elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 19 hours ago, garyrc said: I'm assuming that is an acoustically transparent screen, right? Yes, it is an acoustically transparent screen. Quote If not, instead of replacing it (way in the future) with a smaller screen, instead (way in the future) replace it with an AT screen, maybe an even bigger one, with all three speakers behind it. Way in the future, now, there might be room for a 4 foot long wall dividing your movie area from the area with bookshelves. Then all speakers would be behind a wider AT screen (2.35:1 instead of 1.78:1). Even Klipschorns and a Belle or a La Scala. Or even three Jubilees. A pony wall would be O.K. if it would be strong enough to not wiggle. Fill it with sand, after securing it to the floor with strong fasteners inside the wall? Soooo tempting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnKuthe Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 1 hour ago, garyrc said: Roombas are easy Cats are hard Cats have vastly more complex bioneural circuitry than a Roomba! In fact, Roomba's have NONE! NO bioneural activity! John Kuthe, CS, EE and BSN! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 9 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said: I know Jim Salk personally, as well as his wife. Amazing customer service! I actually feel guilty looking at other speakers!! 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 4 hours ago, garyrc said: Seymour makes good AT screens, at a lower price than some. www.seymourav.com/ @elee532 please copy, for way in the future. My current screen actually is built with Seymour AT material. 😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 2 hours ago, indyhawg said: elee---I was in a similar situation as you not too long ago... I have owned KG2's, Forte II's, CF3 version 2's, along with a plethora of non-Klipsch speakers. BTW, I really like the Salk speakers you own, but they have a different sound from Klipsch. So, can you say a little more about the Forte vs the KHorn? Is the move from Salk to Forte going to at least get me a little closer to the feel I had when hearing those KHorns 30 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 On 8/9/2018 at 4:39 AM, elee532 said: Thanks @Shakeydal, @GaryC , and @ricktate, Cost is the first barrier to Khorns. 🙂 Even if I had the money, there are room layout issues. i would not be averse to a new amp at some point. Given that I have two subs, would some of the low end horsepower of the Fortes be wasted? Is version 3 of the Fortes the way to go? if you can afford new Forte' III speakers then you have no excuse not to buy used Klipschorns or buy new Jubilees through Cory Roger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricktate Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 I think Forte's will get you what you want but dont forget there are other ones that can also.....Klf 20-30....Chorus....RF7 I-II-II....But if you want same speakers LCR probably have to get new. 3 Fortes would be around 5400 but less from Cory probably. Your room looks like it will need Forte type speakers I dont see K-horns fitting there easy ...no corners...Let us know what you decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wdecho Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 7 hours ago, elee532 said: So, can you say a little more about the Forte vs the KHorn? Is the move from Salk to Forte going to at least get me a little closer to the feel I had when hearing those KHorns 30 years ago? Never heard Forte's but the general conscientious with horns is bigger is better. The reason many on this forum praising the Klipsch Pro big horns. The Forte's probably are nice speakers, many like them, but I do not believe they could stand a side by side comparison with the K-horn or LaScala. The old saying among speaker manufactures since the beginning of audio reproduction has been "these little speakers sound like big ones". Trust me they don't. More appeal to the lady of the house but I just went ahead years ago and bought big speakers. Been happy for over 30 years with my purchase of LaScala's. This is not to say that new Forte's would be a good sounding speaker. For it's size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 4 hours ago, wdecho said: Never heard Fortes but the general conscientious with horns is bigger is better. The reason many on this forum praising the Klipsch Pro big horns. The Fortes probably are nice speakers, many like them, but I do not believe they could stand a side by side comparison with the K-horn or La Scala. The old saying among speaker manufactures since the beginning of audio reproduction has been "these little speakers sound like big ones". Trust me they don't. More appeal to the lady of the house but I just went ahead years ago and bought big speakers. Been happy for over 30 years with my purchase of La Scalas. __________________________________________________________________ To the OP: in order to understand the differences in terms of measurements (and therefore understand the sources of the listening differences), I think that we have to first and foremost talk about the differences in bass distortion levels. The Fortes (I, II, and III) have direct radiating 12" woofers in a reflex (ported)/passive radiator cabinet, while the Khorn has 15" horn-loaded bass which is supported by the room boundaries. The following measurements of modulation distortion are from Modulation Distortion in Loudspeakers by Paul W. Klipsch in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (JAES), which was presented April 29, 1968 at the 34th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society (AES) in Los Angeles: Quote Bass Loudspeakers Table I compares the performance of four bass loudspeakers. Frequencies of 50 Hz and 300 Hz were used, and output at each frequency adjusted to give the stated SPL. (See Table. 1). The table confirms a rule which has long been known but not rigorously proved, namely that the higher the efficiency the lower the total modulation distortion. Another fact (not previously realized) is that the low efficiency loudspeakers exhibit much higher total distortion than the computed FM distortion [only]; highly efficient loudspeakers exhibit a total distortion only slightly greater than the computed FM distortion. The difference must be AM distortion. The above shows the relative levels of measured modulation distortion sidebands (which are quite significantly different). The other portion of the puzzle is largely directivity control. Larger horn mouths control their polars down to lower frequencies. In the case of the Forte vs. Khorn, the tweeters control their polar output relatively well. The midranges are different, but probably not significantly different except in the octave from 800 Hz down to 400 Hz (which we will see below). However, bass directivity is where there are the greatest difference. First, a plot of the beamwidth vs. frequency of a 12 inch diameter woofer: The 12" woofer loses directivity control at 800 Hz while the Khorn bass bin loses horizontal polar control at ~100-150 Hz and is supported by the extension of the room boundaries (walls and floor) down to 31 Hz. This is something that most Forte users don't do: put their loudspeakers into the room corners and EQ the loudspeakers flat again in order to get boundary gain (thus lowering the modulation