oosting Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 I don't understand. Some say that the throat size is critical to smooth frequency response. Paul Klipsch was not modifying the throat size to improve the response of the squalker. He was modifying the PHASE PLUG. Please help me here. What's the Physics behind the assertion that throat diameter determines smoothness of frequency response. I thought the main determining factor was flare rate. Raggedness is proprotional to flare rate. When I say help me with the Physics, I mean give me equations, not hearsay. Ed O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwgorman Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Let's see, First we buy a speak for $6000 a pair and then an additional $3000 in a mod. Obviously the economics of this equation prohibit Klipsch from using this horn on the Khorn. Maybe the Jubilee (If it's really not vaporware) has a similar plan. I must say however, that modern Khorns seem to be pretty smooth, particularly in the low and mid midrange. Having never heard a JBL prohorn take the place of Klipsch drivers I can't comment on the difference. It would be nice to hear them sometime. Having said that there are things one can do without breaking the bank and utilizing existing resources. Many feel the midhorn is a bit "hot" in terms of absolute tonal balance particularly in bi-wire mode. Fine, 3.3 ohms in series and 39 ohms in paralell and you've padded it a couple of db. I even have a friend who's made a jig to cut off the driver end of the horn and then rethread it for a JBL driver. This mod also opens up the throat. Many people swear by this mod and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I am not troubled by the Khorns run with a single cable from a Wright SOund Company 2A3 amp. BUt I appreciate your mods. To me, it represents one end of the spectrum with packing the back of the horns with rope caulk representing the other. BTW PWK says in a recent interview that the bass horn was a relatively easy thing to nail down after the first prototype suggesting that the majority of R&D went to the mids and highs. Personally, I feel they've done a pretty good job given budget contstraints. No doubt given a larger retail price they could make significant advances! JWG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antelope Posted January 15, 2000 Author Share Posted January 15, 2000 quote: Originally posted by jwgorman: Let's see, First we buy a speak for $6000 a pair and then an additional $3000 in a mod. Obviously the economics of this equation prohibit Klipsch from using this horn on the Khorn. Maybe the Jubilee (If it's really not vaporware) has a similar plan. I must say however, that modern Khorns seem to be pretty smooth, particularly in the low and mid midrange. Having never heard a JBL prohorn take the place of Klipsch drivers I can't comment on the difference. It would be nice to hear them sometime. Having said that there are things one can do without breaking the bank and utilizing existing resources. Many feel the midhorn is a bit "hot" in terms of absolute tonal balance particularly in bi-wire mode. Fine, 3.3 ohms in series and 39 ohms in paralell and you've padded it a couple of db. I even have a friend who's made a jig to cut off the driver end of the horn and then rethread it for a JBL driver. This mod also opens up the throat. Many people swear by this mod and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I am not troubled by the Khorns run with a single cable from a Wright SOund Company 2A3 amp. BUt I appreciate your mods. To me, it represents one end of the spectrum with packing the back of the horns with rope caulk representing the other. BTW PWK says in a recent interview that the bass horn was a relatively easy thing to nail down after the first prototype suggesting that the majority of R&D went to the mids and highs. Personally, I feel they've done a pretty good job given budget contstraints. No doubt given a larger retail price they could make significant advances! JWG It's funny you mention caulking the upper cabinet! This is one of the things I tried! before I bit the second bullet (realizing the unfixable can't be fixed). It may be Mr. Klipsch spent lots of time developing the upper cabinet. I don't know? My feeling is the results of all that effort are poor. Everyone who I've spoken to (except those fundamentalists who have deified PWK) agree that the upper cabinet has problems. Klipsch dealers and factory reps. (retired) admit this. Also the current management of Klipsch is trying to correct the Khorn. There must be something wrong with it, eh? Many current Klipsch models use a tractrix-design horn, a technology which dates from the 1920-30s. As to cost, yes I've spent a lot of money, half of it on the excellent crossover/EQ/etc. unit. But hifi improves only with greater and greater cost. Half measures really waste $$ and the good listener is never really satisfied. Myself, I've run out of complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antelope Posted January 15, 2000 Author Share Posted January 15, 2000 quote: Originally posted by oosting: I don't understand. Some say that the throat size is critical to smooth frequency response. Paul Klipsch was not modifying the throat size to improve the response of the squalker. He