Philosophical question for Khorn/LaScala owners

[WMcD]

I liked Mallette's comment.

Also, I think when any of us first heard K-Horns, the source and amp were probably good but not what audiophiles lust after.

I am a fan because the whole horn speaker theory follows antenna theory (I'm a ham, though not active). There is no good transmitter system without a good antenna.

Wm McD

[greg928gts]

You can take my amps. You can take my processor. You can take my turntable. You can take my cables and IC's.

But try to touch my La Scalas, I dare you!!!!!

Dennie

LOL

Yes, speakers over electronics. My approach is to keep the electronics super-simple and have really, really good speakers!

Greg

[Colin]

I did this.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/senselessrambling/

" In fact, the two systems pose the dilemma of our
acoustic age: The small
$179, inefficient but warm, boom box speakers with $1500 of clean
front-end electronics versus the old and efficient, $500 used Cornwalls,
powered by
$179 of forgiving boom box."

"Now the bad news: I will say that both combinations
impressed me. They made
me seriously consider the amount of spare change I keep adding to my
sound system. As it is set-up now, my system reflects the law of
diminishing
returns: I keep investing more and more, yet get less and less
dramatic sound improvements. Big, old horns warmed by a tube pre-amp
from a
plateau of power."

" In fact, as I think this over, the impression I was
left with was that with
the cheap boom box front end, the listener hears the melody and the
lyrics as the fore front of the sound. While with my total system, the
listener hears the individual instruments up front; the melody and the
singer become
just another titillating part of the overall music."

Unlike my front-end electronics when powering the
Sony speakers, the pianos
appear on the Klipsch/boom box combination. Horns sang out as if they
had just been added to the sound track. The high end tinkled like
delicate
Christmas crystal. My notes say" you could buy a boom box for your
Cornwalls and save thousands of dollars!" Nothing magical, but not
fatiguing either.
There was no need for a long evaluation as the differences were
clearly apparent.

Speakers are the only bargain in audio.

Buy the biggest and best.

[artto]

Just for kicks, let's presume that you do NOT currently own your Khorns or LaScalas. Let's presume you own any Klipsch that is NO LARGER than Cornwalls. Let's also presume that you have "decent" electronics. Not "world class" but not trash either. For more fun, let's presume it might even be solid state.

I'm wondering.... if you had enough cash in pocket to make a SINGLE purchase to futher yourself towards your sonic goal, would you recommend to yourself:

1. Keeping the same electronics you have and make your purchase a pair of Klipschorns or LaScalas/Belle's

2. Keep your existing speakers and upgrade your (Brand X) preamp/amp to perhaps a tube preamp/amp?

I went through this exact same dilemma/scenario early on. My first "good" system was a Thorens TD160/TP16 arm/B&O SP12 pickup, Crown IC150, Crown D60 and JBL L100.

After hearing my first "live" symphony orchestra (Chicago Symphony) I promptly concluded that this setup was not powerful enough and didn't create a large enough sound field to produce anything that sounded "real", not even in a small bedroom. In the the larger living room it was even worse.

I promptly upgraded to Cornwalls (JBL L200) was my other choice). Later I upgraded to a Crown DC300A. Upon graduation I bought the Khorns. It wasn't long after that I acquired the Luxman MB3045 triodes and never looked back. On the other hand, I still regret not spending the extra bucks on an Audio Research SP-3A. That Crown IC150 can be kind of screechy. I think I would even have been better off with a little Dynaco PAS3.

[Mallette]

That Crown IC150 can be kind of screechy. I think I would even have been better off with a little Dynaco PAS3.

Yezzir. My own experience with SS in a nutshell. My first "real" system was when I acquired my Frazier Super Monte Carlos. I had a Garrard Zero 100 with Shure V15 cart, and a well used Grommes "Little Jewel" 17 watt amp. Sound awesome. The first SS amps came out, and I took a Kenwood 40w unit home and ached because I couldn't come up with the scratch to own it. A year or so later I got a deal on a Dynaco SCA-35. Still not "up to date" SS, but at least the tube bases weren't burned to death and the selectors and volume controls didn't squawk at each use.

