The Speaker Formerly Known As Klipsch

[Chris A]

 

-

[Edgar]

Once again, @Chris A, I find myself adding to one of your insightful posts.

 

First, I think that the concept of an API for EQ, room correction, etc., is genius. Those who don't want it don't have to use it. But for those of us who have the background and knowledge, it would be a delight.

 

Second, I'll add that high-quality, high-efficiency amplification is now available for hundreds or even tens of US dollars, instead of thousands. This has already made its mark in Pro Audio in the form of amplified loudspeakers. There's no reason that it couldn't do the same in the consumer market. To have complete control over EQ, power and overexcursion protection, thermal compensation, etc., is the objective. 

 

Both of these also contribute to what I consider the ultimate goal: an all-digital system from source to amplification.

[Chris A]

-

[ClaudeJ1]

1 hour ago, Edgar said:

 

Just a minor correction, for the record. I have in my possession a copy of the Speakerlab K builder's manual. It specifies 1/2" plywood throughout, except for the motorboard which is 3/4" plywood.

Like all Engineering and Marketing documents, one has to look at what YEAR we speak of. A good friend of mine, back then, had factory built Speakerlab K's in his living room. They were Particle board glued together with "a superior seal" of RTV/Bathtub Silicone caulk. I also, briefly passin' thru, owned a pair of Speakerlab K woofer sections that were made of plywood I got super cheap (with Crites woofers). 

 

So we are both correct, depending on which year, and whether or not they were built in Seattle or at home.

[Edgar]

2 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Like all Engineering and Marketing documents, one has to look at what YEAR we speak of.

 

The manual that I have says that it was copyright "1976, 1977, 1978".

[ClaudeJ1]

2 minutes ago, Edgar said:

 

The manual that I have says that it was copyright "1976, 1977, 1978".

Yep, and their use/promotion of particle board prior to those years were the earlier 70's.

 

I built a pair of speakers for my Mom using their 12" woofer, smaller cone Midrange, soft dome tweeter, and crossovers from their driver Kit. But I sent back the soft dome Tweeter they recommended and use the Philips Tweeter of the day instead. After a long phone call with one of their Tech guys, they included that same Philips tweeter in their next kit, so I had some influence there in the sound improvement department.

 

Later in the 70's, as a member of the Audio Engineering Society (prompted to join by PWK), I got to tour the DCM Time Windows factory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Steve Eberbach, the CE, was using those same Philips tweeters in their flagship speakers! I also found it interesting that they curved their response, which affected their ROTATION when installed due to assymetrical polar plots, which were identified and dealt with that way.

 

[ClaudeJ1]

24 minutes ago, Chris A said:

One thing that I did miss that I should probably add to my last post, above:  PWK was a very early adopter of stereo/multichannel technology that came out of Bell Labs studies.  He basically led the industry in promoting his three-channel systems (i.e., two corner-loaded loudspeakers and a very good center).  This is also highlighted in Greg's ("Edgar's") post just above in his signature line.  Look at the date of that quote, and look at the date of the stereo record and tape introduction into the consumer marketplace.

 

PWK wasn't "behind the times", rather he led, but in another direction than the Villchur "small loudspeaker" marketplace.  His company survives intact today, unlike all of those other consumer-based loudspeaker companies.

 

Chris

Yep, had the classic 2PH3 setup for 30 years, until I got into HT with even more Channels, whether discrete or matrixed. Thanks for giving PWK credit for promoting this.

[Edgar]

1 minute ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Later in the 70's, as a member of the Audio Engineering Society (prompted to join by PWK), I got to tour the DCM Time Windows factory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Steve Eberbach, the CE, was using those same Philips tweeters in their flagship speakers! I also found it interesting that they curved their response, which affected their ROTATION when installed due to assymetrical polar plots, which were identified and dealt with that way.

 

I still have a working set of Time Windows, and also a working set of Q.E.D. Nice-sounding speakers, especially considering the prices. One of those models uses Philips tweeters, while the other uses Vifa. I forget which is which, and it's a lot of bother to open them up to find out.

[ClaudeJ1]

5 minutes ago, Edgar said:

 

I still have a working set of Time Windows, and also a working set of Q.E.D. Nice-sounding speakers, especially considering the prices. One of those models uses Philips tweeters, while the other uses Vifa. I forget which is which, and it's a lot of bother to open them up to find out.

