artto and the khorn - a (depressing) review

[radiob]

"So it's not very likely that there's anything significantly wrong with his system...not to the degree that I heard. So where does this boxy sound come from?"

Thats the klipschorn sound. Im supprised that the went that low, arttos room must be great.

[jt1stcav]

DrWho, great review. I like your honesty and that you're forthright and up front, and I think that artto appreciates your opinions as well, whether good or not so good. IMO you did not diss his system, but gave a truthful assessment of what you heard with quality tube amps, direct-to-disc LPs, Klipschorns, and artto's amazing room!

Your conclusions are what I've also recently experienced myself through my latest 300B SET audio system...that quality recordings I've always loved on my old SS Carver/McIntosh/Magnepan system are almost unbearable to listen to on my new tube gear, while still other recordings (both familiar and unfamiliar) totally blow me away with my latest equipment! I'm sure my tiny, untreated room has alot to do with it (moving my entire system to the much larger formal livingroom is still a project I want to tackle someday, but at the moment is still very unlikely), but for the life of me I cannot figure out why some recordings (using the latest recording techniques) just plain sound awful to me now! It frustrates me to no end, and makes me wonder sometimes if I made the right decision going the SET route. But then when I play a CD that totally opens up my flawed listening room, where both the Cornwalls and the tube gear just disappear and there's only the music...WOW, I'm like totally stoked, dude!

I'll probably never know the answers to these questions as to why one recording that sounded great before on a prior system now sucks, while still another that I never cared for before is now totally mindblowing. And this phenomenon isn't just directed to only my present system, but to all I think. Maybe we're all nuts, or our hearing is flawed in some way, or maybe it's due to what we're accustomed to, or to even our mindset at that moment (maybe your earlier phone conversation prevented you from listening with an open mind, but then again maybe your situation gave you a more critical ear...who can say). So many different conclusions, and no right answer! At least I know now that I'm not alone in this dilemma...

[Chris Robinson]

Nice review as well.

With regard to the "bass sound" that you describe, I'm going to guess that until your visit with Art, the bass that you had heard was either through subwoofers or higher distortion SS amplifiers playing through less efficient speakers. I know the first time I heard Klipschorns (1978), I thought the bass was "light", when in fact it was accurate and undistorted. To put it another way, if you sat in front of a string quartet (live), and heard the lower registers played through a subwoofer, you'd wonder what the heck was going on.

Most of the recordings of recent years are highly compressed, then compressed some more when ported over to MP3/AC3 for iPODs, et al. Most young people have never heard anything but this. When they hear really well-recorded music on a properly set up system (and in a great room like Artto's where a lot of the reflections are removed), it will sound "different". It's more accurate, but it will cause you to question what your baseline reference has been, or should be going forward.

For these reasons, I understand your head scratching. You stated it well. In this regard, too, Artto should be proud that his setup turned your Weltanschauung upside-down

_______________________________

Music Hall MMF-7 Turntable w/Goldring Eroica H MC

Njoe Tjoeb 4000 CDP

Wright Sound WPP-100C Phono Stage

JF Lessard Pantheon 6SN7 SRPP Preamp w/ RCA 5R4GY & Sylvania 6SN7

JF Lessard Horus Parafeed Cobalt 2A3 Monoblocks w/ Tung Sol 5687 & AVVT 2A3

1976 KCBR Klipschorns with ALK Crossovers

Gear Online: Two Channel & Home Theater Systems

[Parrot]

As far as mixing with certain playback equipment in mind, that can definitely be a problem. Numerous producers have optimized their work for AM car radio. Think of Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, say "River Deep, Mountain High" by Ike and Tina Turner. That sounds very bad on a good stereo system, but exciting out of a cheap little lo-fi car radio. "Instant Karma" sounds better on a cheap car radio too.

Thanks for the review of your experience in Art's room.

[radiob]

"Most of the recordings of recent years are highly compressed, then compressed some more when ported over to MP3/AC3 for iPODs, et al"

Is it possible that the MP3s would sound better through my 2a3 sets than regular lps or cds? I was thinking they may because of more compression, thus less dynamic peaks of the music not needing the extra watts. I havent tried any MP3s yet, anyone know?

[bdc]

I honestly cannot hear a difference between a well encoded mp3 and the original source

[Strabo]

Excellent review.

You hit on something that I too have found lacking in my setup, reverb. A year ago I was toying with the idea of replacing my forte's so I went listening to other (non klipsch) speakers in the $3-$7k range. Some of the speakers opened up my eyes (ears?) that romantic wet reverb is able to be reproduced through speakers.