Once in the Army, I was able to get a Luxman integrated. 70w per side, gorgeous, 300.00. Finally in the big time.

Nothing ever sounded quite as good as the Dynaco until I got my Dynaco ST-70 rebuilt and acquired a Van Alstine Super PAS-3A preamp. Finally, got a digital amp and abandoned SS for serious use altogether.

The point is: It was always about the speakers. Through all this, they never lied, nor do my K'horns.

If cost is an issue, spend it on speakers first. The value of everything else can be determined from them.

Dave

[USNRET]

after several travels I would go for the room. I could have built one for the cost of improvements. But then as usual I didn't answer your question

[merkin]

This sounds like an either /or question my wife asks me. I always answer why can't it be both. Thats what I did. I guess I got the amp/preamp first, the sunfire stuff for HT. I then replaced my forte II's with belle's and still have the sunfire pre and amp.

[Ironsave]

Gimmie K-Horns.....

The electronics will come with time. I know I will find something worthy of powering these with time and enough looking.

It is probably much harder the other way around......

My .02

[Coytee]

I always answer why can't it be both

I personally think that as long as you have 'decent' electronics then in order to make a quantum jump in sound, you might have to go up exponentially. If you keep the same electronics and jump from Heresy's to Khorns, then you would make a quantum jump with far fewer dollars.

I'm curious if others share that same basic viewpoint.

I'll tell you what spurred the question in me... I recall having stumbled onto two different threads and the logic (or recommendation? I forget) was to essentially keep the speakers (Heresy's? Cornwalls??) and get a new amp, perhaps change to a tube amp.

I always scratch my head on these because I personally think someone would get a much more dramatic change/improvement in their sound by jumping up in the speaker equation. (again, this presumes they already have 'decent' electronics however that may be defined)

[Coytee]

after several travels I would go for the room. I could have built one for the cost of improvements. But then as usual I didn't answer your question

I agree with the room being a major issue however, since it was not part of the equation, if you end up at Bob's place next month, you're banished to the basement for not answering the question.

[]

[Mallette]

It wasn't even close. Even non-audionuts could easily hear the difference qualitatively - when the systems were played at reasonable (non-hearing damaging) levels of maybe 85dB - 90dB or so - roughly. The system with the premium electronic chain sounded like luscious music, and the system using the M-O-R amp sounded flat, lifeless and really quite irritating. One had me wanting to turn it off, the other had me wanting to play more.

Wowee. I was totally shocked at the end. As per my philosophy, I have no intention of questioning what you heard, Mark, but it is totally at odds with my own experience. I currently run that setup 1 you reference...though it's K'horns and a cheap digital reciever. Of course, I have my pure vacuum tube option when the spirit moves, but it isn't about greater accuracy. It's about that slight different take on accuracy described in my earlier post in this thread.

I may well be a victim of a form of that condition I described in that (and many other posts) in which one learns to hear things others do not. In my case, it's that all SS amps at any price remain variants of a clinical, hard sound that I have totally rejected after nearly 40 years of exposure. Do I run screaming from the room? No. But I can say that I find nothing of significant difference in a 70's Pioneer SX series MOR reciever and a Krell. However, I find a really significant difference in a Krell and my 125.00 digital amp...and I'll take the cheap and cheesy digital any day.

I've found much of the non-heritage Klipsch line to share in the SS sound. Not being overly critical here, as they are equal to or better value than any of the competition. Therefore, I cannot imagine Belles ever sounding like that even driven by a T-amp vs. the Towers with a Krell or whatever.

Except for ears that have been conditioned to issues not related to accuracy (perfectly OK if that is what one wants, as I've made clear), I still maintain that one should begin with the most accurate speakers one can afford and then let them decide what the rest of the chain needs to be.

Dave

[Chris A]

It wasn't even close. Even non-audionuts could easily hear the difference qualitatively - when the systems were played at reasonable (non-hearing damaging) levels of maybe 85dB - 90dB or so - roughly. The system with the premium electronic chain sounded like luscious music, and the system using the M-O-R amp sounded flat, lifeless and really quite irritating. One had me wanting to turn it off, the other had me wanting to play more.

