Klipsch Best vs The Rest of the Big Boys. Ever done a side by side Comparison?

[ODS123]

Vandersteen, JTR, Salk, etc... also make speakers here in the US and they don't seem to have these finish issues.

 

 

[HDBRbuilder]

And they have not been in business with their stuff since 1946, either, have they? Simply put, the rear of the K-horn is stuffed into a room's corner, so the issue of what somebody would see after getting a hernia UNSTUFFING the K-horn FROM its corner was never much of an issue...simply because it isn't worth a hernia to make an issue out of it.

[DizRotus]

12 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

Vandersteen, JTR, Salk, etc... also make speakers here in the US and they don't seem to have these finish issues.

 

You say Issues, to which I say, "gesundheit."

 

[Shiva]

Speaking of Tannoy. Has anyone heard their Kingdom 15 speaker. 20 years old.  Got to love the names they are given.  Great specs on this speaker too. 

 

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis8h4f2-tannoy-kingdom-15-full-range

[VintageSpeaker]

2 hours ago, Shiva said:

Speaking of Tannoy. Has anyone heard their Kingdom 15 speaker. 20 years old.  Got to love the names they are given.  Great specs on this speaker too. 

 

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis8h4f2-tannoy-kingdom-15-full-range

How about Jbl Summit or Everest series? High sounding names lol not referring to stash lol

[HDBRbuilder]

1 hour ago, VintageSpeaker said:

How about Jbl Summit or Everest series? High sounding names lol not referring to stash lol

Of all the speakers you have brought up in this thread, exactly how many of them have YOU HEARD?  Just wondering.  It really is like comparing apples to oranges for a LARGE NUMBER of REASONS, least of which is hearing them properly set-up in perfectly identical listening environments using the exact same upstream components, otherwise a comparison is not REALLY a COMPARISON, is it?

Even with K-horns, every time I have heard them they have MINIMALLY sounded at least a bit different because of what I typed in the preceding paragraph.

[garyrc]

On 4/4/2018 at 12:43 AM, VintageSpeaker said:

Has any Klipsch owners here ever compared their huge Klipschorns against Top Jbls Hartsfield, 4335 Everest Paragons Jensen Imperials EV Patricians, Bozak Grand, Altec A2s A19, Stephens Trusonic, Big Goodmans, Tannoy Autograph etc

 

I've heard some of these, but not side by side with one exception, and not always in the same room.

By fallible auditory memory:

 

Klipschorns vs Hartsfield -  Hartsfield did not have as much bass, --- sounded very bass shy, but was very clean.  Hartsfield midrange was ultra, ultra clear.  Klipschorn was better balanced, and had more impact.

 

Klipschorn vs JBL Paragon - Klipschorns flanking Paragon.  Very similar to above comparison, but the Khorn sound stage was much wider, because the Khorns were very far apart.  Paragon seemed to have a little more bass than my memory of Hartsfield, but Khorn seemed to go down farther.  The Paragon was the usual JBL Paragon -- I don't know what a Everest Paragon is.  The JBL Paragon was originally called the Ranger Paragon.  I'm tempted to call Ranger the movie sound guy, but he was an innovator in many fields and was one of those who developed magnetic tape recording, based on recorders captured from the Nazis.  Ranger applied "radial refraction" principles of diffusion to the Paragon; indeed the front of a Paragon looked like a Bonner Diffusor.  The Paragon design is also credited to  Arnold Wolf; perhaps they worked together.   As PWK might point out, the Paragon might have had better bass if it sat directly on the floor, but then the tweeters would be too far below seated ear level. 

 

Klipschorn v.s. Bozak Concert Grand - Bozak had sweet string sound, and wonderful cello reproduction, great bass, good dynamics.  It would never (?) give offense.  Khorn more dynamic, better brass, equal but different bass, took about 1/5 of the amplifier power according to a Stereo annual I saw, about 1/10, going by other sources.  A friend of mine narrowed down his speaker choice to these two, and went back and forth between stores for hours and hours of comparison.  He bought the Bozaks, largely because of the string sound.  In 1968, in my fantasies, I would have had three Concert Grands in a palatial Haight Ashbury apartment (or house, up the hill), wired in the PWK three channel "Wide Stage Stereo" configuration, and many lovely women would get to listen to it. 

