Guest Steven1963 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I've never heard Khorns but I own Lascalas and I've got a sub with them. And I know the lascalas use the same mid and high horns as do the Khorns but that the Khorns reach down further. So, would I be correct in assuming that my setup would sound similar to the Khorns? The reason I ask is that I am contemplating picking up a couple Khorns to go with my Lascalas and I would like to at least know what they might sound like when/if I get them into my system (other than 4 speakers of blissfully pure sound). I love the Klipsch sound so I don't have any problem buying the Khorns without listening to them (especially with how everyone raves about them), I know I will love them. I'm just wondering how the sound differs between the two speakers. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason str Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 K-horns dig deeper in frequency but La Scala has better midbass, they sound somewhat similar and some like one over the other. I prefer La Scala's with a good horn loaded subwoofer, you get better midbass & lower bass notes than the K-horn is capable of producing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 33Hz-17kHz(+-) 4dB on the new ones. I have Khorns and La Scalas. Have not hooked the La Scalas into the mix yet, But I think I'd like a sub to go with them. Others will have more informative info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Hard to mix sub with folded bass horns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Unfortunately I find that when "subs" are mentioned, what is typically meant is non-horn-loaded subs such as ported and acoustic suspension direct radiating designs. These direct radiators sound a lot different to my ears than horn-loaded subs whatever the frequency band, even as low as 20 Hz. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) I prefer La Scala's with a good horn loaded subwoofer, you get better midbass & lower bass notes than the K-horn is capable of producing. Unfortunately I find that when "subs" are mentioned, what is typically meant is non-horn-loaded subs such as ported and acoustic suspension direct radiating designs. These direct radiators sound a lot different to my ears than horn-loaded subs whatever the frequency band, even as low as 20 Hz. (Chris A) I've never heard a horn-loaded sub, so what both you gentlemen said intrigued me. Thanks to a brief listening session with Mustang Guy recently, I have come to understand there is a sonic "atmosphere" that has to be heard to be understood. In short, I was always a "small speaker" kind of guy, which would be the typical 8" woof/1" tweeter type of bookshelf speaker. You can get really good sound with bookshelf speakers, and even some volume. But Mustang guy had SIX La Scallas, L/R and rear L/R which were elevated at least 8 feet, and spread 40 feet from the central LP. Two LS's were centers, with the rear one located 10 feet up, probably 50 feet from the main LP. I'm going to say he had L/F sub arrays, but I'm not sure if the folded subs were in use that day, because he has so much great stuff! The room was actually a medium sized gym he has converted into an auto workshop. He played some stuff at LESS than reference level (to avoid blowing my head out with the sound pressure) and the LARGE sound became instantly apparent to me. The point to that story, is there are sound stages that were previously UN-imaginable to me. Both of you guys seem very sure about sound of the horn-loaded sub. So my question is, how is that sound different, and why is that sound preferable? Edited June 8, 2014 by wvu80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Look up Bill Fitzmaurice on the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Is your post to me, Sancho? I've been on Bill's website before, he is somewhat of a controversial guy on another forum, but I like him. What is it you want me to look for? +++ Edit: He makes and sells plans for folded horn subs (I love the name "Tuba HT). His claim for those beasts seems to be higher SPL, with lower distortion. Is that what you were suggesting? http://www.billfitzmaurice.com/THT.html Edited June 8, 2014 by wvu80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yes, his horn loaded subs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) ...[the] sound of the horn-loaded sub. So my question is, how is that sound different, and why is that sound preferable? The sound difference--to my ears--is that the horn-loaded subs will sound tight, clean, dynamic, and for lack of a better description, realistic--such as the closing of a car door will sound either exaggerated or real if you close your eyes. Acoustic suspension (closed box) direct-radiating subwoofers can sound tight but they also will generate much higher amounts of modulation distortion, such as having more than one instrument/sound playing at the same time, but sounding muddy and opaque - not real or acoustic sounding. I also hear the limitations of typical direct-radiating subs just in playing back a recording of a kick drum with a string double bass playing together. For orchestral and organ music (i.e., large pipe organs) playing from the classical repertoire, the differences are even more obvious. Having accurate and dynamic infrasonic bass adds a great deal to most music reproduction for me - not so much for electrically produced music that has been squashed dynamically in post processing and otherwise processed into what is typically called "commercial sound". Chris Edited June 8, 2014 by Chris A 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted June 8, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) I've never heard Khorns but I own Lascalas and I've got a sub with them. And I know the lascalas use the same mid and high horns as do the Khorns but that the Khorns reach down further. So, would I be correct in assuming that my setup would sound similar to the Khorns? Similar yes but not as far as the bass sounds, even with a horn loaded sub, because the design is so much different and how it mates with the room. Even a horn loaded sub will sound a little different than a Khorn, In a perfect room for the khorn it will sound better than the laScala and a sub. The problem is the Khorn is very much room dependent to get the best sound, it much easier with what you have. Edited June 8, 2014 by dtel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It has to be the sum of the entire system. That includes the room, the walls, the drivers, the amp, the sources and the speakers. I use modified Khorns along with an RSW-15 sub. The exact same system in a different home was not as good as the current configuration. Even in this home moving the furniture will make a difference. Each song played actually needs tuning due to how and when it was