Wowee. I was totally shocked at the end....I may well be a victim of a form of that condition I described in that (and many other posts) in which one learns to hear things others do not...

I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to the following subject: that someday we'll all recognize that we aren't all listening to the same things (i.e., the music) and for things (i.e., accuracy vs. "improved sound"). I still believe that we can honestly admit on this forum that we value different things.

Folks here that I respect a great deal (that I've even met personally) have sometimes widely differing opinions what what it is that they want to listen to. I've found that I've been bitten by the "realism bug", others, well, not so much. I have identified additional opinion-holder categories accordingly:

1) Those that like a lf bass with higher IMD (i.e., direct radiator woofers and subs, ostensibly so that they can "hear the bass" through non-linear harmonics). This may include some in the HT crowd.

2) others that "live in the midrange, with detail" at low volume, ("detail" that may or may not be emphasized in the original performance),

3) others that live for a lot of high-end sizzle (iPod aficionados?), and

4) others that are looking for, well, "sound effects" (boom--sizzle--sizzle). (You can usually find these folks riding around with their hi-fi gear. [H] )

5) Those that like a "wall of sound" (i.e., more commercial focus).

6) still others that buy more on looks rather than acoustic performance...including the "small speakers". (Maybe Bose owners and some HT owners are in this category.)

7) others that are otherwise confused or schizophrenic in their tastes.

There seems to be a pretty good collection of types 0 (i.e., realism), 1 and 2 on this forum, but they don't always mix very well together. Hence the different "hiding places" found herein.

My argument? If I can build my system to reproduce as accurately as I can (especially true dynamics and constant coverage), then I can approximate many of the others with an equalizer. [6]

I don't think that there is "one size fits all"...and everyone has an opinion (i.e., their own).

Chris []

[Mallette]

Dead on, Chris.

One "1," this is definitely the case with rock n'rollers and HT. What is "accurate" bass from Pink Floyd? Heck, it all originated electronically, so "accurate" is where you like it. In my case, "accurate" bass is measured by pipe organs and a direct comparison to the "thing itself." That's a considerably smaller target. However, when I am watching a movie I crank up the bass to "taste," since there again there is no such thing as "accurate."

On "2," we're talking what we used to refer to as "the California sound." Accurate to their ears, but with a pronounced mid range to the rest of us.

If you've spent time in China you've encountered "3," almost intolerabe to most of us but music to their ears.

The rest of your points are good as well.

Perhaps the most important point you make is this: It's metaphysically absurd to think you know what another hears. The failure of so many in these Fora to understand that simple statement has been responsible for more pain than any other single issue. I am very much for passionate belief in anything from moving coil uber alles to solid gold interconnects as long as it improves the quality of a persons listening experience, but dead set against those who take the position that without these things another persons system is junk. Further, I am always ready to listen to new approaches. However, I do not care to do so in the presence of those who are likely to decide I am seriously deaf if I don't leap for joy at the percieved improvement. Many find it "polite" to say "Oh, that REALLY makes a difference!" to a fellow audiophile whose just installed a new kilobuck power cable. I find it disingenuous at best.

One of the reasons I've remained in this forum for so many years is that it is largely populated by ladies and gentlemen, and those who are not generally don't last that long or become marginalized.

Dave

[artto]

All things being equal, why do speakers get bigger? That's at the heart of this question. No engineer I've ever met WANTS to end up with a big speaker. Big speakers cost more, take up more room, and are harder to live with. So, why do it? All rationale for designing a larger speaker eventually relate to higher output, and/or more efficiency.

The Heritage speakers are fantastic if that's what you need. Klipsch makes many other speakers which will do just as well if that ISN'T what you need.

I believe it was PWK that said something like "what you are really buying when buy loudspeaker is horsepower".