 

By the time I got the money (12 years later), Klipschorns began to sound better to me, so I got them.  I never regretted the choice, and I have never heard better (of course, I haven't heard the Jubilees).

 

Klipschorns v.s. Altec A7s "Voice of the Theater" (one iteration; those actually used in theaters were usually far bigger).  I just thought I'd throw these in, since they are often spoken of in the same breath.  These were auditioned across the room from one another, both in corners.  Both were "effortless."  Both were "airy" compared to other speakers there, certainly more "airy" than the acoustic suspension speakers, like the AR-3A.   The Klipsch was brassier, sounded "golden."  The Altec tended toward being steely and sounded "silver."  O brother, I'm beginning to sound like a writer in a "hi-end" magazine -- sorry.  The Khorn had a little more deep bass, maybe, and livelier high frequencies.  The Altec advertised response to 22,000 c.p.s. (Hz), but if it had that, it was way, way down (I could hear to 20K back then).  Note, a few years later I heard A7s, and other, smaller, Altecs at the recording studio at SFSU, and they sounded better -- maybe they improved -- still no match for the Khorns.

 

[DizRotus]

Thanks @garyrc

 

But, never mind the sonic comparisons.  Were the screws attaching the switch and outlet covers in that Victorian house symmetrically oriented?

[MerkinMuffley]

There waa no shortage of massive speakers back in the day. For fun, these....

[richieb]

13 minutes ago, DizRotus said:

Thanks @garyrc

 

But, never mind the sonic comparisons.  Were the screws attaching the switch and outlet covers in that Victorian house symmetrically oriented?

 

--- Oh boy - being in San Fran of course they would have to be. Earthquake building code dontcha' know -- . I alternate my covers one vertical, one horizontal - |. Keeps standing waves from forming - both vertical too bright, both horizontal too flat, one each just right. 

Chief Bonehead approved --- 

[VintageSpeaker]

3 hours ago, garyrc said:

 

I've heard some of these, but not side by side with one exception, and not always in the same room.

By fallible auditory memory:

 

Klipschorns vs Hartsfield -  Hartsfield did not have as much bass, --- sounded very bass shy, but was very clean.  Hartsfield midrange was ultra, ultra clear.  Klipschorn was better balanced, and had more impact.

 

Klipschorn vs JBL Paragon - Klipschorns flanking Paragon.  Very similar to above comparison, but the Khorn sound stage was much wider, because the Khorns were very far apart.  Paragon seemed to have a little more bass than my memory of Hartsfield, but Khorn seemed to go down farther.  The Paragon was the usual JBL Paragon -- I don't know what a Everest Paragon is.  The JBL Paragon was originally called the Ranger Paragon.  I'm tempted to call Ranger the movie sound guy, but he was an innovator in many fields and was one of those who developed magnetic tape recording, based on recorders captured from the Nazis.  Ranger applied "radial refraction" principles of diffusion to the Paragon; indeed the front of a Paragon looked like a Bonner Diffusor.  The Paragon design is also credited to  Arnold Wolf; perhaps they worked together.   As PWK might point out, the Paragon might have had better bass if it sat directly on the floor, but then the tweeters would be too far below seated ear level. 

 

Klipschorn v.s. Bozak Concert Grand - Bozak had sweet string sound, and wonderful cello reproduction, great bass, good dynamics.  It would never (?) give offense.  Khorn more dynamic, better brass, equal but different bass, took about 1/5 of the amplifier power according to a Stereo annual I saw, about 1/10, going by other sources.  A friend of mine narrowed down his speaker choice to these two, and went back and forth between stores for hours and hours of comparison.  He bought the Bozaks, largely because of the string sound.  In 1968, in my fantasies, I would have had three Concert Grands in a palatial Haight Ashbury apartment (or house, up the hill), wired in the PWK three channel "Wide Stage Stereo" configuration, and many lovely women would get to listen to it. 

 

By the time I got the money (12 years later), Klipschorns began to sound better to me, so I got them.  I never regretted the choice, and I have never heard better (of course, I haven't heard the Jubilees).

