Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
Chad

*cough* CES 2017 *cough*

Recommended Posts

Steve, very nice articles, and some extremely rare cars. I had to take a double take on the Ferrari with the Montana license plate. That looks to be a great experience. 

 

Thanks for sharing....Bill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Then he started working on the Jubilee with Roy

 

For design aims, shouldn't it be the five "Cardinal Points"?  Six, seven and eight don't seem to have anything to do with speaker design.  No 8, toe in, don't seem to apply to Khorns at all.  Widely spaced, is a course going to be limited by the room they are going to go in.  Seem some funny posts in hear over the years about people needing to buy new houses to get the full potential of their speakers. 

 

Number of speakers, obviously was going to his Heresy (or Belle) in the middle.  It is a Cardinal Point, but I wonder who many of us in here are running stereo systems with a center channel, summed as Paul designed it.  I wonder what Paul thought about 5.1, and beyond.

Over the last 4-5 years I've been fortunate enough to run many different Khorn systems in my home.  3 different stereo (and yes 2 of those utilized the center fill LaScala Paul wrote about in Cardinal Point 7) and one mono setup, in 3 different rooms.   Run by a virtual crap-load of different component configurations, the Khorns were both stock ('66/'67/05 and Volti) and modified (various caps/ crossover configurations, drivers, horns...Crites/Martinelli/JBL etc).   Careful note was kept on individual changes.  A number of factors remained constant:

 

       1. When tucked in corners nice as intended, all my Khorns are toed in 45 deg as designed .....Cardinal point 8 realized....

       2. When spaced 23' apart they sound (imaging, sound-stage,blah blah blah) better then at 14' (backs enclosed and toe adjusted or not), and at 27'  they sound even better...Cardinal point 6 realized...

       3. At 27' the "hole in the center" becomes noticeable, an attenuated summed center channel implemented correctly noticeably improves the sound quality/listening experience ...Cardinal point 7 realized...

 

       I've yet to find any fault in the doctrine.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zim. said:

I've yet to find any fault in the doctrine.

Nor have I.  Had mine at 25' in one place I lived.  Incredible with a Cornwall center and Frazier rears all fed by a Dynaco Quaddapter, a complete passive device that in no way affects sound quality but steers out of phase information to the rear. 

 

Probably the best setup I ever had with first rate 2 mike stereo recordings.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jainbaby said:

Too early but the cabinet is ported...

Interesting - where are they located? Hidden behind that grill going down the sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrWho said:

Interesting - where are they located? Hidden behind that grill going down the sides?

 

Ported down the bottom.  In the "sandwiched" area.  I may have pic...let me see if I can find one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zim. said:

Over the last 4-5 years I've been fortunate enough to run many different Khorn systems in my home.  3 different stereo (and yes 2 of those utilized the center fill LaScala Paul wrote about in Cardinal Point 7) and one mono setup, in 3 different rooms.   Run by a virtual crap-load of different component configurations, the Khorns were both stock ('66/'67/05 and Volti) and modified (various caps/ crossover configurations, drivers, horns...Crites/Martinelli/JBL etc).   Careful note was kept on individual changes.  A number of factors remained constant:

 

       1. When tucked in corners nice as intended, all my Khorns are toed in 45 deg as designed .....Cardinal point 8 realized....

       2. When spaced 23' apart they sound (imaging, sound-stage,blah blah blah) better then at 14' (backs enclosed and toe adjusted or not), and at 27'  they sound even better...Cardinal point 6 realized...

       3. At 27' the "hole in the center" becomes noticeable, an attenuated summed center channel implemented correctly noticeably improves the sound quality/listening experience ...Cardinal point 7 realized...

 

       I've yet to find any fault in the doctrine.

 

1 hour ago, Mallette said:

Nor have I.  Had mine at 25' in one place I lived.  Incredible with a Cornwall center and Frazier rears all fed by a Dynaco Quaddapter, a complete passive device that in no way affects sound quality but steers out of phase information to the rear. 

 

Probably the best setup I ever had with first rate 2 mike stereo recordings.