was modifying the PHASE PLUG. Please help me here. What's the Physics behind the assertion that throat diameter determines smoothness of frequency response. I thought the main determining factor was flare rate. Raggedness is proprotional to flare rate. When I say help me with the Physics, I mean give me equations, not hearsay. Ed O. I'm not a EE. Try the JBL Professional website, which discusses their "Optimized" horn series in the componets section. Much analysis went into the current designs. Phase plugs, throat size, flare rates (compounded) etc. To quote Drew Daniels (former JBL engineer): "Such transducers are acoustic transformers, and generally represent science and experimentation of the highest order when they are designed and executed correctly. It has taken over 40 years, aerospace-style dynamic finite-element analysis, the highest-tech materials, ten-year development cycles (I'm talking careers here), and endless tweaking and testing to get the near-theoretical performance the largest "professional" compession drivers provide." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwgorman Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Antelope I must ask what it is you find redeeming about Klipsch at all? If you chop off the top horns and are left with a PWK designed bass cabinet why not pay an Pro Sound engineer to design a push/pull dual woofer system using JBLs pro woofs? This arrangement (at least in theory) results in comperable lower bass distortion. Then you could be done completely with PWK, tailor the tonal balance and--at least to a certain extent--cabinet size to your room/liking. I guess then you'd really show us, by golly! I happy that you now have nothing about which to complain.(Though judging from your posts I don't believe that for a minute) So then I'm led to belive you are bragging up your UBERDESIGN to lowly "bad-listeners" or are merely wild-eyed zealous. Please provide specifics, including component values, etc, about your mods. Send photos if you have them. If you wish to discuss science fine. If you wish to rehash JBL marketing and your complete and utter acceptance of it this is really not the forum.(IT'S PWK's BOARD MAN!) Also, leave the condescension at home. It really is quite pretentious of you to cast aspersions on the listening/engineering skills of members of this board. Especially considering the admitted limitations of your own. Until you are ready to play nice in Paul's sandbox...FINIS! JWG Bad Listener PWK Lackey General Know Nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauck Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 JWG, God bless you! I haven't been able to put words to my thoughts, but you did. I have no axe to grind with Antelope if he comes to the forum with a better mousetrap, and with a spirit of help and cooperation that I found with nearly every member. But he has repeatedly trashed PWK and others. Antelope, please lose the attitude, come back with meaningful science we all can use, and some people skills. You'll be welcomed back with open arms and we'll all benefit. Phil Hauck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antelope Posted January 16, 2000 Author Share Posted January 16, 2000 quote: Originally posted by jwgorman: Antelope I must ask what it is you find redeeming about Klipsch at all? If you chop off the top horns and are left with a PWK designed bass cabinet why not pay an Pro Sound engineer to design a push/pull dual woofer system using JBLs pro woofs? This arrangement (at least in theory) results in comperable lower bass distortion. Then you could be done completely with PWK, tailor the tonal balance and--at least to a certain extent--cabinet size to your room/liking. I guess then you'd really show us, by golly! I happy that you now have nothing about which to complain.(Though judging from your posts I don't believe that for a minute) So then I'm led to belive you are bragging up your UBERDESIGN to lowly "bad-listeners" or are merely wild-eyed zealous. Please provide specifics, including component values, etc, about your mods. Send photos if you have them. If you wish to discuss science fine. If you wish to rehash JBL marketing and your complete and utter acceptance of it this is really not the forum.(IT'S PWK's BOARD MAN!) Also, leave the condescension at home. It really is quite pretentious of you to cast aspersions on the listening/engineering skills of members of this board. Especially considering the admitted limitations of your own. Until you are ready to play nice in Paul's sandbox...FINIS! JWG Bad Listener PWK Lackey General Know Nothing 1. I rather like and admire the Klipschorn Woofer. 2. I am not a scientist nor an engineer but people who are have critized the Khorn midrange/driver. They say its poorly designed. I agree. One such group is the current Klipsch management who are now using the traxtrix-type horn design. It's nothing like the Khorn midrange in appearance or in performance. It seems the first thing they got rid of with their recent Jubilee experiment was the old midrange! Quit attacking me for noticing! 3. You are entitled to believe what you want about the old Khorn design. So I am I. 4. I think Mr. Klipsch is a brilliant engineer, and I've read he's also a fine gentlement. None of which makes his poorly designed midrange horn sound any better. 