Klipschorn upgrades which ones help

[2Bmusic]

Corners.

Done, they are closed in

[2Bmusic]

one can not know what one does not know. To that end I feel that upgrades are a good idea.  I posted this because I have talked to several people that say leave the Khorns alone.  For me, I am wanting the million dollar sound for as cheap as possible ( relatively speaking of course). It seems from posts here and google searches that upgrades improve sound.  TODAY I just found out about Volti.   So now the decision is harder.    ONE PATH>   Volti    other path>  ALK & Fastlane..... how can one know.   Serious money ether way, and something to not be repeated!

[toolz]

Now that the Klipschorns in the corners, hook them up and listen to them.  Enjoy the sound you now have.  Then take more time to listen to them before you start down the path of upgrades.  Once you take that first step you will spend more time and money trying to upgrade and less time listening.  Just sit and listen and then listen some more. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by toolz

[Chris A]

...To that end I feel that upgrades are a good idea. I posted this because I have talked to several people that say leave the Khorns alone. For me, I am wanting the million dollar sound for as cheap as possible (relatively speaking of course)...

 

 

Perhaps it is useful to your pursuit to list some factors that make the loudspeaker sound either better or worse.  I find that having a "mental model" of these is really useful in trying to improve the sound.  Here are some factors that are documented elsewhere:

 

1) Flat on-axis frequency response

 

...what most people tacitly assume is the key performance measure for loudspeakers but in fact is something that can be largely corrected via use of DSP--digital signal processors--like is the heart of digital loudspeaker processors/crossovers. Having flat on-axis frequency response (FR) can be good or not so good, depending on how it is achieved by the loudspeaker. Getting your Khorns to have flat on-axis FR (especially in the upper bass region from 100-300 Hz) using EQ is something that will improve its sound realism rather dramatically. Paying particular attention to EQing the bass FR flat (...and most Khorn owners fail to do this...) will yield much more realistic performance.

 

2) Controlled horizontal and vertical sound coverage vs. frequency

 

...which is one of two real advantages of horn loading.  This is especially important in the midrange frequencies from about 100-5000 Hz).  One of the weaknesses in the Khorn design is its use of a "collapsing polar" midrange horn - the K-400 series exponential horn.  This design achieves more or less flat FR by allowing the coverage angle of the midrange horn to collapse down to a smaller and smaller angle as frequency rises, due entirely to the limited height of the horn's mouth.  The solution is to use a midrange horn with a larger vertical dimension than the K-400 horn (or K-401, which is made out of a polymer material but is otherwise identical).  I recommend a horn that has true controlled coverage vs. frequency but which requires EQ to boost high frequencies and to attenuate lower frequencies. 

 

The stock K-400 horn will begin to lose its polar control below about 1700 Hz, which puts an excess amount of midrange SPL into your room's floor and ceiling from about 400 Hz up to 1700 Hz.  This excess energy, if not absorbed by carpet/acoustic absorption panels, or delayed in it reflection via a high ceiling, makes the loudspeaker sound tonally unbalanced and is the major reason why most Khorn owners learn to add absorption to the floor and ceiling in their room.  Pianos and female voices typically sound distorted or "larger than life" due in part to the loss of vertical coverage by of the midrange horn.

 

The solution is to use a horn that doesn't do this, such as a Klipsch K-402 horn, which controls its polar coverage angles all the way down to the the crossover frequency with the folded bass bin (400 Hz...and even lower to 175 Hz if the attached compression driver could go that low).

 

A good compromise in terms of polar coverage is the K-510 horn, which controls its polars down to about 600 Hz before losing its pattern control. 

 

Using a good full-range compression driver with parametric equalization (digital crossover or EQ) will allow you to avoid using a separate tweeter (plus another crossover) that will improve the smoothness and realism of sound.  This is probably the most important single upgrade that you can make. 