It may be that those other speakers added extra reverb to make them sound more romantic. I'm still trying to decide this.

In the mean time, I have been tweeking my system with different amps, crossover upgrades, and hopefully soon some room treatements to try to pull a little more of the reverb out of my setup without having to drop so much cash on different speakers. Time will tell.

Thanks Artto for introducing someone else to the sound great music reproduction.

[Erik Mandaville]

We actually had some of the 'boxy' sound here in terms of bass response -- as if the room were being slightly overloaded, or something. What helped was an interesting thing -- moving the K-horns along the shorter, 15 foot wall, and toeing them out slightly toward the listening position. I honestly don't detect less in terms of bass frequency response, but the mild boxiness is gone. I its place is tighter bass response. It's been brought up before, and I think there is something to the fact that some of this might have to do with lower powered amplification, because I did notice a difference in bass when using my little Craftsmen 10 Watt 6v6 amps.

[Marvel]

Great review!

Wolfram,

A lot of studios use an Aphex Aural Exciter on the final mix. It adds other harmonic content to the mix, and makes the music sound "brighter", without increasing the high end. Sometimes just added to the vocals to make them stand out. THis is similar to what you are describing with your new hardware.

Crazy world.

[dubai2000]

Marvel,

yes, indeed - the Aphex is a similar unit. I have ordered the Behringer mentioned above for a home trial - I shall report my findings once it is here.

Wolfram

[DrWho]

----------------

On 8/1/2004 9:15:17 AM bdc wrote:

I honestly cannot hear a difference between a well encoded mp3 and the original source

----------------

Though I find a huge difference between MP3 and the real thing, I found it funny that the sacd player was in CD mode when Art put in an sacd and we didn't even notice until it was finished playing. Well maybe Art was able to tell, but I surely wasn't...but I attribute that to being unfamiliar with 100% of the sounds I was hearing (new amp and speaker types, new playback sources, new room, yada yada). Since I've never heard the recording in sacd or in real life, I would just subconciously assume that any flaws I heard were in the recording process....not in Art's button pushing

In retrospect of the boxy sounding bass thing, I did want to mention that the bass trio piece sounded extremely natural in the low end. Having played in an orchestra for many years, I dare say I know what a good bass sounds like and I found it very convincingly realistic...

On the other end, I also want to mention that bloated boomy bass is a huge pet peave of mine. However, I also know what powerful convincing bass sounds like and I wasn't hearing that with Nightwish playing, but everywhere else I listen, I can hear fricken powerful convincing bass (again, I want to stress that I've heard it on non-boomy systems). However, good logic would tell me that Art's system is NOT at fault because his bass reproduction was extremely accurate with other recordings (and his measurements are good). But at the same time, I can't accept that the Nightwish is total crap because I've heard the same level of feeling in a totally different place when listening at home.

So assuming that both recordings are equally good, how then would you rationalize hearing total bliss and utter crap? The only conclusion I can come up with is that the recording was mixed for a different kind of speaker...If there was a lot of modular distortion in the studio, then having a lot at home would be more representative of the true mix. I think what I need is a modular distortion simulator to transform the khorn into a direct radiator.

Another thing mentioned a few times was that of EQ'ing the source material...This is something I read about when doing some psychoacoustic research while in college. There was this one website I came across, but I can't for the life of me remember that address. Anyways, the important thing here is the difference between room EQ and source EQ. Trying to use an EQ to compensate for flaws in the room ALWAYS sounds unnatural (if you don't think it doesn't, then you probably haven't given it enough listening yet....this website would claim that you're not refined enough, lol). However, my research showed that it is in fact vital to EQ the SOURCE for many reasons. The most important is that compensations are going to be made in the studio based on the studio's acoustical environment and equipment (even mic positions are chosen based on this). EQ'ing the source allows compensation for this to help translate the sonic event into your home.

One other thing I remember hearing and forgot to mention was what a hi-hat sounded like on LP...There was this sort of smearing effect where anything really highpitch actually sounded like part of the noise floor on the recording. Usually on normal CD, hi-hats have always sounded brittle and harsh to me. I found SACD (at least the few recordings I've heard) to be a happy medium where the hi-hat doesn't sound like crap

OK, that's all for now...I didn't want to write anything more until Art responded, but it seems I keep getting carried away

[Parrot]

Hi Wolfram,

Please be careful on making your decision; give it a long trial. I put aural exciter type stuff in the category of things that initially appear good but then grow annoying because they sound artificial.