5. Good sound tends to cost more money than lesser sound. That's life. 6. By "...ready to play nice in Paul's sandbox..." I presume you mean "perpetuate the Legend" and never critize the idol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwgorman Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 In the first place sir, if you think that was an attack you are mistaken. In the second I am not the one pontificating about "My Mod is great EVERYTHING else is junk." Just because you say something is so doesn't make it true. Your anecdotal evidence about critical Klipsch management proves virtually nothing, except that you claim these people exist and they've said XY and Z. Please provide names and details. Please provide any research results. Their decision to use tractrix addresses many engineering goals. None of which means the exponential horns were junk nor poorly designed. They are different to be sure. Better is a judgement call. Unless you hold exclusive rights to judgement as well. By playing nice in the sandbox I mean support your contentions, not with JBL literature or stomping your feet and name calling but with fact. Your replies are quite predictable and frankly beginning to bore the dogshit out of me. What it's beginning to sound like is that you've dumped beacou dollars into your system and now you need to justify it.And everytime someone points even the mildest criticism your way you get hissy. By the way, any and every time you introduce digital delay into a signal you've opened pandora's box in terms of imaging depth. The signal also tends to sound a bit sterile. Did the pro sound gods mention that? That's why Richard Vandersteen spent so long coming up with a way to do it passively. That's why I'd prefer to live with the Khorns as they are now rather than add digital delay to make them "measure" better. As to point 2 in your reply, the part about you not being a scientist nor an engineer, that sir is quite obvious. JWG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Gentlemen: Oops, my former append didn't completely make it. Your long discussions on the value and worthiness of the K-horns was interesting, if a bit edgy. Ther have been differences of opinion on the K-horn since as early as I can remember. I was honored to work for Bill HArtsfield in Oxford, MS back in the eraly 50s. He and Paul Klipsch had knock-down dragout discussions of horn design. Both men were highly talented and both produced superior designs. The fact that these two men could not agree on how things should be done should be a clue that his discussion in progress will not be brought to a quick conclusion. Its been going on for 40 years. Lets get on with more useful things - like how can I get my old La Scalas back in shape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmofreddy Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Gentlemen,I feel since I was the first to suffer the slings and arrows for my support of the K400 horn that I use this missive as a peace offering to all concerned. The Klipschorn has had as many detractors as it has had fans over the years and most of the nay-sayers have pointed to the midrange. The first time I heard a K-horn 30 years ago I LOVED the bass, HATED the midrange but rather then just dismiss it I figured a speaker with that fine a reputation could not possibly sound that bad in the mids. I came to quickly realize that setup was everything to those speakers and my reaction to the mids was actually a "reaction" to the horrible early solid state electronics the dealer was using. Most dealers that I know here in the midwest NEVER showed the speakers to their best advantage. Now that we are in the "new millenium" I'm sure it wont be long before we all retire our existing K400s' and T35As'. The advancement in compression driver technology, New materials, and yes even more "room friendly" horn types (tractrix) will alow us to economically upgrade to a single horn top end. Jubilee be damned I would rather upgrade what I currently have. Here's looking to a bright future. Klipschs' involvement with "tractrix" horns I believe was due to Dr.Bruce Edgars series of articles in Speaker Builder. What a Paul Voight "Tractrix" horn allows because of its' sharper flare rate is a reduction in horn length. A great thing if you manufacture a lot of box speakers and more importantly from a listeners point of view is a "Tractrix" launches "spherical" wavefronts which are definitly more "room friendly" so those are the 2 primary advantages I see of Tractrix over exponential horns. Richard,(look at the bottom of this tome you'll see three edits. Why ? Because every time I typed in your name **** the web page bleeped me! Well anyway I enjoyed your missive about Bill Hartsfield. When I met Paul Klipsch in 1991 I handed him a sales sheet for the "Hartsfield" manufactured by Classic audio Reproductions. He looked at it studiously and then bellowed "JBLs' makin t those things again??" I told him no, that it was a second party. And he then proceded to relate to me the story you told. I asked him his "opinion" of the Hartsfield, He studied the sales sheet for a good 30 seconds and pronounced his damnation of the "acoustic lense" used on the mid-high horn. I further queried as to other loudspeakers he admires. Without a seconds hesitation