 

I don't recommend using third-party midrange horns that do not have controlled coverage--both horizontally and vertically.  If you cannot get good data from the manufacturer on the horn's coverage angles vs. frequency of any third party horn, I'd recommend not investing in them.  If you are using a midrange horn with non-straight sides (i.e., exponential, full tractrix, etc.) that horn will not have controlled coverage up to higher frequencies in both axes.  Plots of coverage vs. frequency that show a significant narrowing of polar coverage as the frequency rises are not very good horns for this purpose.  These horns exhibit the characteristic "honk" sound.

 

3) Time misalignment of drivers

 

...that are typically exaggerated with fully horn loaded loudspeakers using passive crossovers.  The only effective ways to correct time misalignment of tweeter and midrange is to either add delay to the tweeter channel using a digital crossover, or to remove the tweeter from its top-hat cabinet, and place on top of the top hat, centered about even with the midrange compression driver position at the back of the top hat cabinet.  Once the proper location of the tweeter is found, the sound stage image should dramatically widen and become much more realistic.

 

The only effective way to time-align the bass bin to the midrange is by using a digital crossover, inserting delay on the midrange channel.

 

Avoidance of using a tweeter altogether by using a full-range 2" compression driver of high quality (i.e., a two-way loudspeaker like that used in the Jubilee) is a superior way of achieving no disturbances in the loudspeaker's HF coverage, which are extremely audible at high midrange-tweeter frequencies.  Also, getting the tweeter and midrange co-axially located will eliminate "X-Y-Z" offset issues of the horns/drivers which lead to a partial fragmentation of the sound stage--due to off-axis nulls that are formed by having two emitters separated by more than 1/4 wavelength at the crossover frequency.

 

4) Sealed back bass bin

 

...which is an advantage with a Khorn and is very easy to do with a Khorn back, in order to reduce the loss of mid-bass and midrange FR notches use to a poor seal with the room's corner. The single remaining issue with the Khorn's performance, assuming all the above improvements are implemented, is the mid-bass performance issue due to the folded bass horn design.  The frequencies of interest are 100-500 Hz - which are really midrange frequencies.  Getting the Khorns' backs sealed up tightly to control loss of midrange/midbass frequencies on-axis is a key upgrade.  Having a straight mid-bass horn is even better, but that upgrade will take you away from the Khorn design, typically.

 

Chris

Edited April 10, 2016 by Chris A

[Max2]

Bigger is better

 

[ratcobob]

 

Corners.

Done, they are closed in

 

 

Dave: Just want to be sure what 'they are closed in' means. Just because the backs are closed does not mean that they don't have to be in corners. Also the closed backs should be sealed at the top of the base bin to the corner with a triangle that would measure about 6.5 x 6.5 x 9 1/4". This was incorporated in later Khorns. Also don't forget 3rd path - Bob Crites - solid, economical upgrades

[babadono]

Do you have any listening fatigue while listening to your KHorns? If so I would pursue changing the K400/401 midrange horn out for a wooden tractix horn. I changed mine for the Fastlane eliptracs on the KHorns and just the regular tractix on the LaScalas and have never looked back. I can't speak to the Volti horns I've never heard them.

[2Bmusic]

Do you have any listening fatigue while listening to your KHorns? If so I would pursue changing the K400/401 midrange horn out for a wooden tractix horn. I changed mine for the Fastlane eliptracs on the KHorns and just the regular tractix on the LaScalas and have never looked back. I can't speak to the Volti horns I've never heard them.

I would say yes, there is distortion but only on certain passages.  

[Fjd]

 

 

Corners.

Done, they are closed in

 

 

Dave: Just want to be sure what 'they are closed in' means. Just because the backs are closed does not mean that they don't have to be in corners. Also the closed backs should be sealed at the top of the base bin to the corner with a triangle that would measure about 6.5 x 6.5 x 9 1/4". This was incorporated in later Khorns. Also don't forget 3rd path - Bob Crites - solid, economical upgrades

 

 

 

Another consideration is how the work was done to close the back.  I've seen a few where the person inserted the panels within the horn space itself, and essentially reduced the expansion rate of the horn.  I haven't seen anyone take measurements before and after; therefore, I do not know how significant of an impact the, technically, smaller horn would measure. 

