Jump to content

Do you need a horn subwoofer for your Klipschorn/ Lascala home theater?


Tom05
 Share

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Gnote said:

I'm confused @Tom05 are you saying you prefer completely horn loaded speakers except for when it comes to subwoofers ?

I thought and I could be wrong , the lower the frequency the more you benefit from horn loading.

The  reason you wrote this is the same reason I am replying .You are the first person I have ever heard have this opinion .

In my experience people who prefer all horn loaded speakers , prefer the sound quality of horn loaded subs once they experience them.

The size or other factors maybe not so much ... but sound quality always until now.

You are entitled to your opinion  but I believe your opinion is more the exception than the norm and cerainly not something you should be professing to less experienced listeners.

 

 

C3451E61-AF77-4EB2-8452-0CEF981320BC.thumb.jpeg.8e88b1c9ecfe491eb3d05dbf9b60ddec.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

C3451E61-AF77-4EB2-8452-0CEF981320BC.thumb.jpeg.8e88b1c9ecfe491eb3d05dbf9b60ddec.jpeg

I stated from the beginning that a ported system can work ,and that , there is certainly nothing wrong with using horn subwoofers,lots of people need to use what they have , Thats a big Klipsch your looking at , so I must not be too far off track. The lower the frequency you go the less it maters ( horn or ported)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

I stated from the beginning that a ported system can work ,and that , there is certainly nothing wrong with using horn subwoofers,lots of people need to use what they have , Thats a big Klipsch your looking at , so I must not be too far off track. The lower the frequency you go the less it maters ( horn or ported)

3B1DF385-718E-4996-A375-F37D0215FC4B.thumb.jpeg.b9d723a030e90bff43e9815743e1c806.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

Thats a big Klipsch your looking at , so I must not be too far off track.

I think they use that to save space and yes it will work but is it just as good or better?

 

13 minutes ago, Tom05 said:
31 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

The lower the frequency you go the less it maters ( horn or ported)

Are you sure ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom05 said:

What are you shure of ?

That I prefer Horn Loaded Bass and Subs !

Also that you should search this topic on this forum, you will find lots of info that contradicts your statements .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gnote said:

That I prefer Horn Loaded Bass and Subs !

Also that you should search this topic on this forum, you will find lots of info that contradicts your statements .

Well good , Why should I care if I’m contradicted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2014 at 12:06 AM, Chief bonehead said:
On 7/8/2014 at 12:47 PM, Chris A said:

This Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) thread discusses some reasons why horn-loaded loudspeakers sound more realistic than direct-radiating loudspeakers, such as cone-type and planar type drivers.

Several manufacturers currently make or have made horn-loaded loudspeaker designs: Klipsch, ElectroVoice, JBL, Altec, and several smaller manufacturers.

"Why do horn-loaded loudspeakers sound better than direct radiating loudspeakers?"

Chiefly, the reason is due to low modulation distortion (i.e., not harmonic distortion). Horn-loaded electro-acoustic drivers typically have 25 dB lower frequency modulation (FM) distortion levels and 15 dB greater efficiency than when using those same drivers without horns to produce the same sound pressure level (SPL).

"What is Modulation Distortion, and Why is It Important?"

Frequency modulation (FM) distortion, sometimes called Doppler distortion since it is largely caused by the movement of the driver's cone/diaphragm at lower frequencies, is caused simultaneous modulation of higher frequencies that are also being reproduced by the same driver at the same time.

Amplitude Modulation (AM) distortion is primarily due to driver nonlinear response when the cone/diaphragm is operating near its extent of maximum movement under high-load conditions. Figure 1 gives a visual representation of the two components of modulation distortion vs. time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Amfm3-en-de.gif

Figure 1 AM and FM distortion visualization

Both of types of modulation distortion are very objectionable for listeners due to their non-harmonic frequencies that are produced.

Many people are familiar with harmonic distortion. This type of distortion is due to integer multiples of input frequencies greater than one than the input or recorded frequency(ies) being reproduced on the output of the loudspeaker under higher load conditions. Figure 2 gives a view of frequency harmonic amount vs. relative input frequency:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/imgaud/hardis.gif

Figure 2 Harmonic distortion visualization

Harmonic distortion is not as audible as modulation distortion due to the internal signal processing of the human hearing system, particularly the lower harmonics like second, third harmonics. Higher-order harmonic distortions (fourth, fifth, sixth order harmonics, etc.) are more easily detected by human hearing. Some sources call this human hearing effect "harmonic masking".

