klipsch vs the hi end

[russ69]

Read the paper, make every effort to refute it. Good luck. I'll be looking forward to it.

Dave

Dave,

I'm glad you have found a loudspeaker system that you like. That's the whole idea of this hobby, finding the gear that makes music sound the way you like it.. PWK made a darn fine system with the K-horn, no doubt about that. It's just not my favorite loudspeaker. I am allowed to have my own opinion, I assume. Thanx, Russ

[BLSamuel]

I am allowed to have my own opinion, I assume. Thanx, Russ

No Russ. No you are not allowed to have your own opinion... Just kidding. Everybody hears differently so what you like best is best for you. Even if it's those little (rhymes with hose) cubes. Now if those are your favorites we sould suggest some detox as you've drank the (rhymes with hose) kool aid but I suspect whatever your favorite speakers are they are very good. Even to Dave.

Though maybe to Dave not as good as Klipsch, or the Fraziers I believe he also likes quite well. Poor man's Klipsch if you will. At least back in the day.

[jacksonbart]

,p,

[StephenM]

Read the paper, make every effort to refute it.

For curiousity sake, I actually did glance over the paper. I did find one curious tidbit in there though:

"Frequency response was almost omitted from this consideration because it rates about last in importance.Yet, more effort is spent to gain "flat" frequency response than in optimizing other values".

Meanwhile you have someone like Floyd Toole who believes frequency response to be the "single most important technical specification of audio components".

My thought: it is no wonder that there are many (significantly) differing loudspeaker designs when there is no agreement as to what is important in designing a loudspeaker, even apparently among such fine minds as Toole and Klipsch.

[John Chi-town]

All I can say is that I have "Loved and Worshiped" my forte II since I pulled them out of the original boxes back in 1992. I never found that I needed more or was lacking anything from these speakers. If still made, they would probably retail for about $3,200.00 a pair today. Bought new in 1992 from United Audio, a long defunct Hi-Fi shop in the Chicagoland area that was purchased by Tweeter who is also now defunct for $850.00 for the pair. I can honestly say I never made a better $850.00 investment. I still have the original boxes for moves, etc. I can see passing these down to my 4 year old son someday. Maybe when he is 30!

[Mallette]

Read the paper, make every effort to refute it.

For curiousity sake, I actually did glance over the paper. I did find one curious tidbit in there though:

"Frequency response was almost omitted from this consideration because it rates about last in importance.Yet, more effort is spent to gain "flat" frequency response than in optimizing other values".

Meanwhile you have someone like Floyd Toole who believes frequency response to be the "single most important technical specification of audio components".

My thought: it is no wonder that there are many (significantly) differing loudspeaker designs when there is no agreement as to what is important in designing a loudspeaker, even apparently among such fine minds as Toole and Klipsch.

Gents, my perception of your opinions (Russ included) is that you have not studied PWK's landmark engineering paper enough, nor the researchi was built upon. That said, I am not suggesting you are in any way "wrong." Since there are multiple speakers available that are musical and accurate, the only question is cost and some ineffable qualities that are, in many ways, related to the same reason that Quaker design appeals to many people.

My "opinion" is neither hero worship nor conditioning. It's based on the solid science of the particular corner loaded, folded horn PWK developed that has proved so far to be inherently umprovable in its basic design in either cost or performance.

As Ben said, I have heard other speakers that sounded just as good. They were ALWAYS significantly more expensive. Further, the greater the deviation from the principles found in the 8 Card, the more effort and money required for them to sound that way...complex components, more power, or exotic materials...and this always seems to show up in various ways. The acoustic suspension models can sound just as good with massive power and at high levels, but then recede into a distant sound when the volume is low. The more efficient ones sound great at low and medium levels, but can get nasty when driven hard.

It is always something. To the extent one gets away from those fundamental rules, the distance is always audible, costs money, or both.

My bottom line is that even if I had unlimited money to spend, I'd spend it on ebony Klipshorns, not Watt Puppies as, to me, it isn't just the sound but I get a satisfaction from the absolute scientific purity and simplicity of the design itself.

Rather than spend a lot of time defending these statements, I'd challenge any skeptics to name speakers that are regarded as equaling K'horn performance in efficiency, balance, and imaging at all power levels that can be had at the same price.

Good luck.

As to Frazier, I love his work because he came closest to equaling PWK's designs with his implementations of the modified Helmholtz radiator. The massive, 275 lb refrigerator sized Elevens in my second listening room were his supreme achievement. One db more efficient that a K'horn with another octave of bass and a sound almost as effortless as the great 'horn the were built to challenge. OTOH, they cost considerably more at the time. Nonetheless, there is no question he was making a statement to his friend and competitor PWK when he built them.