 

Klipschorns v.s. Altec A7s "Voice of the Theater" (one iteration; those actually used in theaters were usually far bigger).  I just thought I'd throw these in, since they are often spoken of in the same breath.  These were auditioned across the room from one another, both in corners.  Both were "effortless."  Both were "airy" compared to other speakers there, certainly more "airy" than the acoustic suspension speakers, like the AR-3A.   The Klipsch was brassier, sounded "golden."  The Altec tended toward being steely and sounded "silver."  O brother, I'm beginning to sound like a writer in a "hi-end" magazine -- sorry.  The Khorn had a little more deep bass, maybe, and livelier high frequencies.  The Altec advertised response to 22,000 c.p.s. (Hz), but if it had that, it was way, way down (I could hear to 20K back then).  Note, a few years later I heard A7s, and other, smaller, Altecs at the recording studio at SFSU, and they sounded better -- maybe they improved -- still no match for the Khorns.

 

Spectacular comparisons and detailed description. Your the only one that ever answered this question closest to what i was getting at. Thanks for taking the time to do write up of these speakers. Lots of respect on my part. Id be honored to shake your hand and pat you on the back if ever meet. 

Few questions..what drivers were in those klipschorns when you heard the comparison. What era were those particular models you auditioned built?

 

I had the next size down from concert hall bozaks sounded great but too many drivers inside i feared if something ever went wrong. Poof. So i sold them but they did sound great

[VintageSpeaker]

5 hours ago, HDBRbuilder said:

Of all the speakers you have brought up in this thread, exactly how many of them have YOU HEARD?  Just wondering.  It really is like comparing apples to oranges for a LARGE NUMBER of REASONS, least of which is hearing them properly set-up in perfectly identical listening environments using the exact same upstream components, otherwise a comparison is not REALLY a COMPARISON, is it?

Even with K-horns, every time I have heard them they have MINIMALLY sounded at least a bit different because of what I typed in the preceding paragraph.

Goodmans 615 gold paper alnico in Karlson cabinets extremely rare and sound so natural and musical even with vintage solid state.very pleasant sounding. Sold them had to get them back soon after. Emotions kicked in.

Altec Heathkit legatos HH1c detailed Airy highs tight bass from the dual 802a  woofers 806 511 horn in infinite baffle cabs.

Jensen triplex super efficient, deep bass even with low powered marantz receiver. Sounds full even at low volume

 

Tannoy Golds in Autograph cabinets pure audio bliss powerful deep deep sound and deeeep bass.  listened to them through a luxman ss 4000 poweramp and marantz 73 cd player. My goodness what sound. The depth hasnt been matched in my ears and mind yet.

 

I have yet to audition a klipschorn or la scalas.

 

 

 

 

[VintageSpeaker]

JBL made an Everest and Summit after the paragons.

 

I heard that the vintage jbls needed the crossovers redone to sound great. Those old crossovers had run their course

[cincymat]

10 minutes ago, VintageSpeaker said:

 

I heard that the vintage jbls needed the crossovers redone to sound great. Those old crossovers had run their course

The vintage Khorns will likely need their crossovers redone to sound great too. 

 

A pair of vintage Khorns need not cost over 3K to sound and look great. Don’t know where you're located but I’m sure we can hook you up for a demo.

 

M

[VintageSpeaker]

Ontario but i might be in ohio one day in late spring

[garyrc]

3 hours ago, VintageSpeaker said:

Few questions..what drivers were in those klipschorns when you heard the comparison. What era were those particular models you auditioned built?

 

The Klipschorns were all built after 1963, which was when both the K400 horn was put in, and the new (smaller I think) loading gap was put right in front of the woofer.  I'm guessing that the mid driver was a K55 V and the tweeter a hand selected (tested) EV T35, re-branded a Klipsch K77.  I don't know what woofers were being used, but there is a Klipschorn timeline somewhere on the forum.  The Khorns were all before 1983 when the tweeter was front mounted, and, naturally before 1987 when the K401 horn was substituted for the K400.  My current Khorns have front mounted K77F tweeters, K55X mid drivers with K401 mid horns, and K33E woofers, with AK4 balancing networks.

 

The Hartsfield was an old one they hadn't sold, probably from the '50s.

 

Paragon v.s. Khorns, with Khorns flanking Paragon, probably about 1974.