 

Dave

I probably wasn't  clear in the way I mentioned it.  The context of the thread at the time I mentioned Points 6, 7 and 8 was speaker design parameters.  It seemed to me that 6, 7 and 8 were more towards placement and number in a way to get the full benefit of the fairly new source of sound on the market, Stereo.  I have heard Roy and Jim Hunter talk a great deal about Paul's Core Design Principles, and have seen the Cardinal Points article and discussion about it in the past.  The Cardinal Points seems to be how to optimize stereo sound with what you have, including some of his design principles.  His design principles seem to be just that, about how to design a loudspeaker.

 

He mentions something in that article that I had to re-read several times because I am not a technical person.  On page 206 he says: "Naturalness of music reproduction depends on the dynamic range, and horn performance is the best means of attaining such dynamic range."  So use horns.  No surprise there coming from PWK.  Why horns, because they are the best at getting you dynamic range.  He goes on to say:  "Frequency response was almost omitted from this consideration because it rates about last in importance.  Yet more is spent to gain "flat" frequency response than in optimizing other values."  Is he saying that dynamic range and other values are more important than flat frequency response?  Or something else?  Did his 8 Cardinal Points evolve over time to become his core principals of design?

 

How do the 8 Cardinal Points correspond to PWK's Four Core Principles of Loud Speaker Design?

 

High Efficiency

Low Distortion

Controlled Directivity

Flat Frequency Response

 

 

 

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2017 at 3:59 PM, Tom Adams said:

Wow……almost 1.378 hours of my life I won’t get back reading this thread.  In the almost 40 years of “conversing” via the internet, the one thing that can be counted on is the hijack post followed by getting off into the weeds followed by the “my nose is bigger than yours” argument.  Alas (sigh) this thread has followed suit.

I’m beginning to think that maybe I should apply for a government grant to study this trait that compels folks to go down this road.  Is it a need to feel relevant?  To try and impress folks?  I dunno….but it sure seems that internet chat rooms/forums/whatever are fraught with this phenomenon.  At a certain point in internet history, some enterprising programmer decided to devise a mechanism for this tendency of forum posters and included the “personal message” option in the forum software program.  It’s just my speculation, but I think the programmer’s intent was to have folks that wanted to engage in this type of ***-for-tat, my nose is bigger than yours bickering to take it off-line, as it were.

So let’s see if we can make some sense of this thread.  The OP made note of some new products that Klipsch intended to bring to market.  Reading between the lines, the OP was open to feedback.  Some relevant feedback was offered and opined.  However, at some point, these new products apparently flew in the face of some folks that have very strong opinions (that’s an understatement Tom) amd notions and whatever about what Klipsch should do/build/market/whatever.  And….true to form…..we have the hi-jack and the de-evolution of the thread.

To be sure, I am NO WHERE NEAR the level of audio knowledge of many of you here.  And – quite franky – I really don’t care.  Honestly, the posts some of you pen is quite comical.  And having been here since Dr. Who was a snotty nose starving college student, I’ve seen my share of back handed compliments and flame wars.  It’s also the reason that I (and I suspect others) just stopped coming here because of the snootiness and condescending attitude that was, and apparently still is, pervasive among some of you “Audiopiles”.  I wanna pass along this gem that I adhered to over my 40+ years of being an Engineer and manager in the aviation industry and was hung on the wall of my office so my team of 20 Engineers could always see:

It takes absolutely, positively no talent nor intellect to criticize.  The genius in in the solution.

You know…..I was always amazed and puzzled by folks that had the courage of their convictions to opine ad nauseum, but 99% of them had no courage to not just run their mouths and actually go out and DO something – kinda like being a Monday morning quarterback.  Klipsch should do this and Klipsch should do that.  Klipsch is heading in the wrong direction.  And on & on.

Here’s an idea…..if you are so dam sure you are so dam enlighted, then might I suggest you quit wasting your time here and put your time into developing a better product?  Seriously…some of you sexual intellectuals seem to have all the answers.

And with this – I bid you adieu and ask that the forum admin please have pity on me and ban me from this forum.

Tom

Oooooh, I like this Guy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, jorjen has been duly informed he'll have to do better than that to get banned.  OTOH, I've rather enjoyed this thread as harking back, but with less rancor, to the old days.  Disagreement does not mean disrespect. 