[DrWho]

----------------

On 8/1/2004 9:51:19 AM Erik Mandaville wrote:

We actually had some of the 'boxy' sound here in terms of bass response -- as if the room were being slightly overloaded, or something. What helped was an interesting thing -- moving the K-horns along the shorter, 15 foot wall, and toeing them out slightly toward the listening position. I honestly don't detect less in terms of bass frequency response, but the mild boxiness is gone. I its place is tighter bass response. It's been brought up before, and I think there is something to the fact that some of this might have to do with lower powered amplification, because I did notice a difference in bass when using my little Craftsmen 10 Watt 6v6 amps.

----------------

Doing this would totally destroy the horn loading of the bass section on your khorns...I dare say the reason the boxiness is gone is because all of your bass is gone. Unless of course you use false corners.

What kind of music do you listen to?

[leok]

DrWho

There really are a lot of very good recordings. If you migrate to a system that uses high quality electronics and transducers, you will simply find that your taste in recorded music will change, favoring works that are more sonically demanding.

Leo

[Erik Mandaville]

Certainly I would be able to tell if all the bass is gone, because that is not the case -- in fact the bass is still very tuneful and tighter. I do know about how the K-horn is designed in terms of corner location providing the final flare to the horn, however, the toe-in I mentioned is slight. The bass is not at all 'totally destroyed,' which is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, however I understand your point. If it sounded that bad, I would move the horns back to their other location. I have built my own equipment for years, including several different designs, using very good quality dynamic drivers, including sealed and bass reflex alignments, and the Klipschorns are by far the best we have had. The second is our Lowther-based speakers, which consists of an extremely fast dynamic driver in a rear loaded exponential horn.

Our music tastes are varied: Classical, Jazz, classic rock (Yes, Genesis, Peter Gabrial, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, Pink Floyd, etc.), as well as currrent heavy metal (Tool, Audio Slave, Metallica, Sound Garden, and others.)

We simply can't always make accurate and truthful assumptions about the music systems and listening environments of others until they have been heard, personally. The bass we are getting from the K-horns, compared to that of the Lowthers(which was not that bad at all, especially for acoutstic jazz)is outstanding.

Erik

[artto]

Thanks for the interesting, thorough and honest review Mike. Honestly, until reading your review I had no idea you had so much musical background, and that the majority of it was with natural acoustic instruments. Nor was I aware of so much mixing/recording experience. That kind of background makes your opinions very qualified and important.

First Id like to clarify a few things, for you, as well as for others reading so as to not cause any confusion. You mentioned modular distortion. I believe you meant modulation distortion (or even more appropriately frequency modulation distortion) (not to be confused with intermodulation distortion).

The second thing is I probably didnt explain myself well in describing the analog LP. The Sheffield Lab recordings we listened to are what is called direct to disk. These recordings indeed, are recorded live. No edits or punch-in. The entire side is recorded as one take, all the way through, without stopping, directly to the master lacquer on the cutting lathe, without the intermediate step of going to tape first. These disks are also limited production. They usually do a number of takes, each to produce additional masters, so more copies can be made since each master has a limited life span. As I explained to Mike, if you bought an early copy of one of these, and then another copy sometime later, the actual performance would be somewhat different because of this. However, this is not the way most conventional analog recordings were made, which brings up the next point.

Most conventional recordings start out with what is known as the master. The only purpose of the master, as it is recorded and mixed in the studio, is to make sure that anything and everything that is wanted to be heard, is heard. Thats all. From there, a master copy is usually made which is sent to a mastering studio (in analog, at this point we have already introduced additional distortions by means of making a master copy). In the mastering process we put the songs in the order we want, spacing, fades in/out/cross fades, etc. to get the overall feel and pace of the recording as desired. One of the more important aspects of the production process also takes place at this time. The recording is tweaked. In the mastering studios Ive been in (fairly good rooms using accurate speakers such as Urei Time-Aligned), it doesnt take much alteration of frequency response to produce very different results in the sonic quality. Were usually talking about fractions of a decibel here, over a very precise, parametrically controlled bandwidth. From here the mastered copy goes to a production facility. Here, other changes are made, IMO, often for the worse. This is where the production master is made. The production master is further altered to sound good on what ever the producer wants. This is usually your typical car radio or typical home stereo. Noise levels in cars, for instance, are much higher. To compensate for this, so that the lowest signal levels can be heard over the road/wind/engine noise, the signal usually gets compressed, sometimes too much IMHO. The compression makes the recording sound fuller and brighter, albeit, with obviously less dynamic range.