 

 

Here is a link to a very informative FAQ thread on obtaining the best imaging out of corner horn loudspeakers. 

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/131163-corner-horn-imaging-faq/

 

Here is a link that looks interesting for another Klipschorn tophat solution.  Does show a lot of measurements and the data sheet for the horns shows the polar response.  This is the same guy that did the high-end crossover work for Volti Khorn upgrades (and I believe maybe for the Vitorra) and I've been thinking about having him design a passive for my Community M200 and VHF100 compression drivers (haven't finalized the horns yet).

 

http://www.northreadingeng.com/baffle_insert/R2_Klipschorn_baffle_insert.html

 

Main page with links to various custom work and photo essays.

 

http://www.northreadingeng.com/

 

 

 

Here are the polar response curves for the horn from the datasheet. Note that North Reading uses the B&C DHM50 (a very nice compression drive) with the Selenium (JBL subsidiary) HM3950 horn.  I've attached the data sheets below.

 

 

 

 

.

_ HM3950.pdf

_ B&C DCM50.pdf

Edited April 11, 2016 by Fjd

[LarryC]

Hi -- I have not experimented with what I'd call "aftermarket" items like Volti and Fastlane -- no idea how those would actually sound.

 

Several years ago, I did a Klipsch upgrade -- the AK-4 kit, around 2003 or 2005.  In fact, my kit serial nos. were 001 and 002.  Each one consisted of a new K-77 tweeter, a new MR K-55 driver, a new bass bin panel door with a complete AK-4 X-over, and new pre-cut to length Monster Cable (used by Klipsch at the time -- I replaced all that with Siltech silver speaker wire).  The woofer stayed the same, a current Klipsch K-33.

 

This is a fully Klipsch-engineered x-over and treble drivers setup, a point worth noting IMO.

 

The problem I was trying to solve in my 1962 K-horns was poor blending through the entire range, between the bass and mid-range in particular.  After having dealt with this issue for many years, I was gratified to find that the AK-4 completely resolved it.  I tried the Crites tweeters later on, but found less blending between the tweeter and midrange.  A misconnection was possible in that effort, but it was a relief to switch back to the K-77.

 

While a few people on the forum have raised issues about the KK-4, most who switched appear to have been very satisfied.  SIlversport has continued to praise it since his installation.

 

I posted a lengthy thread on the bass horn and AK-4, which is still online.  Hunt for something like "Restoring the bass horn in a pair of 1962 K-horns."  I think it's worth reading, especially if your K's still have the woofer mounting board from the late '60's and late '70's.  Unfortunately, the pictures were deleted in a software changeover, but I can probably locate them if you really need them.  See https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/38719-restoring-the-standard-bass-horn-throat-in-a-62-pair-of-klipschorns/

 

I hope this helps.  It would be good for you to listen to whatever changes you're about to choose if you can.  Clearly I believe the AK-4 can avoid some of the issues associated with other upgrades, some of which I frankly didn't like as much.

Edited April 11, 2016 by LarryC

[tromprof]

My K-horns are stock with the exception of Crites crossovers. If I wanted to bring the sound closer to my basement system I would time align the horns. The clarity that added to my basement system was profound. Second would be replacing the mid horns.

[2Bmusic]

 

...To that end I feel that upgrades are a good idea. I posted this because I have talked to several people that say leave the Khorns alone. For me, I am wanting the million dollar sound for as cheap as possible (relatively speaking of course)...

 

 

Perhaps it is useful to your pursuit to list some factors that make the loudspeaker sound either better or worse.  I find that having a "mental model" of these is really useful in trying to improve the sound.  Here are some factors that are documented elsewhere:

 

1) Flat on-axis frequency response

 

...what most people tacitly assume is the key performance measure for loudspeakers but in fact is something that can be largely corrected via use of DSP--digital signal processors--like is the heart of digital loudspeaker processors/crossovers. Having flat on-axis frequency response (FR) can be good or not so good, depending on how it is achieved by the loudspeaker. Getting your Khorns to have flat on-axis FR (especially in the upper bass region from 100-300 Hz) using EQ is something that will improve its sound realism rather dramatically. Paying particular attention to EQing the bass FR flat (...and most Khorn owners fail to do this...) will yield much more realistic performance.