distortion) and also pick up beamwidth control of the bass bins. These two factors--modulation distortion and loss of directivity control--are the major measured differences between the sound of these two loudspeaker types. Chris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 8 hours ago, twistedcrankcammer said: if you can afford new Forte' III speakers then you have no excuse not to buy used Klipschorns or buy new Jubilees through Cory Roger Did you see the image of my room that I posted above? No way to fit without modification to my room. ☹️ Sounds like folks are saying Klipschorns or nothing. Is this true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 No, at least not in my particular case. What I'm saying is that you can make the Khorns work and you've already heard them and understand what living with that kind of sound would mean on a daily basis. Hybrid horn/direct radiating woofer loudspeakers just don't have the same magic (in my experience). I simply believe that you'll remember that every day that you own a hybrid DR/horn loudspeaker rather than the Khorns (or Jubilees, La Scalas, or Belles, as the case might be). Rather than settle for second best, I really believe that you can be happy from day one and never look back with horn-loaded loudspeakers. Chris 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Chris A said: __________________________________________________________________ This is something that most Forte users don't do: put their loudspeakers into the room corners and EQ the loudspeakers flat again in order to get boundary gain (thus lowering the modulation distortion) and also pick up beamwidth control of the bass bins. Interesting @Chris A! And mostly over my head. LOL. 😋 So, to optimize the Forte, should a I place them close as possible to the corner and EQ them with Audyssey? Edited August 11, 2018 by elee532 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 35 minutes ago, elee532 said: So, to optimize the Forte, should a I place them close as possible to the corner and EQ them with Audyssey? Yes. Put some absorption pads on the front and side walls (about 2 feet radial distance depth from the midrange horn mouth, starting right at the loudspeaker's front face) to soak up the excess midrange energy and you'll regain all of your phantom center imaging performance and retain the timbre of the loudspeakers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, Chris A said: What I'm saying is that you can make the Khorns work I wish it were that easy. 😁 I don’t believe there is family buy in (or budget) for building a wall and getting a smaller projector screen. 🤯 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 Here is an article to help you understand the sound of "the mud factor" by PWK. He was the guy that identified this effect and communicate it to consumers for home hi-fi: mud_factor.pdf What you do in your room is your business. You asked for advice based on our experience (i.e., not memes). That's what you got--at least from me. Enjoy! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 For others reading this that may not be familiar with PWK's views on the relative importance of loudspeaker performance factors, they are listed in the above article and are reproduced again here: 1. Total distortion (at a given acoustic output power level) [implying modulation , phase, compression and harmonic distortions, etc.) 2) Polar response [implying coverage vs. frequency] 3) Amplitude and frequency response [implying flat on-axis frequency response] 4) Harmonic distortion [implying just what it says...harmonics in the absence of modulation distortion effects--which is not really possible to have in a real loudspeakers...or amplifiers/preamps] Notice that frequency response is third on the list. You can't equalize out modulation distortion and polar coverage defects, but you can equalize frequency response. I find that most people are oblivious to these simple observations when talking about loudspeakers. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wdecho Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 1 hour ago, elee532 said: Sounds like folks are saying Klipschorns or nothing. Is this true? LaScala's relatively cheap used vs K-horns with better room placement, smaller too. Schu just bought the 70th anniversary LaScala's to add to his collection of LaScala's for a reason. Trust me he could have K-horns is he chose to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wdecho Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 You can start here reading, https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/175988-70th-anniversary-la-scala-ii/&page=17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, wdecho said: LaScala's relatively cheap used vs K-horns with better room placement, smaller too. Schu just bought the 70th anniversary LaScala's to add to his collection of LaScala's for a reason. Trust me he could have K-horns is he chose to. One of the reasons a LaScala sounds so good is the it's phase coherency between the bass and midrange sections. If you take the 1/4 wave guideline seriously, and maintain relative distances within 1/4 wave between drivers at crossover, the LaScala does a way better job than a Khorn or Jubille (mine are time delay corrected with active Xover, not passive like the Khorn). LaScalas can do this passively because the bass horn is about 32 inches long vs. about 24 inches for the midrange horn, yielding a path length difference of about 8 inches. So if we take the speed of sound 1,126 feet per second and divide by the 400 Hz. passive crossover point, we get 2.815 feet. Divided by 4 gives us .704 feet for a 1/4 wave length. Multiplying by 12, we get 8.445 inches, which puts the bass and midrange horn within 1/4 wave of each other. This is why many people prefer the LaScala with subwoofers below 80-100 Hz. over a Khorn because they are more sensitive to phase differences in the horns. It is less so between the tweeter and midrange, but some people have put tweeters on top of a LaScala to align those also. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elee532 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 (edited) @Chris A, If I said something that suggested I didn't take your advice seriously, I apologize. It wasn't my intent!! I appreciate the information, advice, and education I've been getting here! Your prior response raised two other questions I've been wondering about: Currently, I have some triangular bass traps in my front corners. Would I want to get rid of these if I were trying to place a speaker like the Forte into the corner? Second question pertains to center channel... A. Do you think I could get away WITHOUT a center channel? At least temporarily? I was thinking if for some reason I end up not liking the Forte (or whatever model I end up with) that it would be easier to sell 2 rather than 3. As a reminder, the biggest use for my system is surround sound music (SACD, DVD-A, Bluray). B. If I do get a 3rd Forte for center channel and put it behind the screen, it's going to have to go right up against the wall since I only have something like 13"-15" space between the wall and the screen. Will this be a big problem? It works okay with my current center speaker which is front ported. Thanks! Edited August 11, 2018 by elee532 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.