The other LP we listened to (Supertramp, MFSL reissue) is made from the original master tapes, not the production masters that were used in the original commercial recording. In the case of analog LP, the production masters were usually tweaked to compensate for shortcomings in analog playback equipment. This is the primary reason early CD sounded so terrible. They were using the same production masters that were used to produce commercial LP, not the original master tape.

Much of what we hear from recordings is due to what goes on (or doesnt take place) in the entire production process. Mike, Im quite sure that if we had the opportunity to hear the original masters of Nightwish or Three Dog Night, we would have an entirely different impression of those recordings on mine, or any superior playback system. The more accurate the reproduction system, the more variances it will expose.

I do have some effects units that I use in my professional music playing activities. Ive experimented inserting these into my system. All have their pros and cons. The Aphex C2 Aural Exciter with Big Bottom certainly can make the bass sound bigger and fuller, more like what you say you experience with your system. But Ive found these devices always seem to add something undesirable somewhere else, and it doesnt take much.

I dont feel my system has a boxy bass sound. I play bass professionally (on the side, but hey, how many pro musicians dont have a day job? LOL). And as you heard, with the Telarc SuperBass SACD, recorded live at the Blue Note in NYC, acoustic basses sound very natural and appropriate. Also, I might point out that some of the very recent changes Ive made in the room, have to do with the bass range. Most recently was the removal of a large six piece sectional sofa, in its place three lightweight contemporary leather swivel chairs. Im not sure why yet, but the audible bass doesnt seem as powerful, although you can certainly feel it more, through the floor (carpet on concrete) as well as up your spine through the chair, so its obviously there. I havent taken measurements with this setup yet so something may show up after doing so, and I can make any additional changes if necessary. As I also mentioned to Mike, most speakers that sound fuller and heavier in the bass range are almost certainly due to their producing higher amounts of second and third harmonic distortion. But IMHO, in my room, most of the differences we were hearing are do to the recording itself, the way it was EQd and the amount of compression applied on conventional recordings. At the moment, I also explained to Mike (albeit, probably a little too late), that at this point in time, I slide my chair forward or backward, closer tot the rear wall to adjust the bass response. Being closer to the rear wall makes the bass stronger and fuller. This at least partially compensates for the sound and amount of bass deviation from recording to recording.

This room is a work in progress. It is currently in its fourth revision (in progress). Most of this is in small acoustic details, some of which Mike pointed out, which confirms my observations. Other things have to do with better sound isolation/resistance and architectural/lighting details. I guess the most important thing for me is Mikes initial comments. Its as if the room disappeared, as if I were transported to another world, a different space. Ive been asked many times, both in conversation and on this Forum does any sound seem to come from the speakers or do the speakers seem to disappear? I usually just chuckle and smile. The whole objective was to make the entire room disappear, not just the speakers. So for the most part, I guess its mission accomplished.

[Erik Mandaville]

Art:

I would like to say I was also a musician in the past, and played drums in both rock and acoustic jazz bands. I have played with some incredibly talented guys, using both electric fretless and standup acoustic bass, and the K-horns reproduce those sounds in the music we listen to with uncanny reaslism. I suspect 'boxy' might not be quite the right word for the problem we were having....maybe it is. In any event, I believe there are so many variables at play in all of this, and every system will have its idiosyncracies. If your system has the ability, as was described in the recent review of your listening arrangment, to make the speakers and room vanish, it sounds to me that you have things very well balanced out.

Wolfram: I eagerly await your review of this interesting new component!

Erik

[Deang]

I've never heard Klipschorns sound "boxy", but I have heard them sound "tubby".

[Erik Mandaville]

Dean: I really think you are right with this -- 'boxy' is not quite the right word. Maybe 'loose' or 'boomy' are closer to what we were hearing. One of the sheet rock walls the the speakers were on was not an insulated wall, and the bass horn seemed to be energizing the wall in kind of a strange way.

Anyway, so it goes -- the adjustments, tweaks, and mods seem to never stop...

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 8/1/2004 10:07:11 AM dubai2000 wrote:

Marvel,

yes, indeed - the Aphex is a similar unit. I have ordered the Behringer mentioned above for a home trial - I shall report my findings once it is here.

Wolfram

----------------

For the record, Aphex pioneered the technology. The other two mentioned are "similar" to the Aphex. Were I you, I'd send that Behringer back straightaway. 50-60% odds are that it will fail on you within 6 months, and Behringer's warranty is a joke. If you want to impart that sort of sound on your playback, then spend the couple hundred extra on the Aphex and be glad you did.

Behringer, BTW, was sued successfully by Aphex for copyright infringement for reverse-engineering the Aural Exciter and repackaging it as the Ultralizer. They have a long and shameful history of this sort of ripoff behavior.