In regards to buying what you need I'd like to share this experience, although it involved Heritage for both speakers (as that was all the Klipsch there was back then). I was at the local Klipsch dealer and my dealer friend was demoing "some speakers" for another customer. The usual Supertramp "Crime of the Century" superdisc was being used and played at very substantial volume level. When finished the customer responded "WOW, that was awesome, but I can't afford those!" I just smiled and the dealer promptly said "Of course you can. They're only $X." Customer: "WHAT? Those BIG THINGS? (referring to the Khorns). Dealer: NO. You were listening to the little ones sitting on top of those! (Heresy). Customer's jaw almost hits the floor. []

[Mallette]

All things being equal, why do speakers get bigger?

PWK said "I'll build a smaller speaker just as soon as they develop a shorter 32hz sound wave." However, he did so...with Heresy. As I've stated before, it is my profound belief that Heresy was Paul's response to Jack Frazier's Mark IV, which is, IMHO, one of the finest speaker designs of all time. The Monte Carlos I mentioned below are even smaller, about half the size or less of Heresy and the smallest speaker I've ever heard to deliver a completely satisfying sound from any recording not requiring the lowest octave. However, they cannot satisfy a pipe organ lover like a K'horn, nor for many of us can any other speaker, regardless of newly invented means of shortening a 32hz waveform or whatever.

They were 50 years newer, and had a very tight relationship between the tweeter and the woofer, and all the advantages of modern driver technology.

I've heard no "new" technology that sounds any better than K'horns or 70's vintage Monte Carlos. Newer designs may have different materials with longer lifespans, greater ability to withstand damage, or whatever, but the "out of the box" specs on them look no better nor do they sound any better than the great designs of the past. I don't have a single loudspeaker in any of my systems that is less than 35 years old and I've not heard anything newer that improves on them in any way.

Of course, I may be deaf...

Dave

[Chris A]

Dealer: NO. You were listening to the little ones sitting on top of those! (Heresy).

People tend to forget that the midrange/tweeter horns/drivers in both speakers were almost identical, back then.

If those potential buyers couldn't tell the difference, then they obviously should start with the Heresies. [] At least until they realize what they were not listening for. This is interesting in that the story builds on the topic of branding. PWK was clearly in it for the long haul, and those customers were probably going to be lifelong customers if they swallowed that first hook.

That is a slightly different marketing approach than what other speaker vendors would use.

Chris

[Coytee]

Most of the music content is in the midrange and treble. So, take two typical horns - a mid and a tweeter - and put them in a small box, and then put them in a bigger box. Has the "quality" of the mid/treble been changed? Arguably not. You gained some efficiency, and probably some loudness, and maybe some bass.

I certainly respect your choices that you make for yourself.

I would wonder though, there are now more & more people who have upgraded their speakers with AlK Trachorns, Gothovers new horns and Greg's new horns.

Most (if not all?) of these, owners are keeping the same speakers yet swapping out for a larger midrange and perhaps tweeter.

I don't think I've read a single report back from a single person who's listened to any of these driver/horn swaps that the swap was a negative or even neutral. I think that virtually 100% of people that I've read commenting about these changes simply glow with how much better the sound was over the stock horns/drivers. Are you suggesting they could hit this improvement in sound simply with better electronics and even perhaps a SMALLER speaker?

I'm presuming that not all of these people are listening at 110 db's (although I would not be surprised if more than one HIT that level for kicks & grins!)

So, if the above is reasonably accurate, how might you balance your comments with what seems to be some real world responses? (admittedly most if not all of these people are not moving up in speaker size but only in driver/horn size)

If these guys are listening at normal levels, are you suggesting that these larger speakers (with the horn improvements) would still be bested by smaller speakers and a 'better' amp?

To carry this towards an extreme, where would one need to stop on electronics before it becomes asymptotically expensive, relative to buying larger speakers for the improvement in sound?

Would Heresy's on one million dollars worth of electronics (the best of the best of the best of the best) still sound better than Khorns that are either stock or modified with the above horns.... on a "decent" amp? (I'll let you decide what is a decent amp so it meets any criteria you might have).

I think Chris had an excellent point that I had not thought about too much when I started this thread.