 

2) Controlled horizontal and vertical sound coverage vs. frequency

 

...which is one of two real advantages of horn loading.  This is especially important in the midrange frequencies from about 100-5000 Hz).  One of the weaknesses in the Khorn design is its use of a "collapsing polar" midrange horn - the K-400 series exponential horn.  This design achieves more or less flat FR by allowing the coverage angle of the midrange horn to collapse down to a smaller and smaller angle as frequency rises, due entirely to the limited height of the horn's mouth.  The solution is to use a midrange horn with a larger vertical dimension than the K-400 horn (or K-401, which is made out of a polymer material but is otherwise identical).  I recommend a horn that has true controlled coverage vs. frequency but which requires EQ to boost high frequencies and to attenuate lower frequencies. 

 

The stock K-400 horn will begin to lose its polar control below about 1700 Hz, which puts an excess amount of midrange SPL into your room's floor and ceiling from about 400 Hz up to 1700 Hz.  This excess energy, if not absorbed by carpet/acoustic absorption panels, or delayed in it reflection via a high ceiling, makes the loudspeaker sound tonally unbalanced and is the major reason why most Khorn owners learn to add absorption to the floor and ceiling in their room.  Pianos and female voices typically sound distorted or "larger than life" due in part to the loss of vertical coverage by of the midrange horn.

 

The solution is to use a horn that doesn't do this, such as a Klipsch K-402 horn, which controls its polar coverage angles all the way down to the the crossover frequency with the folded bass bin (400 Hz...and even lower to 175 Hz if the attached compression driver could go that low).

 

A good compromise in terms of polar coverage is the K-510 horn, which controls its polars down to about 600 Hz before losing its pattern control. 

 

Using a good full-range compression driver with parametric equalization (digital crossover or EQ) will allow you to avoid using a separate tweeter (plus another crossover) that will improve the smoothness and realism of sound.  This is probably the most important single upgrade that you can make. 

 

I don't recommend using third-party midrange horns that do not have controlled coverage--both horizontally and vertically.  If you cannot get good data from the manufacturer on the horn's coverage angles vs. frequency of any third party horn, I'd recommend not investing in them.  If you are using a midrange horn with non-straight sides (i.e., exponential, full tractrix, etc.) that horn will not have controlled coverage up to higher frequencies in both axes.  Plots of coverage vs. frequency that show a significant narrowing of polar coverage as the frequency rises are not very good horns for this purpose.  These horns exhibit the characteristic "honk" sound.

 

3) Time misalignment of drivers

 

...that are typically exaggerated with fully horn loaded loudspeakers using passive crossovers.  The only effective ways to correct time misalignment of tweeter and midrange is to either add delay to the tweeter channel using a digital crossover, or to remove the tweeter from its top-hat cabinet, and place on top of the top hat, centered about even with the midrange compression driver position at the back of the top hat cabinet.  Once the proper location of the tweeter is found, the sound stage image should dramatically widen and become much more realistic.

 

The only effective way to time-align the bass bin to the midrange is by using a digital crossover, inserting delay on the midrange channel.

 

Avoidance of using a tweeter altogether by using a full-range 2" compression driver of high quality (i.e., a two-way loudspeaker like that used in the Jubilee) is a superior way of achieving no disturbances in the loudspeaker's HF coverage, which are extremely audible at high midrange-tweeter frequencies.  Also, getting the tweeter and midrange co-axially located will eliminate "X-Y-Z" offset issues of the horns/drivers which lead to a partial fragmentation of the sound stage--due to off-axis nulls that are formed by having two emitters separated by more than 1/4 wavelength at the crossover frequency.