Wish more designers today would try to do the same.

Dave

[pzannucci]

In my personal opinion the Khorn is a good speaker. It could be a great speaker with some measures that may not cost much during production once R+D are complete. The physics haven't changed but a key thing is that manufacturing and design has changed. To look at the original PWK premiss around cost, things that used to be out of reach when he originally designed the Khorn (especially from a cost perspective) are now common day and very inexpensive. If Klipsch were allowed to side step the fact that this was PWK's baby, it could capitalize on some of the innovations over the past 30 years and not have to sell the Khorn for 15-20K.

You man not have snob appeal but many of the people that have money to spend don't mind saving some. They have been convinced by the audio press and salon type dealers that you have to spend that much money to get quality. Most folks with money like to hold on to it and if you can point out that X sounds just as good as Y and you can pocket $5K, why not.

The Khorn deserves:

- smoother frequency response

- larger midrange horn to cut down on the poor dispersion and constricting sound in the midrange, especially lower midrange

- cleaned up highs. The k-77 tweeter isn't bad it just isn't revealing enough and a little harsh.

Yes, these changes might bite into the Jubilee sales but I find it wonderful that I can have a beautiful piece of furniture sitting in the corners, not obstructing my room. For the going price, why not. WAF might not mean BIG but comparing it to speakers that people have to keep 3-4 feet from the walls so the kids can knock them over, BIG, beautiful furniture (if you have corners) might not be so bad.

[russ69]

Now if those are your favorites we sould suggest some detox as you've drank the (rhymes with hose) kool aid but I suspect whatever your favorite speakers are they are very good. Even to Dave.

My favorite speakers in no particular order are: Infinity RS1B, Infinity Servo-Static 1A, Infinity RS 2.5, Infinity Quantum Line Source, the big Magnepans, some of the larger Acoustat systems. Dave keeps using, price as an argument but so far I have not constrained my listening preference for budgetary reasons. As you can see I prefer panel, electrostatic and line source ribbons, they all have weaknesses but it's the type of sound I prefer. And that's not saying I wouldn't enjoy a pair of K-horns, in the right room with the right recording, I'm sure I would. The OP asked if the Klipsch designs were inferior, I said no. From where I sit, that's high praise for a system that's been around as long as I have........Oh by the way, if I get a chance I would like to hear the King Sound "King System" and the Genesis 1.2 both are definitely budget busters but I've got no kids so you never know.......

[Mallette]

Dave keeps using, price as an argument but so far I have not constrained my listening preference for budgetary reasons.

It isn't an argument. It's a design constraint. If you don't believe that you need some constraints then all you are going to settle for is Wilson. While, granted, they are large enough to live in, I really can't justify trading my house for a pair just for a hair more something.

"Budgetary constraint" sounds cheesy. Paul suggested to me it was more Ockam's razor. Just works out that the simplest way also is the least expensive.

BTW, Ben is right. I am a big fan of Magnepans and Infinity's. Never heard the Acoustat, but I'm willing to suggest I'd probably like them as well since you are grouping them with the others I've found very nice.

One of my favorites of all time outside the Klipsch/Frazier line is the Dynaco A-50. Transparent and accurate at all levels very much like Klipsch Heritage and the Frazier line. Turned a friend on to them back in the 70's. Still have the friend and they still have the Dynaco's...and they still sound state of the art.

As I mentioned in my post about hobbyist vs. music lover, I don't see a debate here. I am just doing a poor job of describeing of what PWKs mindset was. Where some some unnecessary "budgetary" constraints, I see decisions made for scientific reasons related to the principles in the 8Card. You have to draw a line somewhere, and science is a good place.

BTW, I've never found the K77 "harsh" except on harsh source material. One man's "harsh" is another man's "accuracy."

Dave

[Boxx]

BTW, I've never found the K77 "harsh" except on harsh source material. One man's "harsh" is another man's "accuracy."

Dave

On this point, I do agree with you....

[russ69]

"Budgetary constraint" sounds cheesy. Paul suggested to me it was more Ockam's razor. Just works out that the simplest way also is the least expensive.

Budget constraints are important to the designer, the manufacturer, the seller and the purchaser but NOT the LISTENER. I like to audition the budget buster loudspeakers every so often just so I know what is possible, later, when I'm spending my own money, the cost/performance ratio comes into play. Is a 20,000 buck interconnect really worth it? Well, I guess you have to make that decision yourself but you'll want to hear it first before you draw a conclusion about it's sound quality. Expensive doesn't necessarily mean it's good but all really good loudspeakers can be considered expensive. How expensive is really up to the buyer.