recorded. My 0.02$ - striving for the best is what we all employ to optimize this hobby. Khorns are better with a sub. They are better with uprgraded mid and tweeter drivers and horns. They are better with improved crossovers. They are better in an open room with solid corners. Bass is better driven by SS......... but tubes are more musical. SACD can be grand or a let down depending on the recording and the production company. As it stands........... I can play my system all day and all night and it never, ever grates, or clips or disappoints. And, if I decide to get real picky I can further tune to the nuances of each song being played. So yeah - La Scalas are better with a subwoofer. Good as Khorns? May be some Khorns in certain situations. But the bottom line is this hobby - this audio starving we all seek to cure with better equipment. It is nice. Enjoy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Khorns -- on axis -- in the right room will sound better than La Scala or my Belle, IMO. Add a fair, conventional, sub (like my RSW15), and the deepest bass will sound a lot fuller, but it needs to be finely tuned as to crossover frequency. I've gone back and forth between crossing over at the usually recommended 80 Hz, and 60 Hz, and 40 Hz. It seems to depend on the recording. At the moment, for classical music or jazz, 40 seems to sound best, and the clearest. For Blu-ray movies, I pick the THX/Audyssey recommended 80 Hz for the crossover between the sub and the Khorns/Belle center, and the recommended 120 Hz for the "movie effects only" information, i.e., the low pass filter for the separate low frequency movie effects ("LPF for LFE"). The movie music still crosses over at 80. Few (or none) would dispute that a well designed horn loaded subwoofer would theoretically be better, because of the tighter, lower distortion deep bass that others have mentioned. Finding horn subs to listen to, particularly with Khorns (or La Scalas), is the problem, unless one is O.K. with buying before hearing. My Khorns have much tighter bass than my sub, but less of it, and reaching less far into the basement. For some music, I actually turn off the subwoofer, and run the Khorns full range ... they are adequately flat down to 40 Hz (below which there is only a little musical material, except with pipe organ or synthesizer), go to 30 Hz cleanly but softly, and, according to tests with REW, will go down to about 25 Hz, even more softly, and with a tad of distortion that rarely has any music there to evoke it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet_Hollow Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Even a horn loaded sub will sound a little different than a Khorn, In a perfect room for the khorn it will sound better than the laScala and a sub. The problem is the Khorn is very much room dependent to get the best sound, it much easier with what you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason str Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 A perfect room for K-horns is not a reality for 99.9% of the population. Maybe a good idea for new construction but if you have that kind of cash why not upgrade to the Jubilee or better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 No disrespect to the Jubilee owners out there but I sometimes think you could buy some LaScalas, convert them into JubeScalas add a horn sub and have most of the sound while saving some money. That said, no, my Jubilee's are not going up for sale this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I had a La Scala setup with subwoofer as well, which worked fine for some years for me ; tight upper bass from the LS's and from 60 to 20Hz supported by a REL Strata 3 . Now with a active setup, using University Classics and a miniDSP I am hearing faster, "tighter" bass than with that setup; I'm selling the REL now. It sure sounds more realistic using the 15" woofers for bass without a added [closed-type] subwoofer. A bit less deep but MUCH tighter. What also makes a difference is that I'm using a Bryston 4B SS amp on the low section and tubes for the mid/high-section of the 2-way system. Best of both worlds IMO. My 2cnts; If you want real deep bass; go for a good quality closed subwoofer. If you want realistic bass; go for a big hornsystem and sacrify some low-end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Steven, I was really surprised at how much a bigger sound Khorns yield over LaScalas + sub. Didn't think Khorns would or should make enough difference to notice. They just load the room better than LaScalas + sub. LaScalas are no slouch at all, i'm running a pair now and sometimes use a sub with them and am delighted with the sound. Eight years ago had to get rid of Khorns when i moved into a different house. If you've got the corners, you will love the Khorns. The sound made me smile. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmusic Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Khorns -- on axis -- in the right room will sound better than La Scala or my Belle, IMO. Add a fair, conventional, sub (like my RSW15), and the deepest bass will sound a lot fuller, but it needs to be finely tuned as to crossover frequency. I've gone back and forth between crossing over at the usually recommended 80 Hz, and 60 Hz, and 40 Hz. It seems to depend on the recording. At the moment, for classical music or jazz, 40 seems to sound best, and the clearest. For Blu-ray movies, I pick the THX/Audyssey recommended 80 Hz for the crossover between the sub and the Khorns/Belle center, and the recommended 120 Hz for the "movie effects only" information, i.e., the low pass filter for the separate low frequency movie effects ("LPF for LFE"). The movie music still crosses over at 80. Few (or none) would dispute that a well designed horn loaded subwoofer would theoretically be better, because of the tighter, lower distortion deep bass that others have mentioned. Finding horn subs to listen to, particularly with Khorns (or La Scalas), is the problem, unless one is O.K. with buying before hearing. My Khorns have much tighter bass than my sub, but less of it, and reaching less far into the basement. For some music, I actually turn off the subwoofer, and run the Khorns full range ... they are adequately flat down to 40 Hz (below which there is only a little musical material, except with pipe organ or synthesizer), go to 30 Hz cleanly but softly, and, according to tests with REW, will go down to about 25 Hz, even more softly, and with a tad of distortion that rarely has any music there to evoke it. What amp would you be using with this current setup you are describing? How many wpc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Since you already have the La Scala, I would start with a horn-loaded sub (or two) if you have the room for it (or them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.