Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?

[dBspl]

I doubt this will end the controversy, but PWK was opposed to the idea of using EQ in the reproduction chain. As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion of EQ being applied to any heritage product would likely result in a flash of the little yellow button under his lapel. Yes, it is true that EQ is a part of the function of the passive network, but that correction is applied under reasonably well controlled measurement conditions. At that point, the design integrity of the loudspeaker is “built in”; and the use of EQ, after the fact, would just compromise that. I suspect that if he believed there was a flaw at the end-use side, then the first solution would be to go back and look at the loudspeaker / room integration and try and solve the problem from that end. There are plenty of “Dope from Hope” articles that address listening room issues. The listening room, of course, has a huge influence on the perceived sound quality of a loudspeaker.

In my opinion, PWK’s opinion of EQ was simply a reflection of his era. At that time, the Eq’s in use were of poor quality and almost never used properly. They generally introduced more problems than they corrected.

PWK also didn’t like active filters because he didn’t believe there was a benefit. He felt if a passive filter was designed properly, it would sound just as good as an active filter, and wouldn’t be nearly as complex or expensive.

One final point; adding EQ doesn’t affect the efficiency of the individual drive components, and if done properly, only has a mild affect at the system level. The EQ affects the sensitivity. Sensitivity and efficiency are not the same thing.

dbspl

[seti]

I doubt this will end the controversy, but PWK was opposed to the idea of using EQ in the reproduction chain. As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion of EQ being applied to any heritage product would likely result in a flash of the little yellow button under his lapel. Yes, it is true that EQ is a part of the function of the passive network, but that correction is applied under reasonably well controlled measurement conditions. At that point, the design integrity of the loudspeaker is “built in”; and the use of EQ, after the fact, would just compromise that. I suspect that if he believed there was a flaw at the end-use side, then the first solution would be to go back and look at the loudspeaker / room integration and try and solve the problem from that end. There are plenty of “Dope from Hope” articles that address listening room issues. The listening room, of course, has a huge influence on the perceived sound quality of a loudspeaker.

In my opinion, PWK’s opinion of EQ was simply a reflection of his era. At that time, the Eq’s in use were of poor quality and almost never used properly. They generally introduced more problems than they corrected.

PWK also didn’t like active filters because he didn’t believe there was a benefit. He felt if a passive filter was designed properly, it would sound just as good as an active filter, and wouldn’t be nearly as complex or expensive.

One final point; adding EQ doesn’t affect the efficiency of the individual drive components, and if done properly, only has a mild affect at the system level. The EQ affects the sensitivity. Sensitivity and efficiency are not the same thing.

dbspl

Thanks for posting. I wish I could have been a recipient of a BS Button flash : ) I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long.

In what way does EQ affect sensitivity.

[twistedcrankcammer]

Lets ask Amy, Trey, Roy and Professor Thump in that order.

[N][N][N][N][N]

[ka7niq]

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

When I spent a day with PWK in 1985 at the Hope factory initially, then at his home after lunch, he played his symphony recordings for me. I asked him about EQ and how he felt about it. He said that without proper insturments people would mess up the sound and that they were better off trying to put Khorns in a room large enough and that had a proper eigenton ratio, which is where they were developed to sound best.

I personally like the Audyssey EQ built into my Onkyo receiver. It does a great job and you don't need to know anything to use it. It takes into account room acoustics and uses some very sophisticated math to do it's thing. I have tried the "pure audio" setting to take the EQ in and out and I prefer it IN. So I don't agree with the "purity" idea of reproduced sound, since recorded music goes through so much processing before it's put on CD or DVD anyhow.

Audio is just an illusion.........a very good one at that. But all the elements have to come together to make it happen. EQ is just one small part of it, but I think it does a lot of good when done right.

It has been almost 8 years since he passed on, so who can say what he would have said about it. He told me he didn't like CD's at all when they first came out and never followed though about whether he changed his mind or not. I'm sure that if he had lived long enough could have MEASURED the positive impact of Audyssey's in-room response corrective power, he would have had to admit that it worked as intended and improved an already good speaker.

I would go for EQ. I did and I really think it's the best sound I have ever had, and I had Khorns for 30 years with a La Scala center, just like PWK. What I have now is better and it's EQ'd.............see my avatar

THanks for sharing your experience!

I have the YAmaha RX V1 with the Yamaha DSP system that is unique in that it uses Front Effects Speakers to really deepen the soundstage.

