Klipsch Missing Boat w/o "Heritage Subs?

[Edgar]

Well, low distortion and high output can coexist in a direct radiator, if you keep the bandwidth small, the radiating area large, the enclosure huge, and throw lots of power at it. Look at the distortion numbers here, for example. And since horns have to be a certain shape in order to work, while multiple direct radiators can be arranged in whatever configuration is needed, there is potential for success there.

 

PWK was, of course, a strong advocate of horn-loading. But he was also a strong advocate of low distortion. Would he have cared whether a loudspeaker was horn-loaded or direct-radiating, as long as it exhibited low distortion? I wouldn't presume to speak for him. Maybe @Chief bonehead can say.

[Chris A]

44 minutes ago, willland said:

While I totally agree here, any of you folks who has ever visited Groomlakearea51's(Marshall) "Wall of Voodoo" room may know what I am talking about. 

Must have been in a small listening room...probably a lot smaller than 28 feet in any direction.

 

25 minutes ago, Edgar said:

Well, low distortion and high output can coexist in a direct radiator, if you keep the bandwidth small, the radiating area large, the enclosure huge, and throw lots of power at it. Look at the distortion numbers here, for example. And since horns have to be a certain shape in order to work, while multiple direct radiators can be arranged in whatever configuration is needed, there is potential for success there.

 

PWK was, of course, a strong advocate of horn-loading. But he was also a strong advocate of low distortion. Would he have cared whether a loudspeaker was horn-loaded or direct-radiating, as long as it exhibited low distortion? I wouldn't presume to speak for him. Maybe @Chief bonehead can say.

The woofers used in the direct radiating enclosures changes the sound--right?  They do in every case that I've heard or tested--or read in a report.  Something changes that's very audible (at least to me) in every case.  I wonder why this is always forgotten in these type of discussions. 

 

I attended one of these sessions in Hope about 11 years ago with Roy as our guide.  Dual 15" drivers in a big reflex box, quad 15" drivers in a bigger reflex box, and a Jubilee bass bin (all of which have useful response down to at least 30 Hz when set up correctly).  It wasn't close to my ears.  The quad 15" box was significantly larger than the Jubilee bass bin, and it still sounded thick, opaque, and heavy.

 

I think you'd have to restrict the bandwidth to less than an octave to achieve what you're talking about, and it still wouldn't have the output capability (limited to low distortion output) as the horn-loaded one. 

 

What I don't get why there are so many "horn-loaded bass horn haters" on PWK's site.  It seems strangely out of place.  Why is it that those that can't hear the difference between horn-loaded bass and direct radiating bass the most vocal?  In a world that has been filled with direct radiating loudspeakers this is apparently the only place that is still is a proponent of PWK's favorite designs (which was horn loaded loudspeakers as his top-of-the-line models).  The brand name actually means something in this case. 

 

Remove the Heritage brand name from the thread title, and I would guess it all would be much more productive.

 

Chris

[Edgar]

3 minutes ago, Chris A said:

The woofers used in the direct radiating enclosures changes the sound--right?  They do in every case that I've heard or tested--or read in a report.  Something changes that's very audible (at least to me) in every case.  I wonder why this is always forgotten in these type of discussions. 

 

That's true for horns, too. Otherwise why would people be swapping woofers in their Klipschorns and La Scalas?

 

Quote

Dual 15" drivers in a big reflex box, quad 15" drivers in a bigger reflex box, and a Jubilee bass bin (all of which have useful response down to at least 30 Hz when set up correctly).  It wasn't close.

 

This has been discussed previously, here in the Forums. At least one person, IIRC, preferred the direct radiators. 

 

Quote

I think you'd have to restrict the bandwidth to less than an octave to achieve what you're talking about, and it still wouldn't have the output capability (limited to low distortion output) as the horn-loaded one.

 

It would make for an interesting experiment.

 

Quote

What I don't get why there are so many "horn-loaded bass horn haters" on PWK's site.

 

Totally unfair, Chris. The fact that some people are willing to accept direct-radiator bass does not make them "horn-loaded bass horn haters". Name-calling is not a viable argument. It's simply a matter of the compromises that any person is willing to make.

 

Quote

Remove the Heritage brand name from the thread title, and I would guess it all would be much more productive.

 

I would accept that as a reasonable compromise. The OP can speak for himself on this matter.

[Peter P.]

2 hours ago, willland said:

That is my thought and I totally agree.  Even "matching" surrounds would be cool, mini La Scalas, ..., etc.

 

Bill

There's someone on eBay offering mini-LaScalas! The price is so reasonable it would almost be worth throwing money at them.

 

 

[Chris A]

  

1 hour ago, Edgar said:

This has been discussed previously, here in the Forums. At least one person, IIRC, preferred the direct radiators. 