 

4) Sealed back bass bin

 

...which is an advantage with a Khorn and is very easy to do with a Khorn back, in order to reduce the loss of mid-bass and midrange FR notches use to a poor seal with the room's corner. The single remaining issue with the Khorn's performance, assuming all the above improvements are implemented, is the mid-bass performance issue due to the folded bass horn design.  The frequencies of interest are 100-500 Hz - which are really midrange frequencies.  Getting the Khorns' backs sealed up tightly to control loss of midrange/midbass frequencies on-axis is a key upgrade.  Having a straight mid-bass horn is even better, but that upgrade will take you away from the Khorn design, typically.

 

Chris

 

WOW CHRIS..... thats a great deal to comprehend.  I need to know how to put it in to action. 

[Chris A]

I'm good for questions...

 

Chris

[thebes]

3) Time misalignment of drivers ...that are typically exaggerated with fully horn loaded loudspeakers using passive crossovers. The only effective ways to correct time misalignment of tweeter and midrange is to either add delay to the tweeter channel using a digital crossover, or to remove the tweeter from its top-hat cabinet, and place on top of the top hat, centered about even with the midrange compression driver position at the back of the top hat cabinet. Once the proper location of the tweeter is found, the sound stage image should dramatically widen and become much more realistic.

 

Very informative post Chris, as always, but this part puzzles me.  Are you saying  that Khorns, which have been built since the '40's, do not have time-aligned drivers?  I'm surprised PWK would never have corrected that along the way. 

 

Now I do know it's a factor with the Jubs because it's a cobbled together system  that many claim only seems to work well when active crossovers are used.  But don't all the extra electronic junk involved in active xovers present  negative trade offs of their own?  I know  I myself gave up on active after less than a  year.

[Chris A]

Are you saying that Khorns, which have been built since the '40's, do not have time-aligned drivers?

Yes. It's not close to being aligned, in fact. There's 6 ms of time misalignment of the bass bin to the tweeter, and 4.4 ms of misalignment of the midrange to the bass bin: that's about 6.8 feet of misalignment of the tweeter to the bass bin, and 5 feet of misalignment of the midrange to the bass bin.  That's huge as far as loudspeakers go. 

 

The problem is that PWK didn't have access to high fidelity digital crossovers for all of those years, so the midrange-bass bin misalignment was something that he knew about, but could do very little about.

 

The tweeter to midrange time misalignment can be corrected by releasing the tweeter from inside the top hat and placing in a small baffle on top of the Khorn, centered at the back of the cabinet in order to align.  Once you do this (and it costs very little in terms of time or resources, and is easily reversible)--you will hear you Khorns like they're new - a very large sound stage will be apparent once you get the alignment within about 1/4 inch of correctly aligned.  Talk to Marvel or you can read this: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/160049-diy-la-scala-mid-upgrade-options/?p=1940532

 

Now I do know it's a factor with the Jubs because it's a cobbled together system that many claim only seems to work well when active crossovers are used. But don't all the extra electronic junk involved in active xovers present negative trade offs of their own? I know I myself gave up on active after less than a year.

 

If you've got golden ears, I'd recommend a 24/96 crossover like a Yamaha SP2060 or a Xilica XP2040 (i.e., NOT Behringer, miniDSP, dbx Driverack, or any other low-ball unit).  The Xilica XP2040 is less than $1K(US) new.  The XP3060 (which can cross three speakers) is only about $200-300 more.  For me, that's really the end of the discussion economically.  Talk to Ellis63 about how his Xilica sounds.

 

You can't low-ball the quality of the digital crossover. You wouldn't do that with a passive crossover or amplifier or preamp--you shouldn't consider it with a digital crossover.  The ElectroVoice DC-One or Dx38, or the Ashly Protea series will do almost as well with a minimal level of fidelity loss.

 

These high quality digital crossovers are now less money in used condition than the extreme slope crossovers from third parties here (I believe that you know who I'm talking about...). Their price for their passive crossovers ~$1500(US).  There's no contest based on price--used Yamaha SP2060s recently went for about $500-600(US).  As far as the transparency of these quality digital crossovers, you'll have to read the testimonials on this forum, including mine.  I cannot hear the Yamaha SP2060 that crosses and EQs my Jubilees: it's got that hi-fi inner detail that so many here like to have.