The Time Windows used the Philips, which is what Steve Eberbach showed us. However it's possible he used a different tweeter on the Time Windows later on, but I do recall Specifically to be able to say it with confidence, that is what was shown to us in great detail at the time! Philips made a great tweeter with a built in phase plug.

 

I also met a Ford Engineer who used Khorns for the bottom and had Time Windows on top. Unique, but I bet is "sounded OK."

[Chris A]

-

[Edgar]

4 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Philips made a great tweeter with a built in phase plug.

 

I agree. I still have several of them boxed-up in my basement. AD162 and AD163.

[Marvel]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:07 PM, PrestonTom said:

Yes, they are frequently modified. Yes, those that modify them do claim that they sound better.

 

When I see some of the stuff that folks are doing, for instance changing the output of the mids by -3 or -6 dB (via changing taps on the autoformer) then I become suspicious.

 

A change of -6 dB is huge. Do you really think the engineers screwed it up that much to warrant a 6 dB drop on the mid horn? The safe bet is that this is not an issue of making it sound better. Rather it is an issue of making it sound "different". Maybe the "Klipsch sound" is not for them. That's okay but wouldn't it be easier to buy a different brand. You should not have to make such large changes to a speaker. 

 

My 2 cents,

-Tom

 

Respectfully, I'll beat a dead horse...

 

Twenty years ago, there were people on here who voiced the opinion that La Scalas had such a hot midrange that they felt like a buzz saw in their forehead (miss Tom Brennan...).

 

Why? Were they voiced more for P.A. use with more forward mids, to project the voice better? Were people driving them much louder in their homes, overloading the throat, etc.?

 

There have been a LOT of people on here who dropped the mids some. I am one of them. Here's what it did for me:

 

I don't listen at earsplitting levels. With the mids down, I turn the overall gain up to where the mids sound right and NOW, I get more bass. I'm not cranking it up enough to worry about blowing a K33. Live recordings really sound like live recordings. I don't use a preamp with tone controls/eq... that could have worked, too. I don't need a sub. (Not going to argue the 'everybody needs a sub' argument here).

 

Why did they put an autoformer with multiple taps on the crossover? It could have been fixed.

 

Are my Heresy IIs still Klipsch without the logos and tags on them? 😬

 

 

 

[Chris A]

-

[Marvel]

Sure... it took me that long to type it out. Plus, I was doing other things around the house.

 

I'm all for the dsp/ multi amp route. But the other subject will come up again sooner or later, especially since most people come on here because they have older speakers.

 

 

[Chris A]

-

[Racer X]

Respectfully disagree.  My main interests in gathering information on this forum was improving the sound of my Heresy 1.5 in my room.  I've also had a lot of experience with the LaScala.  

 

I think the tangent to digital active crossovers and biamping or triamping is interesting, but not a tangent I'm particularly interested in.

 

I am far more interested in the views on voicing the Heritage line in one's particular room or application.  For me this has evolved over the years from blissfull ignorance and no changes to, wait, there's a reason I'm eq'ing the crap out of my sound now ?  

 

Upon realization of this, I thought it would be desireable to have the speaker voiced more to my liking in my room so I could use far less eq or none at all.  I found it very interesting I was promptly castigated by one for this "sin".

 

So I far one welcome a return to this angle rather than an unrelated tangent in active crossovers and multiamps well covered elsewhere in the forum.

[Edgar]

2 minutes ago, Racer X said:

I think the tangent to digital active crossovers and biamping or triamping is interesting, but not a tangent I'm particularly interested in.

 

Perhaps we should split this thread, but I don't know how to do that.

[Racer X]

No, we should combine with some other threads on semi related tangents

[Chris A]

-

[Racer X]

Fully well recognize you have a little, lot to say on the subject, no need to delete anything.

 

I'm new to this forum game, but well amazed how hard it is to stay on topic or maintain a logical progression in the discussion.  There always seems to be a fair amount of thread jacking, unrelated personal side discussions, and some that continually turn any conversation into a story about their favorite topic.  I have no control over this, but wish things could stay a little more focused sometimes.