[pzannucci]

BTW, I've never found the K77 "harsh" except on harsh source material. One man's "harsh" is another man's "accuracy."

Dave

On this point, I do agree with you....

I didn't say terrible (my opinion if you aren't running tubes) though the K77 is a night and day difference between it and something like an Aurum Cantus G1 Ribbon. Not for just being clean but also dramatic differences in the detail department. The G1 is 2Db less efficient though

Are all the CT-125 tweeters sold due to wanting to lower the crossover point?

Anyway my point was that hardware has come a long way since the Khorn inception. Some of the upgrades (could be factory added at a much lower cost) could put speakers such as the Khorn square into a totally different level of buyer, one that doesn't necessarily care what the cost is as long as they are the best for the money.

[Mallette]

Budget constraints are important to the designer, the manufacturer, the seller and the purchaser but NOT the LISTENER.

That's because you are looking at "budget constraints" in terms of many rather than price/performance. PWK was looking for that point at which another dollar spent didn't materially improve the accuracy, and a dollar less did.

To that end, he achieved a result that has stood the test of time for over half a century. Try looking at a TV of that vintage and see what an achievement that was, and remains.

Your words clearly identify yourself as a hobbyist...and that's great. Love the sound of ribbon tweets...but I'd don't hear a bit more detail in them than the K77, at least on my own location work where I know precisely what it sounded like.

On other tweeters, including ribbons: Different, yes. Accurate, yes. Pleasing, yes. More than what was actually there, no.

Dave

[pzannucci]

Your words clearly identify yourself as a hobbyist...and that's great. Love the sound of ribbon tweets...but I'd don't hear a bit more detail in them than the K77, at least on my own location work where I know precisely what it sounded like.

On other tweeters, including ribbons: Different, yes. Accurate, yes. Pleasing, yes. More than what was actually there, no.

Dave

You are right there. Pleasing, more that was actually there, no. I hope not :-) Better to omit then to add.

My point is that:

If PWK did it today, he would have likely been able to produce something better than the Khorn in the same price range. Now the issue may be that if you don't inflate the price higher than mortals can afford, maybe no one would buy it.

I do currently own Khorns, klf-30, RB5, Heresys, several home brews, and have owned a host of other Klipsch speakers. The key to Klipsch is they are fun. My Khorns sit behind my hand builts and I swap them often. Wonderful music comes from both. I will likely never sell this set of Khorns (I've had three or four other pairs) as what they don't do good is able to be overlooked by what they excel at.

Now what I would like to hear is how the new horns in the Paladium might have gotten rid of the edge I perceive in the k77s. Horn geometry has a lot to do with the quality of the sound - noted in the k400.

[Mallette]

If PWK did it today, he would have likely been able to produce something better than the Khorn in the same price range.

No doubt. From day one PWK said any K'horn could be updated by a change of drivers or crossover, and it's been routine ever since. It's the folded horn design, however, that is PWK.

My own set is stock 1972. If I wind up with excess money someday with no more worthy objective, I might update a few things. Many would say these are well past it. Perhaps I am deaf, but I don't hear anything that says "FIX ME, Please..." so I'm not concerned about it.

You too, are a hobbyist and I salute you. Good fun, and I always enjoy visiting the hobbyist audiophile's home as I learn new things and get to experience new things. OTOH, I've not come away lusting after anything in a long time.

OK, there've been a few SO's... []

Dave

[sunburnwilly]

Hi-end is completely dependant on your income . My hi-end would be irrevelant to say Bill Gates right ? My point is that to many folks including myself Klipsch is my hi-end .

[SWL]

Hi-end can kiss my rear-end.

Medium end and good system synergy works for me. The end. []

[Mallette]

Hi-end is completely dependant on your income .

IMHO, and for my own purposes, the hi-end is entirely about money as it relates to accuracy.

I can put together a system that will play a string quartet with an accuracy and at a realistic volume that will make you cry (assuming you really love music) for 500.00 and have enough left over to purchase a good single malt and a couple of cigars to enjoy it with.

Now, if you want a pipe organ at realistic levels you're gonna need Klipschorns and a bit more than that...but you still aren't going to have a car in it or even a decent use one, and unlike a car, it's going to outlast you.

That's a bargain, IMHO.

Dave

[sunburnwilly]

it's going to outlast you.

No doubt in my mind that my Belle's will be around after I'm gone , and I'm only 45 . Hurricane and accompanied flood or earthquake notwithstanding .

[jacksonbart]

wait make up your mind.. are you high end? medium end? or rear end?