I had the Yamaha DSP A 1 before this for my home theatre room, and I am pretty much sold on the Yamaha DSP system.

So much so that I will not consider any receiver that lacks it.

It is a shame Yamaha does not offer a receiver with front channel EQ and the DSP system, as far as I know, for I would buy it, in a heartbest.

Maybe a newer Yamaha receiver may have what I want by now ?
The RXV1 was an older Yamaha Flagship, it lacks adjustable bass management, HDMI inputs, and EQ for the front channels.

I am familiar with the Onkyo and other automatic EQ devices in modern receivers.

BTW,, I had an older JVC RX DP 9 that sounded very nice, actually rivaling some seperates I own, especially on Horns!

JVC has clung to their sliding bias Class A system, and it works well with Horns.

It is my opinon some flagship receivers of today will often give some seperates a run for their money.

I also have an old Yamaha DSP A 970 integrated DSP amp, only about 70 wpc that I only bought in a package deal to get some Version 1 Klipsch CF 4's.

THe guy would not break up the system, and I took it all, to get the rare and desired CF 4 version ones.

Roy Delgado told me he has Yamaha stuff at home once when I talkeed to him.

The little Yamaha DSP a 970 drives my B&W Matrix 801's and almost sounds British!

Yes, my Moscode 600 with a tube pre amp beat it, but the differences were not as much as I thought they would be.

It is a very warm, almost dark sounding amp , completely w/o and grain, and believe me, onthe 801's, you WILL hear a bad amp, quick!

It does have the 7 ch DSP system, but only pro logic, and no dual subwoofers stereo outs, and a fixed 100 hz crossover of only 12 db per octave, as opposed to the 24 bd per octave of the RXV1 at 90 hz.

I am really itching to try the little Yamaha DSP A 970 on the cornwalls 2's.

I have many projects going, number one being buying all new caps for my B&W 801's, and I am also busy this time of year at my business www.saferoofcleaning.com

I teach and operate a roof cleaning company here in Tampa, but always tell my audio friends how to safely clean a roof easily, for free, w/o ruining it by pressure cleaning it.

I want to thank all of you for sharing your EQ experiences with me, and If I can ever help you , feel free to call ?

Chris

[colterphoto1]

" It is a shame Yamaha does not offer a receiver with front channel EQ
and the DSP system, as far as I know, for I would buy it, in a
heartbest."

Almost all of the current Yamaha line (and those produced in the past 5 years) have these features. They've cut back on the number of DSP modes, but the HT modes are very full featured (stereo from mono, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 DD, THX) . Mine even allows me to memorize several PEQ settings and I can recall two of them from the remote! There is a separate PEQ band for each of the 7 channels. You get to see the curves on screen also- no guessing. And it comes with the optimizer microphone.

The only thing that YPAO lacks that is available in the Audessy system is the ability to take measurements from various points in the room. I've not used one but I think it has the capability to combine these readings and create a 'best case for the most seats' from this data. This would be very similar to the setup used in commercial theaters where a diamond shaped array of microphones is set up in the theater.

[Hifi jim]

" It is a shame Yamaha does not offer a receiver with front channel EQ

and the DSP system, as far as I know, for I would buy it, in a

heartbest."

Almost all of the current Yamaha line (and those produced in the past 5 years) have these features. They've cut back on the number of DSP modes, but the HT modes are very full featured (stereo from mono, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 DD, THX) .

I have the Yamaha RX-V1800 (very similar to current 1900), and it has the YPAO room eq system which works very well, better than my previous Pioneer's MACC eq system. I'm really amazed at how much YPAO improves my systems sound and how it enhances film dialog intelligibility.

[dBspl]

In what way does EQ affect sensitivity.

I should have been more clear. I'm referring to the equalization performed in the passive crossover. It directly affects sensitivity.

It's also worth mentioning that horn loaded speakers do not behave in the same manner as direct radiators. A direct radiator speaker is a mass controlled device. The mass and the radiation resistance work against each other to yield a somewhat flat frequency response. It doesn't require a lot of equalization. A horn loaded device is resistance contolled. The mass of the moving assembly works against a relatively pure resistance. This results in a frequency response that rolls off at 6 dB per octave above the mass break frequency. As a result, it requires some form of equalization to realize a flat frequency response.

dbspl

[seti]

In what way does EQ affect sensitivity.

I should have been more clear. I'm referring to the equalization performed in the passive crossover. It directly affects sensitivity.