he said "The Altec A-7 Voice of the Theatre" He said he admired the engineering behind it AND that it was the impitus for him to design the LaScala. Thanks everybody for letting me ramble and c'mon back antelope I luv ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Dear Ed O. In all the discussion about the K-400 horn nobody has answered your very perceptive question regarding the relationship between horn throat diameter and smoothness of freqency response. I think it's a great question. Back in the mid 70's I had an old 50's pair of K-horns at college with the K-5 midrange horns and K-55-V drivers. These horns had a 1" throat as opposed to the 0.7" throat of the K-400,as well as a more rapid flare rate. When I bought all new components from the factory to update the speakers,I had an opportunity to compare and contrast old and new parts systematically. The old K-5 horn with a new K-55-V driver and AA crossover was not as smooth as the new K-400 horn with identical driver and crossover.The range on the K-5 was more limited(crossover points of 500hz-5000hz). There are other factors which are involved here: The K-5 was made of fiberglas with an open-faced mouth while the K-400 is cast aluminum and requires flange mounting. I do remember being surprised that there wasn't nearly as much difference between the two horns as I anticipated when other variables were eliminated. I have always been curious to know how freqency response curves compare between various compression drivers when coupled to the appropriate horns vs. the actual driver output. Where are most freqency response anomolies introduced? Perhaps FilmoFreddy can weigh in with his extensive knowledge. I do wish I still had those K-5 horns,they were marvelous works of audio art!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmofreddy Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Dear Bill, The "actual" throat opening on the removable mounting flange of the K-5 series of horns that utilized 1 3/8 in "screw on" drivers is .870 in. which is the actual "working area" of the throats on the drivers used. You are dead on when you say the k400 was "smoother". What Klipsch achieved with the K-400 series of horns was tighter pattern control or dispersion if you will, especially in the vertical dimension where the k-5 series of horns started to get weird above 3000cps. In my collection of "ancient" Klipschorns I have examples of these dating back to 1948 and I have done extensive side by side (corner to corner) comparisons between the two and the differance in dispersion is immediate and startling. The k-5 is great from an experimenters point of view because of the removable throat and the ability(if you have the adapters) to try all manner of drivers on them.I enjoyed excellent results for years using this configuration with an Altec 802 High Frequency driver & no additional tweeter. A compression driver is measured(sans horn) through a "plane wave tube" a long pipe with the driver on one end ,mic on the other. What determines (minus driver limitations) the response is the geometry of the horn. I love the way the K-5 sounds strictly from a retro point of view and it's not a bad horn. So many manufacturers copied it's design that it must have had a lot going for it. The K400 had as its' impitus a Jensen design(Mr.Klipsch lists some of the engineers at Jensen as "his" personal heros)and was developed as a response to stereo(again,pattern control) and to lower that first x-over point from 500 to 400 cps.But, even though on paper and through the measurment microphone the K400 is markedly superior many people regard it as a marginal upgrade over the K-5. The early K-5 series of horns are beautiful with laquered birch plywood sides and the top & bottom flares made out of an early form of glass laminate. Also, due to that nice wide mouth it allowed the mounting of the T35A with the long axis vertical which gave it the widest horizontal dispersion. Hope that shed some light on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Dear filmofreddy, Thanks for your reply-I remember discovering the differences in polar patterns between the K-5 and K-400 horns on A-B comparisons. While "playing" with these horns, I took them outside to avoid the influence of the reflected sound indoors. I suspected that some of the weirdness you describe with the K-5 at frequencies above 3000hz was due to reflections of the emerging wavefront off the top and bottom insides of the upper cabinet where the off-axis portion of the radial-shaped mouth empties into the upper cabinet. I removed the top portion of the cabinet and it made a distinct difference.As a further experiment, I raised the K-5 horn and driver about 6" above its stock location to avoid possibility of reflections from the bottom of the upper cabinet. When an A-B test was conducted between this configuration and the unmodified speaker, the differences were even more obvious especially indoors. My recollections of the sonic differences between the K-5 and K-400 horns are that the "shrouding" of the K-5 by the upper cabinet may have accounted for some of this difference. Regarding your comments on vertical mounting of the T-35A, I made this modification on the new top end by fabricating brackets to attach the tweeter to the inside of the K-400 horn mouth. While