Since you ask and are allowing the conversation to drift in that direction, I don't consider those that liked the direct radiating bass bins to be those that value accurate bass reproduction--and I met those people in real life and watched them and what they liked to hear over a couple of days.  If you like that thick, heavy, opaque bass sound, it's not difficult to achieve--a lot less difficult than clean sounding, accurate bass. 

 

Why would I agree that your interpretation of accurate bass reproduction is more valid than my own?  (That's a real question-not rhetorical.) Why would I agree that what you're trying to argue--that accurate bass reproduction is tradeable--is valid?  (I clearly don't believe it is.)  This was a sharp point of division from PWK and his business adversaries.  It's also the same point of division for my ears (and I'm not claiming to have golden ears by any stretch) and those that grew up listening to bad stereos and jukeboxes as their standard of accurate sound reproduction. 

 

On this subject, I choose to not mince words, nor mumble.  We haven't met in real life, but I think we have a significant difference in what we think constitutes "accurate bass reproduction", and I think that is tied to what we listened to when we were young (and currently listen to). 

 

1 hour ago, Edgar said:

It would make for an interesting experiment.

I've done something close that's close enough to have the answer to this.  That's why I said that the bandwidth would have to be less than one octave. It doesn't close the gap in accurate sound reproduction that exists between the direct radiators and horn-loaded ones.  This was the same argument that our push-pull slot-loaded gentleman pushed (djk--RIP).  When I asked to see the measurements, he never posted them and either changed the subject or failed to reply. If it is true what you imply, why wouldn't Klipsch already be using that design?  IOW:  why beat that dead horse, yet again?

 

So we have all strongly reconfirmed which camp wer're in with regard to this subject.  Let's agree to disagree on this point (low distortion bass).  What I object to is someone trying to gloss over what the brand "Heritage" means.  It means a lot more (IMO) than implying using little undersized direct radiating subwoofers to pair with Khorns and La Scala and Jubilees, etc except all but the smallest of listening rooms.

 

1 hour ago, Edgar said:

Totally unfair, Chris.

 I wouldn't have said it if I believed what you say here.

 

It seems that it comes down to this periodically.  There will always be a divide between those that value accurate sound reproduction and those that value the artificial sound reproduction standard that they imprinted on when they were young (e.g., jukeboxes and stereos, etc.).  When it is said that musicians prefer the sound of Khorns over other much higher priced direct radiating loudspeakers (and many sources refer to this phenomenon), that should give you a pretty strong clue what's occurring.

 

I'll leave you with the following quote from probably the best loudspeaker review that I ever read, the Richard C. Heyser review of the Klipschorn for Audio magazine:

 

Quote

Many years ago, when listening to a similar pair of Klipschorns, I decided to find out how accurate the low end was.  So I placed two high-quality condenser microphones outside my house, in a location where I could listen to the sound they picked up while viewing the same microphone location through a picture window that stretched between the two Klipschorns.  It was only a matter of walking outside and listening, then walking inside and listening to compare the reproduced sound with reality.  I could also switch between the K-horns and a pair of excellent speakers whose bass could shake the house on pipe organ; they made the K-Horns sound thin by comparison. 

 

Then a funny thing happened.  The sound of a car door sounded like muffled "whumps" on the "wider range" system.  The same with helicopter fly-overs (quite frequent where I used to live) and with the sound of distant traffic.  I never forgot that experiment nor its ear-opening ramifications with regard to sonic accuracy versus measurement. 

 

Quite true, I have listened to many excellent subwoofers that could shake the walls at 10 Hz, while the K-horn produced little sound pressure even an octave above that frequency.  But in my personal opinion, accurate percussive bass is a specialty which a properly set-up corner horn seems to have to itself.

 

Chris

[billybob]

2 hours ago, willland said:

While I totally agree here, any of you folks who has ever visited Groomlakearea51's(Marshall) "Wall of Voodoo" room may know what I am talking about.  The last time I visited him which was at least 9+ years ago, he had added a tiny 8" XW-300D subwoofer to the crazy mix of Khorns, Heresys, and a Belle, and I was astonished how that little sub filled in the gap(-3dB@28Hz) below the Khorns.  Of course I am not talking 120dB at 20Hz here.  Sounds crazy but I could not believe how seamless it was.

 

 

Bill

It is amazing but so true. Thanks!

[CECAA850]

Even a direct radiator sub with Klipsch is better than no sub at all.

[Chris A]

2 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:

Even a direct radiator sub with Klipsch is better than no sub at all.

In your opinion, Carl.  seti just said the opposite, above.  I tend to agree with him even though I highly value deep sub-20 Hz bass reproduction of pipe organ and symphonic music. 