 

As far as your comment about "cobbled together", I'm not sure why you would use those words. I would recommend avoidance.  Your call.  The Jubilee has as much if not more work involved in the engineering of its configuration as any other Klipsch loudspeaker designed for the consumer market. YMMV.  That sounds like marketing BS.

 

There are several people that run passive crossovers with Jubilees.  Rigma's crossover are the only ones that I know that attempt to do everything passively that the digital crossover can do out of the box + 15 minutes.  In fact the digital crossover can time align, while the passives actually introduce additional phase lag on the bass bins (probably 360 degrees of additional phase lag).  Rigma's passive Jubilee crossovers/balancing networks apparently cost in excess of $3k(US) in terms of the raw materials--eight years ago.  They're massive.  I don't believe that's an attractive option in my view.

 

I find that people are resistant to technology they don't fully understand until they experience the true benefits of it, then they tolerate it.  Then they later feel that they can't do without it.  Just like anything else, if you try to low ball it, you don't get the benefits.

 

Chris

Edited April 12, 2016 by Chris A

[Axz Hout]

T

[mikebse2a3]

Very informative post Chris, as always, but this part puzzles me. Are you saying that Khorns, which have been built since the '40's, do not have time-aligned drivers? I'm surprised PWK would never have corrected that along the way.

  

 

Thebes whether you like it or not time-alignment is audible and can offer an improvement to an otherwise excellent system. I would also be careful about assuming what PWK would have done as technology advances. Did you know PWK was working with steep-slope crossovers in his later years even though one could dig up statements he made supporting simple 6db crossovers at one time?

 

 

Now I do know it's a factor with the Jubs because it's a cobbled together system that many claim only seems to work well when active crossovers are used. But don't all the extra electronic junk involved in active xovers present negative trade offs of their own? I know I myself gave up on active after less than a year.

 

"Jubs because it's a cobbled together system"   really thebes..... I thought better of you than this. 

 

 

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

You wouldn't do that with a passive crossover or amplifier or preamp--you shouldn't consider it with a digital crossover. The ElectroVoice DC-One or Dx38, or the Ashly Protea series will do almost as well with a minimal level of fidelity loss.

 

I'm curious Chris, have you actually used the EV DC-One or Ashly Protea series in your system since you say "will do almost as well with a minimal level of fidelity loss"..?

 

miketn

[Axz Hout]

T

[Chris A]

have you actually used the EV DC-One or Ashly Protea series in your system since you say "will do almost as well with a minimal level of fidelity loss"..?

 

Mike, I'm not certain this is a good time to do this...    

 

The EVs and Proteas are 24/48 units.  The Yamaha SP2060 is a 24/96 unit, which I largely and mainly attribute to the difference in sound with the Dx38.  I don't believe that the op amps would make that much difference, but I could be surprised.  No one has made any negative comment on the Yamaha's or Xilicas' SQ anywhere, to my knowledge.

 

I used your review of the DC-One vs. the Dx38, whereby you said the two had about the same sound quality.  If you've changed your mind or you didn't actually speak your mind in that review then I guess that I'd have to say that I need to do a one vs. one using the DC-One and the Yamaha.  [i'm pretty sure that I know where I'd put my money, however.]

 

But if the difference is in the op amps and analog sections only then I could see where the DC-One or the Proteas might approach the Yamaha sound quality, which is what I was talking about above.  The Xilica apparently has the same properties as the Yamaha SP2060 in terms of inner detail/sound quality.  The Xilicas are all 24/96 units with apparently good analog electronic sections.

 

Once I got the Yamaha dialed in on the Jubs (it took about 20 minutes start-to-finish), it was a bit breathtaking vs. the Dx38--in terms of inner detail using the First Watt F3.  I didn't wish to make anyone feel bad about that comparison.

 

Chris