It's also worth mentioning that horn loaded speakers do not behave in the same manner as direct radiators. A direct radiator speaker is a mass controlled device. The mass and the radiation resistance work against each other to yield a somewhat flat frequency response. It doesn't require a lot of equalization. A horn loaded device is resistance contolled. The mass of the moving assembly works against a relatively pure resistance. This results in a frequency response that rolls off at 6 dB per octave above the mass break frequency. As a result, it requires some form of equalization to realize a flat frequency response.

dbspl

Thanks for the explanation.

[ClaudeJ1]

Well, I am one of them. I like the sound of vinyl, and I like the sound of tubes. But I have found that the implementation of digital just keeps getting better, and has reached the point where it preserves the unique sound of vinyl and other analog sources very well. And it will only improve in the future. So why forsake the advantages of digital for superstition about its alleged disadvantages?

Greg

I totally agree with this statment. Digital EQ rocks. 96 Khz. and up can only be detected by bats, not humans. I was the first in Mighigan to buy a Sony CD in 1983, which is bad by today's digital filter standards, but still blew away vinyl by way of superior dynamics and NO ticks and pops to filter out.

[ClaudeJ1]

Dr. Floyd Toole of JBL say: "Equalization is the icing on the cake."

[ka7niq]

" It is a shame Yamaha does not offer a receiver with front channel EQ and the DSP system, as far as I know, for I would buy it, in a heartbest."

Almost all of the current Yamaha line (and those produced in the past 5 years) have these features. They've cut back on the number of DSP modes, but the HT modes are very full featured (stereo from mono, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 DD, THX) . Mine even allows me to memorize several PEQ settings and I can recall two of them from the remote! There is a separate PEQ band for each of the 7 channels. You get to see the curves on screen also- no guessing. And it comes with the optimizer microphone.

The only thing that YPAO lacks that is available in the Audessy system is the ability to take measurements from various points in the room. I've not used one but I think it has the capability to combine these readings and create a 'best case for the most seats' from this data. This would be very similar to the setup used in commercial theaters where a diamond shaped array of microphones is set up in the theater.

Wow, time marches on I guess ?

The DSP modes I can care less about, except the expanded movie theatre modes. I need better bass management, HDMI inputs, and EQ for Front channels. I had an old Pioneer VSX 990 I think it was, it had an equivalent in the Elite line. It had the ability to remember 8 different combination of the tone controls.

I used it with the Roy's CF 4 version ones, and loved it!

Styx and REO needed bass up two, and treble minus 2, Abba needed bass on 3, and treble minus 3, Tracy Chapman and Boz skaggs needed bass reduced by one or two, and treble at plus 2 There was never very many CD's I could not make sound better using the remote operated tone controls.

BUT, here in Tampa we have bad lightning, and frequent power blackouts.

It was a PITA constantly reprogramming the reciever!

I will immediately look at the new Yamahas !!! Thanks forturning me on to them!

[DrWho]

Ya Know,

I have watched this thread go on and on. I can't believe it is still active. I also can't believe we are still speculating our beliefs instead of asking Roy, which would be a better answer then crystal ball, let alone our own beliefs of what Paul would have said about this.

I also cannot believe that nobody brought up the 600 Electronic Crossovers for the KP-600s as this is a form of equalization that would have had to meet with Pauls approval.

Roger

I'm feeling ya there Roger [Y]

[ka7niq]

" It is a shame Yamaha does not offer a receiver with front channel EQ and the DSP system, as far as I know, for I would buy it, in a heartbest."

The only thing that YPAO lacks that is available in the Audessy system is the ability to take measurements from various points in the room. I've not used one but I think it has the capability to combine these readings and create a 'best case for the most seats' from this data. This would be very similar to the setup used in commercial theaters where a diamond shaped array of microphones is set up in the theater.

I just did some looking, and the Onkyo TX SR 707 has the audessy auto EQ, and the audessy surround system that allows the front effects channels!

Plus, Dolby has a new mode that uses fron effects channels, and Onky has thattoo http://bitstream.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2009/03/onkyos-new-receiver-does-dolby-pro-logic-iiz.html

I must find out if they are adjustable like the yamahas are, because i like being able to vary the "size" of the theatre!

I must investigate this, perhaps it is time to say "so long" to my trusty RX V1 ?

I also like the ability to use the unused power amps to bi amp in stereo!

PWK woud HATE the Onkyo, LOL http://cgi.videogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?rcvr71ch&1269203879&class&3&4&

It has power bandwidth out to 100K !

