore three watches, didn't he? Not shy of gadgetry, this one. []

Michael C.

[ka7niq]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no purist. I have tons of Klipsch and lots of it is their pro gear. I'm a sound dude.

So I'm really all for EQ, just pointing out what some might see as pitfalls. I enjoyed the article that Mike B pointed out. Good arguments regarding the use of eq on page 1 although the reviewer lost me by claiming to hear a distinct difference between A/C power cables and dedicated v non-dedicated circuits on page 2.

Ears v Eyes would not be the issue. Processed v non-processed is the issue here. The quality of the processor is what may be at question. For instance, even my Yamaha HT receiver has a button for 'Pure Direct' wherein all the digital converters are bypassed (so there is no eq of any type also). This is again, for the purist who wishes to keep his music in the analog domain and free from the transition from analog to digital and back.

There are those who take this to the Nth degree, purchasing very high end A/D-D/A converter boxes to be used with their source components. I have no experience with this but know that they exist.

Another example - in my PA gear, I have a DBX DriveRack PA unit. This is a relatively inexpensive digital processor for my mains loudspeakers, similar to the Behringer unit mentioned by Mike B. It contains subharmonic synthesizer, limiter, compressor, graphic eq, parametric eq, crossover in a single rack space unit. However the digital processing in this unit is not nearly as high of quality as that in a friend's DBX 260 unit (with much higher cost). Digital is not perfect, neither is some eq.

My theory for home audio is that so long as I use a studied approach, exercise care in the boosting of any frequencies (sound dudes almost always only cut) , and don't put excessive demands on my loudspeakers- there are many gains to be had by using such devices. Smoothing room response to some degree, modifying the tonal balance of recordings, correcting slightly for lack of hf hearing are perfectly reasonable uses for eq. I've seen systems both in venues and homes where the user has made a real mess of things by non-judicious use of eq.

Would PWK agree or use these devices were he alive today- no one can say.

I have a Yamaha RX V1 , but as far as I can tell, it;s digital EQ only works on the center channels ?

And yes, on many Yamaha recievers, if yoo go through the analog inpus in pure direct mode, it stays analog, FWIW. Less nail biting ....

I just think in MY room, Cornwall 2 needs a tad of EQ

Hey since you work at Klipsch, 2 questions ?

Have the Energy Engineers made an impact ?

And, does Cornwall 2 have a dip between 300 to 600 hz caused by floor/woofer ?

[Invidiosulus]

He doesn't work there anymore.

Not that he won't know...

[Edgar]

Except that from a purists perspective, you're chopping your music up into tiny bits and assembling it again at the other end

Isn't it about time that this superstition was put to rest?

(A/D and D/A converters). Unless these are high quality, some would say that there is a certain digital graininess.

A/D and D/A conversion change the sound in ways that may or may not be audible. It is not the fact that the audio is digitized that is at fault; it is the fact that the audio is processed. Processing can be done well, or it can be done poorly. Any and all forms of processing change the sound in ways that may or may not be audible, including amplification, attenuation, and just passing through a wire. There is nothing inherently "evil" about digitization, any more than there is anything inherently evil about any other form of processing.

Some would consider this a high price to pay for the ability to add eq.

So keep your audio in the digital domain throughout the signal path. Only perform one D/A conversion, at the amplifier.

Also the EQ's available in digital receivers is usually of a parametric type, where the user (or software) selects not only the center of the eq band and the amount of cut/boost, but also the Q or width of the band. This almost certainly takes test equipment to set up properly in a home environment, unless you are just eq'ing for variations in source material by ear.

There's nothing wrong with EQing by ear. In fact, learning how to do exactly that taught me how to be a better listener.

Greg