it did improve the HF radiation pattern over the horizontal plane, I was concerned about the interference created with the presence of the tweeter in the much smaller mouth of the K-400. Concluding that the off-axis performance was of less importance with corner speaker placement, I restored the tweeters to their stock location. Center channel applications with Lascalas or Belles would probably benefit more with a wider horizontal dispertion pattern, especially in wide-stage rooms. Thanks again for all of your great posts! Sincerely, Bill Walko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Dear filmofreddy, Thanks for your reply-I remember discovering the differences in polar patterns between the K-5 and K-400 horns on A-B comparisons. While "playing" with these horns, I took them outside to avoid the influence of the reflected sound indoors. I suspected that some of the weirdness you describe with the K-5 at frequencies above 3000hz was due to reflections of the emerging wavefront off the top and bottom insides of the upper cabinet where the off-axis portion of the radial-shaped mouth empties into the upper cabinet. I removed the top portion of the cabinet and it made a distinct difference.As a further experiment, I raised the K-5 horn and driver about 6" above its stock location to avoid possibility of reflections from the bottom of the upper cabinet. When an A-B test was conducted between this configuration and the unmodified speaker, the differences were even more obvious especially indoors. My recollections of the sonic differences between the K-5 and K-400 horns are that the "shrouding" of the K-5 by the upper cabinet may have accounted for some of this difference. Regarding your comments on vertical mounting of the T-35A, I made this modification on the new top end by fabricating brackets to attach the tweeter to the inside of the K-400 horn mouth. While it did improve the HF radiation pattern over the horizontal plane, I was concerned about the interference created with the presence of the tweeter in the much smaller mouth of the K-400. Concluding that the off-axis performance was of less importance with corner speaker placement, I restored the tweeters to their stock location. Center channel applications with Lascalas or Belles would probably benefit more with a wider horizontal dispersion pattern, especially in wide-stage rooms. Thanks again for all of your great posts! Sincerely, Bill Walko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobG Posted January 29, 2000 Share Posted January 29, 2000 Thanks to every one who has contributed to this thread - flames and all. I've had a great time following it and have learned a lot. Though I've been an audio fanatic for 40 years, I always keep an open mind and advance my understanding. Great fun and an enhancement to my life experience. Just one point. I am fortunate to have semi-frequent contact with Paul Klipsch and the engineers he works with. Paul means to advance the state of his art by designing the Jubilee. It will, if it comes to market, be better in some ways than the early Khorns Paul designed. I am sure that in other ways, it won't be as good as the classics; that's why they're classics. Every design has strengths and weaknesses and makes practical trade offs. If Klipsch can figure a way to market an expensive horn loaded speaker, they will bring Jubilee to the public. In any case, building a new model IS a self-criticism. Any dedicated scientist / engineer ALWAYS wants to improve upon early work. This is what drives innovation and improvement. Thank goodness people like PWK and Rudy Bozak and others were never satisfied. We we are indebted to them all. I love audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus lee Posted February 2, 2000 Share Posted February 2, 2000 in singapore, the pair of mid worth S$800, i will pay US$300 (including air freight charges) for your mid and tweets pls contact me . thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted February 5, 2000 Share Posted February 5, 2000 Hi guys, I just discovered this discussion. I don't know if you are aware of it, but Paul published a paper on the redesing of the k5 to the K400 horn. It even includes performance curves on both horns. I have it and if anybody wants a copy, I could scan it. E-mail me and I will pass it along. NOTE: I have put the article on my web page. Look at the bottom of http://www.web-span.com/alk It's to big to e-mail at 1.4 Meg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jord Posted February 13, 2000 Share Posted February 13, 2000 you guys seem to know a **** of a lot about speaker and sound stuff!! just wondering if you have heard or seen the B&W NAUTILUS???? the one that resembles a sea sheel. they look pretty cool to me?? are they any good?? ------------------ sweet **** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drobo1 Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 jord, The B&W Nautilus 801, 802, and 805 are highly regarded but I have only heard the CMD-1SE which is cheaper. It sounded good to me in the mids and highs although you might need a sub for the lower 1 1/2 octaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 This is an interesting old thread, with some people posting who are no longer here. 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.