I tyhink I mmight be able to live with any reciever that lets me KEEP my almost ceiling mounted front effects channels.

Until one has heard a system with front effect speakers IMHO, they have no idea how they can enlarge the image.

I have ben able, after much fiddling, to get the Yamaha DSP working well, on SOME CD's.

It CAN be incredible, IF you wish to tweak for hours, LOL
But for Movies, I have heard no equal, yet.

Watching the Chronicles Of Riddick is a whole new experiences that blows minds when it is engaged.

I now have my homework cut out for me ....... []

[Arkytype]

PWK wrote an article entitled The Trouble with Attenuators which appeared in the November 1958 issue of Audio Craft.

If my memory serves me correctly, he concluded that having boost/cut controls on a loudspeaker's network would be like asking some parts of the orchestra to play louder or softer than others.

If anyone can post this article, I'd like to add it to my collection of PWK's papers.

Lee

[neo33]

So the answer to the question "Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?" is NO.

I doubt this will end the controversy, but PWK was opposed to the idea of using EQ in the reproduction chain. As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion of EQ being applied to any heritage product would likely result in a flash of the little yellow button under his lapel. Yes, it is true that EQ is a part of the function of the passive network, but that correction is applied under reasonably well controlled measurement conditions. At that point, the design integrity of the loudspeaker is “built in”; and the use of EQ, after the fact, would just compromise that. I suspect that if he believed there was a flaw at the end-use side, then the first solution would be to go back and look at the loudspeaker / room integration and try and solve the problem from that end. There are plenty of “Dope from Hope” articles that address listening room issues. The listening room, of course, has a huge influence on the perceived sound quality of a loudspeaker.

In my opinion, PWK’s opinion of EQ was simply a reflection of his era. At that time, the Eq’s in use were of poor quality and almost never used properly. They generally introduced more problems than they corrected.

PWK also didn’t like active filters because he didn’t believe there was a benefit. He felt if a passive filter was designed properly, it would sound just as good as an active filter, and wouldn’t be nearly as complex or expensive.

One final point; adding EQ doesn’t affect the efficiency of the individual drive components, and if done properly, only has a mild affect at the system level. The EQ affects the sensitivity. Sensitivity and efficiency are not the same thing.

dbspl

[ka7niq]

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

When I spent a day with PWK in 1985 at the Hope factory initially, then at his home after lunch, he played his symphony recordings for me. I asked him about EQ and how he felt about it. He said that without proper insturments people would mess up the sound and that they were better off trying to put Khorns in a room large enough and that had a proper eigenton ratio, which is where they were developed to sound best.

I personally like the Audyssey EQ built into my Onkyo receiver. It does a great job and you don't need to know anything to use it. It takes into account room acoustics and uses some very sophisticated math to do it's thing. I have tried the "pure audio" setting to take the EQ in and out and I prefer it IN. So I don't agree with the "purity" idea of reproduced sound, since recorded music goes through so much processing before it's put on CD or DVD anyhow.

Audio is just an illusion.........a very good one at that. But all the elements have to come together to make it happen. EQ is just one small part of it, but I think it does a lot of good when done right.

It has been almost 8 years since he passed on, so who can say what he would have said about it. He told me he didn't like CD's at all when they first came out and never followed though about whether he changed his mind or not. I'm sure that if he had lived long enough could have MEASURED the positive impact of Audyssey's in-room response corrective power, he would have had to admit that it worked as intended and improved an already good speaker.

I would go for EQ. I did and I really think it's the best sound I have ever had, and I had Khorns for 30 years with a La Scala center, just like PWK. What I have now is better and it's EQ'd.............see my avatar

I have been looking for a receiver to replace my Yamaha RX V1.

Audyssey has their own surround type system, and Dolby has Dolby 2z.

Both systems will allow me to use my front effects speakers, so I am no longer "married" to Yamaha.

Been looking at the Marantz SR 5400, it has what I want, as does the Onkyo TX SR 707 and Denon AVR 1910.

It is hard to believe these 3 receivers pack so many features, for so little money!

All have pre outs on all channels, so I can stick the Tascam PE 40 Parametric EQ I have in line, although w/o main In's, I will have to use one of many amps I have lying around here.