 

Chris

[Edgar]

4 minutes ago, Chris A said:

 Since you ask and are allowing the conversation to drift in that direction, I don't consider those that liked the direct radiating bass bins to be those that value accurate bass reproduction

 

That's your judgment. It may not be shared by others. 

 

Quote

Why would I agree that your interpretation of accurate bass reproduction is more valid than my own?  (That's a real question-not rhetorical.) 

 

I'm not asking you to. Now turn it around -- why should I agree that yours is more valid than mine? How many times have I said that, "You can't listen through somebody else's ears," right here in the Forums?

 

Quote

We haven't met in real life, but I think we have a significant difference in what we think constitutes "accurate bass reproduction", and I think that is tied to what we listened to when we were young (and currently listen to).

 

Interesting ... since I haven't actually declared what I think constitutes "accurate bass reproduction". It turns out that I actually agree with you! But your mind appears to have become closed to the possibility that there may be other paths to it. I, on the other hand, accept that there may be more than one way to skin a cat. I haven't found another one, yet, but my sense of fair play forces me to acknowledge some attempts that hold promise.

 

I've made a career out of finding ways to do things that "conventional wisdom" considered to be impossible.

 

Quote

What I object to is someone trying to gloss over what the brand "Heritage" means.

 

We agree on this, too. I cringe when I see little table radios with a "Heritage" badge.

 

Quote

I'll leave you with the following quote from probably the best loudspeaker review that I ever read, the Richard C. Heyser review of the Klipschorn for Audio magazine

 

I have that issue. The actual magazine. Printed on actual paper.

 

Chris, you display almost fanatical devotion to horns and to PWK. But even PWK acknowledged other possibilities. It's in his writings. He just declared that horns were the best way to get there.

[Chris A]

7 minutes ago, Edgar said:

Chris, you display almost fanatical devotion to horns and to PWK. But even PWK acknowledged other possibilities. It's in his writings. He just declared that horns were the best way to get there.

Now this is unfair.  Not fanatical, but rather unyielding.  I don't smooth this subject over.

 

7 minutes ago, Edgar said:

Interesting ... since I haven't actually declared what I think constitutes "accurate bass reproduction". It turns out that I actually agree with you! But your mind appears to have become closed to the possibility that there may be other paths to it. I, on the other hand, accept that there may be more than one way to skin a cat. I haven't found another one, yet, but my sense of fair play forces me to acknowledge some attempts that hold promise.

 

I've made a career out of finding ways to do things that "conventional wisdom" considered to be impossible.

When you actually get there, let me know.  My interest in "yet again" finding another answer to this particular subject has waned over the past few decades, and especially after I witnessed the Hope demonstration.  I'm not interested in talking about "imagine this occurring" situations on this subject.

 

When you said that you preferred the sound of the Cornwall IV over the Jubilee while in Hope, this is the only point that I have to compare.    I could never say that--not under any circumstances.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

12 hours ago, jdmccall said:

... But none look like Klipsch Heritage, and that is the point.  I'd like for Klipsch to build me a high-performance, non-horn sub that would look and work well with Heritage speakers.  Yes, I know I'm talking about a product that doesn't exist, and that is precisely the point.  I would love for it to exist.

Again. As others smarter than me have mentioned--it comes down th physics.

On 10/21/2020 at 12:39 PM, Zen Traveler said:

Size, production cost and competition is my guess why they don't. 

 

On 10/22/2020 at 11:50 AM, Zen Traveler said:

I have no doubt what you are saying is true but I wonder actually how many pairs of the larger Heritage speakers are sold....

 

Klipsch has commercial subs for that "niche of a niche" and Heritage products aren't where they actually make their money.

[willland]

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

Must have been in a small listening room...probably a lot smaller than 28 feet in any direction.

Actually, I think it was close to 22ft wide and maybe 11 feet deep.  Truthfully not certain of the dimensions but it did define all logic.

 

Bill

 

 

[Edgar]

8 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Now this is unfair.  Not fanatical, but rather unyielding.  I don't smooth this subject over.

 

OK. "Unyielding" works. 

 

Quote

When you said that you preferred the sound of the Cornwall IV over the Jubilee while in Hope, this is the only point that I have to compare.  I could never say that--not under any circumstances.

 

That's not quite what I said. I said that I preferred the midrange of the Cornwall IV over the midrange of the Jubilee, specifically on Roger Waters' voice. That's a completely different subject. And I stand by my statement. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/186831-chief-bonehead-education-class/&do=findComment&comment=2425559

 

That's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.

[CECAA850]

18 minutes ago, Chris A said:

In your opinion, Carl.  seti just said the opposite, above.  I tend to agree with him even though I highly value deep sub-20 Hz bass reproduction of pipe organ and symphonic music. 

