Jump to content

The Speaker Formerly Known As Klipsch


Recommended Posts

  • Klipsch Employees
On 9/4/2021 at 7:52 AM, Edgar said:

@Chief bonehead; a serious and respectful narrative followed by a serious and respectful inquiry:

 

You have faithfully and successfully worked to maintain and advance Mr. Klipsch's legacy in a series of loudspeaker products, and I believe we all respect that. But Mr. Klipsch departed in 2002, nineteen years ago. So much has changed since then. Oh, not the basic physics of horn loudspeakers, but the technology that supports them: materials science, digital signal processing, computational power, finite element analysis, high-efficiency amplification, multiple-entry horns, coaxial compression drivers, tapped-horn subwoofers, to name a few. Some of these were only in their infancy when Mr. Klipsch passed. So it is difficult to predict whether Mr. Klipsch might have incorporated them into his loudspeakers, and if so, how.

 

First off, Paul klipsch once said, if I can see farther then those before me, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants. You mentioned specific designed items that have been introduced as products. Paul and I hardly ever discussed individual significant ideas. We did talk a lot about concepts. Everyone of the specific items you mention has some predecessor. Looking ahead by using conceptual ideas makes one ask a lot of what if’s. 

Taking a look at your list (and I know you can more specific items), I can tell you that whether it was available or not, we discussed every single item on your list and others. By taking a look at what was going on around us, seeing where the state of art was heading (remember Paul read a lot) and conceptualizing what that might lead too, put me behind in  a lot of product designs I was working at the time!!  Lol!! That truly was the fun part for me. I had/have a lot of latitude to “play”. That was the second greatest thing I treasure in working with Paul klipsch. The first is that he was my friend. 
 

 

On 9/4/2021 at 7:52 AM, Edgar said:

 

That leads to my inquiry: At some point you will run out of future concepts that Mr. Klipsch held dear. So what would a "Delgadohorn" look like? What are some of the things that YOU would like to see in Klipsch loudspeakers that simply weren't available to Mr. Klipsch?

 

Honestly I don’t think I will because of way he taught me to think about acoustics, projects, ideas, etc. it was not specific items. It was concepts. I understand Paul’s philosophy and adopted it as my own. Because it made sense. And because Paul understood that he and I were on the same wavelength, he encouraged me to “conceptualize” and see what direction that would lead us to. So you see, their is some “Delgado” in klipsch. But that is only because I stood on the shoulders of a giant.....Paul Wilbur klipsch. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding, @Chief bonehead.

 

So many things that could only exist as concepts in 2002 are now entirely possible. In 2000 I developed an audio algorithm that was so computationally intensive that I thought I'd never see it run in real time during my lifetime. Today it can run on a telephone with processing to spare. It's an amazing and wonderful time to be an engineer.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Edgar said:

Thank you for responding, @Chief bonehead.

 

So many things that could only exist as concepts in 2002 are now entirely possible. In 2000 I developed an audio algorithm that was so computationally intensive that I thought I'd never see it run in real time during my lifetime. Today it can run on a telephone with processing to spare. It's an amazing and wonderful time to be an engineer.

Yes and I figure ISPcad was used to create that complex 37 component crossover for the KPT-535-M I had in my hands a while back. The design tools available today are amazing and we, Roy, can do what Paul never could have done. Can you imagine how much trial and error and math would go into designing that crossover without software? Impossible considering that many other things were in the pipeline too at the time he had to oversee. 

 

  Truly ground breaking technology is the domain of those first in with the right answers. Bell Labs comes to mind here. Basic principles once discovered and proven provide the base knowledge for subsequent refinement.

 

  It takes a clever mind and an ability to connect dots to provide innovation and see where things can go and few are real innovators. Roy is one of these.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Just now, Edgar said:

Wavelength at 19 Hz is just shy of 60 feet.

That's right about the wavelength they were on at the time.

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around discussing "concepts" but not "specific ideas."