Contrasting the above harmonic distortion, modulation distortion (AM, FM, intermodulation, etc.) produces non-harmonic frequencies not found in the input signal driving the loudspeaker. Because these modulated frequencies are not related in integer multiples of either the lower or higher frequencies being reproduced, these distortion-produced frequencies are much, much more audible and objectionable than typical harmonic distortion. Figure 3 shows a visualization of both major types of distortion (harmonic and modulation distortion) versus frequency.

 

http://www.klippel.de/typo3temp/pics/e06f652d9d.jpg

 

Figure 3: Visualization of harmonic and modulation distortion

Note that modulation distortion shows up on the higher frequencies reproduced, which is typically more audible than lower frequencies due to the frequency response/acuity of the human hearing system.

Additionally, the modulation distortion frequencies shown in figure 3 are not integer multiples of either the lower fundamental frequency or the higher one. These non-harmonic frequencies are much more objectionable to listeners compared with harmonic distortion at the same relative amplitudes.

It can be seen that harmonic distortion will also modulate the upper frequencies making the effects of harmonic plus modulation distortion much more objectionable to listeners. The effect of these types of mixed distortions can be described as the speakers sounding "loud" and "opaque" while responding to high input signals.

"Why is Modulation Distortion So Much Lower in Horns?"

Modulation distortion is produced when the acoustic driver's cone or diaphragm moves - and the more it moves, the greater the modulation distortion. Horn-loaded drivers reduce the amplitude by a factor of ~10-30 (relative to using that driver as a direct radiator) that the driver has to move to produce a certain SPL output level. Less cone/diaphragm motion equals less modulation distortion.

Any acoustic driver that is horn loaded will experience a dramatic decrease in required motion in order to produce output SPLs.

You forgot one word in your last statement.....properly.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

Pretty tough behind that keyboard  aren’t you? Punk

 

Acting like this is a good way to get booted from the forum.  This isn't a free-for-all place for pissing contests.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never seen the logic behind cutting off the bass output and having the sub(s) take over for the bottom couple of octaves in order to “avoid stressing” the main speakers.  With rare (likely very rare) exceptions, speakers are built to operate full range, all the way to the bottom of their range.  If they’re fed notes that are too low for them to reproduce, the notes won’t come out. That’s all.  Most speakers can’t reproduce the lowest notes in many types of music, thus the need for subwoofers.

 

After a little experimenting with running my main speakers (originally a pair of older La Scalas, now a pair of 2-way bi-amped La Scala IIs with Jubilee tweeters) set as Small, it didn’t take long to realize that I preferred how they sounded when set to Large/Full-Range.  Mo’ better bass, in short.

 

One thing that some (or many?) people seem to forget is that just as main speakers don’t have a sharp low-end cutoff (La Scala start to roll off at around 100 Hz, but continue to produce some bass sounds down to around 50 Hz), subwoofers don’t have a sharp high-end cutoff either.  The impression of sharp cutoffs at the frequency limits of speakers, full-range or subwoofer, is what leads some folks to set the sub hi-cut at 50 Hz when used with La Scalas.  Checking with a test CD (or other bass tone source) and an SPL meter will soon show a wide dip in output in the 50-100 Hz range.

 

That’s why I usually recommend that for use with La Scalas, the smoothest bass response occurs when the sub(s) are set to roll off at 100-120 Hz.  Boundary reinforcement comes into play in the bass region, so it’s a good idea to experiment with the speaker positions, particularly the distance from the front wall (the wall behind the Front speakers).  If your room is symmetrical and you can locate your speakers near the corners of the room, that’s great, but it’s unlikely that the first spot you put them in will be the ideal place.  Smooth/even response is what you’re after.

 

Contrary to the recommendations in many hi-fi magazines, most Heritage Series speakers do not sound their best when they’re located several feet from any walls.  Klipschorns have to be in corners, and La Scalas like to be fairly close to the front wall, which is good, because they would take up a lot of space if they were placed out into the room.