 

33 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

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

Well, I am CERTAINLY no engineer, but I rather suspect what he means here is that being flat from DC to light isn't what it's cracked up to be compared to distortion and such.  I can see that.  It takes 3db gain change to be detectable at all by the human ear, and even then it isn't a major difference. 

Sort of see where you were coming from on the other points...but I think PWK found that all those also were part of design in that the speaker, and the user, needed to heed those in order for the design to fully succeed.  Probably the only one that we don't worry much about in any brand of quality speakers today is "freedom from rattles."  However, it was key at the time as the speakers in console radios and such were often in very thing and flimsy mounts. 

 

Dave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrWho said:

Interesting - where are they located? Hidden behind that grill going down the sides?

 

This is SUPER early pic and early prototype so don't go analyzing it as final design but you can see where the port is intended to go in this picture.  Look at the brace in the bottom and you will see the round hole to the side of the brace

 

 

IMG_3305.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jainbaby said:

Look at the brace in the bottom and you will see the round hole to the side of the brace

Well, can't be sure just how you are implementing the rest of the 8card in this design, but I'd say from the look of it "freedom from rattles" is covered.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jainbaby said:

 

I still live in NJ, but have a condo in Broad Ripple.  

What exit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jainbaby that is looking like a solid design. Doesn't seem like a huge cabinet, but has that type of brace work. Thumbs up! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, since no one else has, I'll bring up The Sixes.

 

I'm excited for these and think they'll make a great tabletop/desk setup. I actually preordered a pair for my computer setup. From the pictures, they look great and different from most speakers you see if this size/type.

 

@Jainbaby I had a few questions if you're able to answer them.

Is the horn the same as used on the RP-160M? Looks to be a different phase plug, but utilizing the horn and titanium diaphragm.

Is the woofer the same as used in the R-26F, but not copper?

How long will the cable be to connect the two speakers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grizzog said:

OK, since no one else has, I'll bring up The Sixes.

 

I'm excited for these and think they'll make a great tabletop/desk setup. I actually preordered a pair for my computer setup. From the pictures, they look great and different from most speakers you see if this size/type.

 

@Jainbaby I had a few questions if you're able to answer them.

1.  Is the horn the same as used on the RP-160M? Looks to be a different phase plug, but utilizing the horn and titanium diaphragm.

2.  Is the woofer the same as used in the R-26F, but not copper?

3.  How long will the cable be to connect the two speakers?

1. very, very close to identical on the horn, tweeter/pp are different

2.  no, completely different

3.  long enough for 99%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Fan and Great upgrades and new products, though I wonder whether it was needed to change te look in the RF7 MKIII.

 

I.M.H.O The "Wood veneer" in front of RF7-MKII is far more stylish then some Artificial Plastic on RF7-MKIII .
Next to this, the bottom changes " from nice copper pads" to a "Plastic support" makes the RF7 III loose elegance and more bulky, ... 

These two look changes makes MKIII-look "Cheap", and far not as nice as it's predecessor MKII. As i find it important a speaker fits in the interior, and the changes in looks now makes it more difficult to blend

the fact you change some tech specs is normal, but do not fix something (Look) which has no need for improvement, ... 

Chrißt'll

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jay L said:


1. very, very close to identical on the horn, tweeter/pp are different

2.  no, completely different

3.  long enough for 99%
 

 


Thanks!
What's long enough for 99%? 6ft? 8? 12?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Great Fan and Great upgrades and new products, though I wonder whether it was needed to change te look in the RF7 MKIII.







 







I.M.H.O The "Wood veneer" in front of RF7-MKII is far more stylish then some Artificial Plastic on RF7-MKIII .


Next to this, the bottom changes " from nice copper pads" to a "Plastic support" makes the RF7 III loose elegance and more bulky, ... 



These two look changes makes MKIII-look "Cheap", and far not as nice as it's predecessor MKII. As i find it important a speaker fits in the interior, and the changes in looks now makes it more difficult to blend



the fact you change some tech specs is normal, but do not fix something (Look) which has no need for improvement, ... 



Chrißt'll



 




The baffle is painted just like the original RF7, not plastic on the mkiii. The plinth on the bottom is also painted wood, not plastic.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...