 

Chris

Not talking about pipe organ.   I've been listening to Tom Petty for about 2 hours this morning on Lascslas.  No way I would enjoy it as much without a sub.  It gives the music the weight it should have.  Im not listening loud either.  Heck even bonehead says that Klipsch speakers need a sub.

[Chris A]

1 minute ago, CECAA850 said:

Not talking about pipe organ.   I've been listening to Tom Petty for about 2 hours this morning on Lascslas.  No way I would enjoy it as much without a sub.  It gives the music the weight it should have.  Im not listening loud either.  Heck even bonehead says that Klipsch speakers need a sub.

Now this is a more involved discussion than just "having a subwoofer vs. not having one".  The La Scalas roll-off at too high a frequency for my tastes, and many others here, too.  This is about 60-70 Hz at the -3 dB point if located near room corners, and almost 100 Hz if pulled out onto the floor of the room away from the walls.  This isn't what I'd call a typical case in hi-fi circles (i.e., we're not talking about home theater-type of setups that require subwoofers and then cross over the fronts to the subs at 80 Hz or higher).

 

Additionally, I would not use Tom Petty's music as a standard to compare for anything but rock music, which is generated on-stage or in-studio (mostly) over loudspeakers having a great deal of distortion--in fact it's deliberately introduced into the music creation process (but not the music reproduction process).  To say that I would use that standard for all the music that could be used for hi-fi comparisons, I don't believe that I could agree with that.  I could check the output capability of an unknown set of loudspeakers to make sure that they have the low-distortion dynamic range necessary for something like Tom Petty, but not for the "most hi-fi" music capabilities of the loudspeakers. 

 

If that's where you set your bar all the time, I can see where you might go for something less than what I'd call "hi-fi".  I know you're not alone on this forum.  I just don't consider that a hi-fi reference music genre.  You might.

 

Chris

[CECAA850]

We're talking about a sub with Heritage speakers.  Last time I checked Lascslas were considered in the heritage family.  I listen to all types of master quality digital music.  I just happened to be in a Tom Petty mood this morning.  Whatever the genre, heritage speakers benefit from a sub even if they're only reproducing an octave or two. 

[CECAA850]

I also dont scour the web for the most pristinely accurately recorded music ever made.  I listen to the best available recordings of the music I like to listen to.  If the best recording in the world is of something I don't like ill never listen to it.  I think most people are the same.

[artto]

5 hours ago, Chris A said:

Now this is a more involved discussion than just "having a subwoofer vs. not having one".  The La Scalas roll-off at too high a frequency for my tastes, and many others here, too.  This is about 60-70 Hz at the -3 dB point if located near room corners, and almost 100 Hz if pulled out onto the floor of the room away from the walls.  This isn't what I'd call a typical case in hi-fi circles (i.e., we're not talking about home theater-type of setups that require subwoofers and then cross over the fronts to the subs at 80 Hz or higher).

 

Additionally, I would not use Tom Petty's music as a standard to compare for anything but rock music, which is generated on-stage or in-studio (mostly) over loudspeakers having a great deal of distortion--in fact it's deliberately introduced into the music creation process (but not the music reproduction process).  To say that I would use that standard for all the music that could be used for hi-fi comparisons, I don't believe that I could agree with that.  I could check the output capability of an unknown set of loudspeakers to make sure that they have the low-distortion dynamic range necessary for something like Tom Petty, but not for the "most hi-fi" music capabilities of the loudspeakers. 

 

If that's where you set your bar all the time, I can see where you might go for something less than what I'd call "hi-fi".  I know you're not alone on this forum.  I just don't consider that a hi-fi reference music genre.  You might.

 

Chris

 

That's because you've never played that kind of music. Professionally, or otherwise. Never been in a recording studio, recording it, either, have you. Nor are you a bass player. I am. And I agree with Carl on the Tom Petty thing.

 

Good subs help full-out the bottom end and give the "added weight" to the bottom that even an acoustic upright bass produces.

[Schu]

lower registers can be more about feel than audibility... same with HF about the range of most hearing.

[Chris A]

3 minutes ago, Schu said:

lower registers can be more about feel than audibility...

This is something that virtually no one discusses, but there is a difference in infrasonic bass quality, and its name is "phase".   One of the things that Toole describes is the audibility of phase shift at very low frequencies:

 

Quote

Craven and Gerzon (1992) stated that the phase distortion caused by the high-pass response is audible, even if the cutoff frequency is reduced to 5 Hz. They say it causes the bass to lack “tightness” and become “woolly.” Phase equalization of the bass, they say, subjectively extends the effective bass response by the order of half an octave.

So if you can keep the phase growth under control at the lowest frequencies, there is a payoff...a pretty big one.  I've experienced that effect most strongly after I flattened the overall phase of the Jubs and K-402-MEH.  I had to go back at attenuate the bass in my demastered tracks due to this effect.

 

Chris