 

I wish you would have asked him what's on the "shelf." In a recent Klipsch Listening Lounge he appeared on, Roy mentioned that to upgrade a particular model he went to "the shelf" for a [not sure if it was a horn, driver], something that had sat there for 25+ years (not sure how much PWK was in the item on the shelf). He mentions "the shelf" every so often.

 

At the inaugural Bonehead Class two years ago Roy mentioned that PWK had given him all of his notebooks. He went to the notebooks, dug deep, to develop the "balancing network" for the AK6.

 

I wish I had got to hear that part when you were in there so you could explain it. 

 

Travis

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

I'm still trying to wrap my head around discussing "concepts" but not "specific ideas."

 

It was an elegant way to not answer the question. Roy is in a difficult position -- he's excited about what he knows, but in his position he cannot disclose what he knows.

 

By the same token, it may be time to abandon the conventional "tweeter above squawker above woofer" configuration (that some reviewers have labeled "old-fashioned") and consider some alternative technologies. The very fact that the new Jubilee uses a coaxial compression driver and DSP is an indication that it's already started. I was hoping that my inquiry would prompt Roy to at least acknowledge that he's open to other recent developments.

 

Quote

I wish you would have asked him what's on the "shelf." In a recent Klipsch Listening Lounge he appeared on, Roy mentioned that to upgrade a particular model he went to "the shelf" for a [not sure if it was a horn, driver], something that had sat there for 25+ years (not sure how much PWK was in the item on the shelf). He mentions "the shelf" every so often.

 

Several of us at the Bonehead Class asked him essentially that question. He steadfastly refused to answer. See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that most modifications that are made to Klipsch factory built speakers end up modifying their frequency response and/or bandwidth. These modifications are deemed by many to make the speakers no longer Klipsch.  So if I use the room correction software available in my AVR, without otherwise touching my Heresy 3’s, which alters their frequency response and/or bandwidth, have I then deprived myself of the ability to claim I have Klipsch speakers as well? Or do the offending modifications have to alter the speakers physically? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, Racer X said:

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".

@Chris A has a couple of threads on this, the journey he took after setting up his Jubilee system and seeing the eq in recordings.

 

I won't say it correctly with this paraphrase, but my interpretation is that, for him, he has to eq individual recordings to sound right in his system because of the way they were recorded/mastered. Some more than others. 

 

This was after he worked out the acoustic treatments and adjustments using microphone and software to take curves to "fix" his room. When he got his room where he wanted it he found there were still major, major differences in sound quality and his journey began at looking at the general eq patterns of recordings (and also a seperate subject of lack of dynamic range from the loudness wars).

 

If you listed like maybe your 4 or 5 go to reference tracks, he may have data on one or more of them and can tell you if he found humps, dips, valleys, that are correlated to adjustments you are making at the speaker.

 

You may have already accounted for this in your journey, if not, it's something to look at.

 

Travis

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 minutes ago, Edgar said:

 

It was an elegant way to not answer the question. Roy is in a difficult position -- he's excited about what he knows, but in his position he cannot disclose what he knows.

 

By the same token, it may be time to abandon the conventional "tweeter above squawker above woofer" configuration (that some reviewers have labeled "old-fashioned") and consider some alternative technologies. The very fact that the new Jubilee uses a coaxial compression driver and DSP is an indication that it's already started. I was hoping that my inquiry would prompt Roy to at least acknowledge that he's open to other recent developments.

 

 

Several of us at the Bonehead Class asked him essentially that question. He steadfastly refused to answer. See above.

Yeah I could see that, he's been burned too many times.

 

I think I can share this (I guess I will soon find out)). I tend to error on the side of caution and just assume it's hush, hush unless he specifically says otherwise.

 

A couple of years ago I mentioned to him that there was a period in audio where engineers were sharing progress, ideas, and concepts like they do in academia. PWK not only read a great deal, he published a great deal. I asked Roy if today, in the current trade secret environment, would he and Paul have published their paper on the Jubilee bass bin in the AES Journal.