I probably fall into the camp of looking for that 'wall of sound'. Mind you, I don't mean 150db's by any stretch. Rather, I'm referring to what I think Roy calls constant coverage (??) I like that these larger speakers sound bigger (and to me better) from more locations than the smaller speakers which might tend to have a smaller focal point of impact. I suppose if someone could give a rats hair about the larger scale of sound (again, not to say more loud) then we're simply looking at the same thing from different perspectives like the three blind men and the elephant.

[Y]

[Coytee]

Your question about how many millions to spend on electronics before buying "larger" speakers, is again using a flawed premise. "Larger" is NOT an absolute measure of quality in any loudspeaker. Some very large speakers are good, some are bad. Same with small speakers.

True however, most of us here own various Klipsch and are fans of the brand so for the purpose of this discussion on the Klipsch forum I don't think it's unreasonable that the logic of bigger is better as a general rule of thumb is correct. If we were fluidly discussing other brands on the Klipsch forum as the brand of choice then I'd wholly agree with you. Since this forum tends to be skewed towards Klipsch specifically, I still think the logic of bigger is better is reasonable.

For example, I'd ask you.... do I understand you correctly that if someone owned a pair of Heresy's, pCat's, Blueberry/Extreme, Thorens with (I have no idea of brand) arm/stylus, glitzo wires and a very nicely treated room...but were still unsatisfied with their sound, your first rule of thumb would be for them to get better electronics rather than keep their pCat's/BB and instead, perhaps getting some Cornwalls/LaScalas/Khorns??

Since we can probably agree that the mentioned electronics are at minimum decent (I know that I like my Peach a lot), what electronics would make more sense for this person to upgrad to?

I would rather, suggest to them that they should KEEP these electronics and get the larger Klipsch speakers since in the world of Klipsch, larger does tend to make better (again, in my opinion and probably more than one/two others).

If I understand the story correctly, one of the intents of PWK designing the Khorn was so he could re-create the orchestra in his home. I would think if he felt a Heresy sized speaker could have done so, he would have created it instead of the Khorn and stopped, no?

Regarding "all roads do not lead to a Khorn ...", I'd suggest the Khorn is more floor space efficient than many many many other smaller speakers out there. How many electrostats, Heresy's, EV's or ..... need to be pulled "X" feet from the side walls, "Y" feet from the rear wall and all the sudden become intrusive into the room simply because they are intruding into the room? I know my Khorns were much more space efficient than my LaScalas and even my EV's which are more along the size of Cornwalls. Obviously, one needs appropriate corners.

[dtel]

All rationale for designing a larger speaker eventually relate to higher output, and/or more efficiency.

True, but I like bigger speakers because they sound bigger, I very rarely listen at 80 or 90 DB, most of the time closer to 40-60 Db or lower. On very rare ocasions I have shaken the house, mostly when no one was home and I was in the mood.

To me they just sound bigger, I don't care about higher output, I don't use it ( they were designed for areas a tad bigger than my living room anyway ). []

The efficiency helps because I use 25 WPC amps which would still be fine even with a little less efficiency.

[BE36]

$ for $ Speakers.

That being said, I have heard Corwalls sound great or terrible, Solid State or Tube does not matter.

Matter of fact the best Cornwall sound I ever heard was on some Old, very old 70s Marantz Solid State and no it was not in the 70s, it was last year and no I was not experiancing better living through Chemistry.

For what is worth when I hooked my old bone Stock Forte' IIs up to McIntosh & Adcom they sound darn good, 90% of Stock La Scalas.

When Hook the Forte IIs up to medium grade Solid State they only get to about 70% of the Stock La Scalas on the same equipement.

Even my Academy sounds pretty darn good on McIntosh and VRDs, only audiofiles notice the difference to the La Scalas during a movie. If it is good movie I do not even notice or care about the difference. Thankfully all my Bluray audio is mixed away from the center channel so it does not make much of difference there either. But I digress.

Morale of the story the last 10% of the job takes 90% of the effort or for audio - 90% of the cash.