 

As for horn-loaded subs, the concept of matching them with horn-loaded speakers makes sense, but they start to get really big if they go deep, like the Klipsch 1802 and 1502 subs.  My living room is not really big enough to accommodate either one of those.  Also, horn-loaded subwoofers that are plug ‘n play, complete with amplifiers and crossovers, are pretty rare.  For these reasons, I went with direct-firing subs.  Since I generally listen at low to moderate volume levels, whether the subs can “keep up” with the JubScala IIs at max volume is irrelevant to me.  Your situation may be totally different, of course, so don’t take my opinions for iron-clad rules.  Experiment, and see what sounds best in your room with your gear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Islander said:

I’ve never seen the logic behind cutting off the bass output and having the sub(s) take over for the bottom couple of octaves in order to “avoid stressing” the main speakers.  With rare (likely very rare) exceptions, speakers are built to operate full range, all the way to the bottom of their range.  If they’re fed notes that are too low for them to reproduce, the notes won’t come out. That’s all.  Most speakers can’t reproduce the lowest notes in many types of music, thus the need for subwoofers.

 

After a little experimenting with running my main speakers (originally a pair of older La Scalas, now a pair of 2-way bi-amped La Scala IIs with Jubilee tweeters) set as Small, it didn’t take long to realize that I preferred how they sounded when set to Large/Full-Range.  Mo’ better bass, in short.

 

One thing that some (or many?) people seem to forget is that just as main speakers don’t have a sharp low-end cutoff (La Scala start to roll off at around 100 Hz, but continue to produce some bass sounds down to around 50 Hz), subwoofers don’t have a sharp high-end cutoff either.  The impression of sharp cutoffs at the frequency limits of speakers, full-range or subwoofer, is what leads some folks to set the sub hi-cut at 50 Hz when used with La Scalas.  Checking with a test CD (or other bass tone source) and an SPL meter will soon show a wide dip in output in the 50-100 Hz range.

 

That’s why I usually recommend that for use with La Scalas, the smoothest bass response occurs when the sub(s) are set to roll off at 100-120 Hz.  Boundary reinforcement comes into play in the bass region, so it’s a good idea to experiment with the speaker positions, particularly the distance from the front wall (the wall behind the Front speakers).  If your room is symmetrical and you can locate your speakers near the corners of the room, that’s great, but it’s unlikely that the first spot you put them in will be the ideal place.  Smooth/even response is what you’re after.

 

Contrary to the recommendations in many hi-fi magazines, most Heritage Series speakers do not sound their best when they’re located several feet from any walls.  Klipschorns have to be in corners, and La Scalas like to be fairly close to the front wall, which is good, because they would take up a lot of space if they were placed out into the room.

 

As for horn-loaded subs, the concept of matching them with horn-loaded speakers makes sense, but they start to get really big if they go deep, like the Klipsch 1802 and 1502 subs.  My living room is not really big enough to accommodate either one of those.  Also, horn-loaded subwoofers that are plug ‘n play, complete with amplifier and crossover, are pretty rare.  For these reasons, I went with direct-firing subs.  Since I generally listen at low to moderate volume levels, whether the subs can “keep up” with the JubScala IIs at max volume is irrelevant to me.  Your situation may be totally different, of course, so don’t take my opinions for iron-clad rules.  Experiment, and see what sounds best in your room with your gear.

Yea I agree  , I’m just throwing some ideas around , that have worked for me.Have a good one 🤓

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

11 hours ago, Tom05 said:

and never looked back , cause it works every bit as good as the horn.( 4 tn1220 in common corner 500 watts per sub)

This is what I was questioning.

There are many great non horn loaded bass bins and subs but I find this statement misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dante Farfan said:

Hello, how are you, I would like to know if someone could help me solve a problem.  I am going to buy some KLIPSCHORN manufactured on September 24, 1957, but I would like to know that Driver had the wooden horn?.... brand: Klipsch or University SAHF..., I can put the photos, on the Stickers of the cabinet it says SAHF, I need know which was the genuine, original for Sep 1957 .... thank you very much

This question may go unnoticed (since it appears as a reply to an unrelated thread in a forum about subwoofers). I suggest that you post it as its own thread, in a different group (e.g., General Klipsch or Ask the Historian).

 

I don't know the answer to your question.

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...