 

His response: "Probably not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

I asked Roy if today, in the current trade secret environment, would he and Paul have published their paper on the Jubilee bass bin in the AES Journal.

 

His response: "Probably not."

 

In my current employment situation, the formally stated corporate position is that trade secrets offer better IP protection than patents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this may true, generally.  Better to keep a tight lid and make others work and reverse engineer rather than full disclosure that is seldom protected by legal recourse.  There may be a middle ground to keep some things close, and disclose and patent others for "protection" and licensing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Until you send all your intellectual property to the Chinese for manufacture where they run a third shift or offsite facility you don't know about with your designs.

And demand access to all PC's on their soil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, that is certainly a risk, or more like a certainty for Chinese manufacturing.

 

On the other side, almost all manufacturing has migrated to China, and they are innovating at a very high pace most threatening to everyone else.

 

I for one am grateful for this, recently picked up a Topping E30 DAC, amazed at both the high quality and very reasonable price.  I shudder to think what the price of this caliber of DAC was in 1990s, or even currently domestically (looking at you, PS Audio).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
20 hours ago, Edgar said:

Thank you for responding, @Chief bonehead.

 

So many things that could only exist as concepts in 2002 are now entirely possible. In 2000 I developed an audio algorithm that was so computationally intensive that I thought I'd never see it run in real time during my lifetime. Today it can run on a telephone with processing to spare. It's an amazing and wonderful time to be an engineer.

actually some of these existed as concepts quite a long time ago.  one particular noteworthy event was richard heyser's method of looking at data in the time domain; time energy frequency.  paul was good friends with mr heyser and i remember paul and i talking about how that kind of "evaluation of data" could help push a little farther forward.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
4 hours ago, Edgar said:

 

It was an elegant way to not answer the question. Roy is in a difficult position -- he's excited about what he knows, but in his position he cannot disclose what he knows.

 

By the same token, it may be time to abandon the conventional "tweeter above squawker above woofer" configuration (that some reviewers have labeled "old-fashioned") and consider some alternative technologies. The very fact that the new Jubilee uses a coaxial compression driver and DSP is an indication that it's already started. I was hoping that my inquiry would prompt Roy to at least acknowledge that he's open to other recent developments.

 

 

Several of us at the Bonehead Class asked him essentially that question. He steadfastly refused to answer. See above.

i really was trying to answer your questions.  i did truncate it because honestly, i can talk alot but i dont write alot.  weird i know.  i think we have been open to quite a few developments that have happened in my 35 years at klipsch and of course, much further than that with paul.  i mean, gary gillum brought the drone idea to paul and since it did not contradict pauls acoustic philosophy, he very much embraced it.  i will say, some of those concepts we looked at just didnt seem to fit but i guarantee you, we studied it.  sometimes its better to come in from stands than from left field to see a concept in a different light.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

i really was trying to answer your questions.  i did truncate it because honestly, i can talk alot but i dont write alot.  weird i know. 

 

Frankly, Roy, I think that all of us are impressed and pleased with the fact that you communicate with us at all. Engineers are seldom admired for their oratory or literary skills, so any communication is welcome communication. At the same time, as I said, you're in a difficult position. Every one of us who designs stuff for our employer faces that same dilemma.

 

Quote

 i think we have been open to quite a few developments that have happened in my 35 years at klipsch and of course, much further than that with paul.  i mean, gary gillum brought the drone idea to paul and since it did not contradict pauls acoustic philosophy, he very much embraced it.  i will say, some of those concepts we looked at just didnt seem to fit but i guarantee you, we studied it.  sometimes its better to come in from stands than from left field to see a concept in a different light.

 

That final statement is especially true. And sometimes it's even better yet to hear about it from another person's point of view altogether. I'm hoping that everything we're discussing here is taken in that spirit.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...