 

Khorn v.s. Bozak Concert Grand about 1974, as well, but I had heard the Concert Grand and other Bozaks from 1964 on.

 

Khorn v.s. Altec A7, about 1974, but the A7 was old.

 

[Don Richard]

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 10:15 AM, Chris A said:

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 6:46 AM, Don Richard said:

I measured the Patrician and discovered the bass was 10 dB higher than the highs.

Don, that's quite a bit of bass boost. 

 

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 10:15 AM, Chris A said:

IIRC, the Patricians have a 30" woofer

 

The  Patricians IVs (1950s) had an 18" bass driver in a folded horn very similar to the Khorn bass horn. That's what I compared to the Khorn, in the same room. Those speakers had L-pads for the mids and highs, and were probably turned down. The 30 inch woofer was in later versions of the Patrician.

 

I have a PDF of home construction plans for the earlier version on my desktop computer where I used to work. I get called  back to help out from time to time, so next time I'm there I'll copy the plans and post them here.

 

Found the plans in this thread:

 

 

 

 

 

[DizRotus]

I’ve told this tale here several times before, but, as my family will attest, that won’t stop me from telling it again.

 

Sometime in the mid 70s I attended a PWK 3-channel road show demonstration in Lansing, MI hosted by The Stereo Shoppe of East Lansing, MI.  Following the interesting and impressive demo of Klipschorns flanking a center Cornwall, PWK suffered some questions from this then young enthusiast.

 

First I asked him why the horns of Heritage were mounted to the rear of the motorboards, rather than flush to the front.  His answer was that, “It doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference.”  I also asked about Klipsch licensed products made by other vendors such as Electro-Voice and Vitavox.  After explaining that such licensing was discontinued due to the inability of Klipsch to control the quality of licensed products, he abruptly asked, “Do you know what a Patrician is?”  Before I could respond he said, “Someone who steps out of the shower to take a leak.”  At that, his entourage rolled their eyes.

[Chris A]

16 hours ago, garyrc said:

He bought the Bozaks, largely because of the string sound. 

Gary, this comment got me to look at the Bozak Concert Grand from a review posted in Stereophile 13 years ago.  Here's a picture of the front of the loudspeakers without grill cloth:

 

 

and a Bode plot of the loudspeaker on-axis (blue trace):

 

 

These two graphics should tell you a lot about why the Concert Grand was nice for orchestral performance (assuming that you know the typical spectral contours for a symphony orchestra). There's not much typically above 6-8 kHz for string orchestras and piano recordings.  It's the winds and percussion that fill in above 8 kHz.

 

The lack of anything above 11 kHz is one clue, the use of direct radiating cones throughout, and in multiple quantities (i.e., 4 woofers, two midranges, and a line array of tweeters in each cabinet).  The wide spacing of the midrange cones would say to me that the loudspeakers had severe polar lobing issues below the tweeter frequencies (about 6 kHz), i.e., exactly where you sat an listened and the toe-in of the loudspeakers would mean big changes in perceived spectral balance.  In other words...they were very good to 11 kHz on-axis, and "sucked badly" off-axis.  The cone materials and manufacturing processes were exotic for their time.

 

I can see why they were "non-offensive", because there wasn't anything above 11 kHz, and there were no real peaks in response from 100-11,000 Hz.  If you were listening to anything with a full vocal-based mix and kick drums, they probably don't sound very interesting compared to the Khorns.

 

One thing that I did get from this examination: the notion that flat frequency response is king.  This is a principle highly championed by Toole, et al. that seems to play out in terms of listener preferences for well-recorded acoustic instrument reproduction.  The big hump in response at 60 Hz and the depressed response from 100-200 Hz also are big signature characteristics of the preferences of sound reproduction from the vinyl era, where boominess and rolled-off bass below 100 Hz is typical of that recording medium.

 

Chris

[richieb]

 

--- Seems this general concept is used today by Tekton speakers, Double Impact, and I've seen McIntosh use multiple, small dia. tweeters in arrays such as this although Tekton mounts them in groups rather than vertically. They also use the same multi large cones for woofers and multi smaller cones for mid-range. Of course and is typical today all those drivers are used in a column floor stander.