Back to The Topic about PWK intending for his speakers to be equalized. I once bought a pair of Infinity Entra speakers for my bedroom, got em cheap. I callled Infinity in California with a question,I was transferred by the operator, and Floyd Toole himself picked up the phone !! He told me the little Infinity Entra Bookshelf speakers were Infinity's entry level line. He said they were "compromised" by the inexpensive tweeter they had too use, at that price point. He explained that they had a rise in the prescence region, but quickly added "You can easily correct for this with your tone controls" I said "WHAT tone controls" ? He said "OMG, you are not one of THEM, are you" ? Meaning an audiophile that dont have, or will not use tone controls.He purposly designed the entry level Infinity Entra speakers to be "corrected" with tone controls. So did PWK, as he was faced with speaker enginering and voicing decisions, in the name of Efficiency and Low Distortion, and other loudspeaker design criteria he deemed important perhaps say to himself, or others " Ok, this squaker blends perfectly with this woofer, but has a slight rising response we just cant seem to tame on it;s journey to the tweeter, so since it is perfect in every other way, lets let it go, and let our customers use their treble controls, or some EQ, to flatten it" As a ham radio operator, I like to enter antenna design competitions for a type of antenna called a Yagi. There are 3 electrical parameters for a Yagi, gain, front to back ratio, and bandwidth. If any one is maximized, it is at the expense of the other 2, so compromises are made to get as good overall performance as possible. Today, our computer simulations do all the work, but in the old days, I have spent days on an antenna test range, doing cut and try, until I got my design right. I made compromises, Floyd Toole made compromises, PWK made compromises. And w/o him being alive, we can only speculate what he wanted, EQ - Tone Controls, or not. I bet Jim Hunter of Klisch would know maybe ? I sold Jim some old oddball Western Electric horns back in the 80's for the horn museum, wonder if he would take a phone call from me ? I will use EQ on my Cornwall 2's, and could care less if the "forum accepts" me, or not, for using it. I just want to know, for myself, IF PWK had, or did not have, EQ in the back of his mind for his product. I am no engineer, far from it! I have had to make design decisions on my antenna designs, and I am interested in PWK's design decisions, simply because, I want to know.

[mungkiman]

So the answer to the question "Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?" is NO.

I doubt this will end the controversy, but PWK was opposed to the idea of using EQ in the reproduction chain. As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion of EQ being applied to any heritage product would likely result in a flash of the little yellow button under his lapel. Yes, it is true that EQ is a part of the function of the passive network, but that correction is applied under reasonably well controlled measurement conditions. At that point, the design integrity of the loudspeaker is “built in”; and the use of EQ, after the fact, would just compromise that. I suspect that if he believed there was a flaw at the end-use side, then the first solution would be to go back and look at the loudspeaker / room integration and try and solve the problem from that end. There are plenty of “Dope from Hope” articles that address listening room issues. The listening room, of course, has a huge influence on the perceived sound quality of a loudspeaker.

In my opinion, PWK’s opinion of EQ was simply a reflection of his era. At that time, the Eq’s in use were of poor quality and almost never used properly. They generally introduced more problems than they corrected.

PWK also didn’t like active filters because he didn’t believe there was a benefit. He felt if a passive filter was designed properly, it would sound just as good as an active filter, and wouldn’t be nearly as complex or expensive.

One final point; adding EQ doesn’t affect the efficiency of the individual drive components, and if done properly, only has a mild affect at the system level. The EQ affects the sensitivity. Sensitivity and efficiency are not the same thing.

dbspl

I find it interesting that Klipschorn brochures, at least through 1957, all refer to the High Fidelity Magazine article "How to get Best Results from a Klipschorn", in which PWK specifically suggests EQ is needed for flat response. This reference is found in the technical bibliography section of the brochures. I do not know how long (after 1957) this reference was included in the brochures, but PWK certainly understood that a truly flat response was not possible with Klipschorns unless EQ was used.

[mungkiman]

I also find it interesting that PWK posed for this picture with the Brook 12A3 (K1). Hint: it's under the record player...

The 4 knobs, left to right, are channel selection, bass, treble, and gain.

[ka7niq]

I also find it interesting that PWK would pose for this picture with the Brook. Hint: it's under the record player...

I know PWK was a Christian, and he was very kind to me the one time I met him at Detroit Audio Show at Cobo Hall.

But I must say he looks like he could "whup some azz" if need be ?

I remember him and his bunch from Klipsch walking around the Audio Show with Bullshit Buttons, and his utter contempt for the audio lies being told back then. He had no fear.

[colterphoto1]

Front effects pfft.

Wait for the 13.4 system where you have to have loudspeakers above the screen, straight overhead and buried in the floor beneath you. That'll be really cool

(gentle sarcasm off)