marksdad Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ok this is for you old timers, i have read in the past that paul klipsch ran 3 channel? isnt that right? could someone tell me about the configuration? since i read a post by one of the bbers that he ran his ht using only 3 channels i also tried, and liked the set up, it seems that having the sat signals matrixed to my larger front 3 just gives me a fuller sound. so i would like to refine the experiment, plus it allowed me to move my heresies upstairs for my bedroom 2 channel set up. question 2.... i have been trying and failing finding sacd, and dvd-a, i recently completed my rig with a great headphone setup, and as good as my klipshorns are, my senns sound a tad bit better in some respects, you give up a bit of ambience, but the senns place the tones under a microscope, so i need well recorded, high resolution music, my lp's sound great, and my sacd, and dvd-a's, but cd's really lack, a person can hear all the deficienties, can any of you direct me to a good place to buy? i have found a few sites, but they have such a small selection, and local stores carry almost nothing, i am getting tired of listening to the same thing over and over, thanks guy's and gal's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 3 channel stereo is set up by playing L+R through a center speaker. This is sometimes called a derived channel. I am running a Corn II as a center between my Khorns and like the setup. I generally run the center about 3db spl below the mains. BTW: The Heresy was originally designed to be a center channel speaker between two Khorns. When one of the Klipsch dealers saw Paul was designing a speaker that was not intended to be put in the corner he said it was heresy and that is how it got it's name! (Why did I have to be old to answer that? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 ---------------- On 8/23/2004 7:53:56 AM marksdad wrote: can any of you direct me to a good place to buy? ---------------- http://www.cduniverse.com http://www.elusivedisc.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 ---------------- On 8/23/2004 5:07:30 PM scriven wrote: BTW: The Heresy was originally designed to be a center channel speaker between two Khorns. When one of the Klipsch dealers saw Paul was designing a speaker that was not intended to be put in the corner he said it was heresy and that is how it got it's name! (Why did I have to be old to answer that? ) ---------------- That really is news to me ... I thought the Heresy was destined to take on the "bookshelf" market, which was "heresy" ... I also felt the Belle was really profiled to match the K-horn's fully loaded horn setup, making it the perfect center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 They came out in '57. I think that was well ahead of the bookshelf speaker market. (But they did fit into it nicely when the market finally caught up to PWK's genius) I heard that the Belle was developed because Paul's wife, Belle, didn't like the LaScala he was using for a center. So he went and made one with a much higher WAF. (Of course, being able to name it after her never hurts!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 The Heresy originally was designed as a supplemental speaker to a Klipschorn...for use either as a center channel between two K-horns for three-speaker-stereo-array, OR as an inexpensive diagonally-opposite corner speaker supplement to a K-horn for use in MONAURAL systems, and was originally intended to be a floor-standing unit. The Heresy's advantage as a center speaker in a three-speaker-stereo-array, was that it could easily fit under a table positioned against a wall between two flanking K-horns in the corners (high WAF factor), and was voiced basically the same as the K-horn, using the same tweeter and mid-driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 HDBRbuilder, I read somewhere in this forum, (maybe you stated this) that Klipsch are considering upgrading the Heresy 2 to current Klipschorn tweeter and midrange horn specs. Is this correct? At the moment I am seriously considering the option of 1 pair of Hersey's for the rear channel and 1 pair for front channel use to match my Klipschorn's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I thought the Heresy was to use a woofer to produce the bass as opposed to a folded bass horn?? As for a 3 channel setup would I be right in saying that with a stereo amp you wire the middle speaker from the positive on one side and the negative from the other. In other words taking the left side positive and the right side negative (or vice-versa) to put both channels into a single speaker? If that is correct is there anything to be aware of when running both left and right speakers as well as the centre speaker? What effect does this have on the impedance for example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmboydoug Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Here is the dope on a bridged center channel. Bridged center loudspeaker.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksdad Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 i guess i am now even more confused, i understood that p.k. did a three channel stereo, using three channels? HDBR a little help?i am with max here it seems that using the signals from the front channels would create impeadance issues, plus i am not looking to replicate the front channels on my center channel. the lascalla is a stand alone speaker and i just understood that is was done differently? i am soooo confused, any more input? and thanks for the sacd links mr. parrot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 For a derived center signal in a two-channel system, I built a minibox based on the PWK design and it works very well, but it requires a separate mono amp (or one side of a stereo amp). I read in an old HiFI magazine recently (from 1963) that a derived center speaker-level signal could be created directly from the speaker wires without a separate amp. This is done by using a 5K ohm resistor on both the right and left (+) speaker terminals to the center speaker (+), and the center speaker (-) to one of the ground (-) terminals. The right and left speakers are wired normally. I have not tried this, but perhaps someone else has. Of course there would not be a separate volume control for the center in this scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 ---------------- On 8/27/2004 7:32:06 AM marksdad wrote: ... i am not looking to replicate the front channels on my center channel. ... ---------------- Well, with stereo you only have two channels of information to work with so what do you want to send to the center channel? The 3 channel stereo that you asked about is the same as regular stereo except a copy of the left and right channels (the mono version of the signal) is sent to the center speaker. The link filmboydoug posted to the Dope from Hope has an explanation of what it does and wiring diagrams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Was the shorthorn not the " first " center channel offering ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiob Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I read about 3 channel in the VMPS forum, thought you might be interested in this product, here is the post; Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:58 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I auditioned the trinaural this week. I must preface this review with the statement that I approached this endeavor with skepticism. I tried as hard as I could to remain objective and not let the hype of CES awards or other previous reviews taint my interpretations. I did not want to write a typical, gushing component review of how this thing is the greatest I've ever heard, it will change your life, blah blah blah. I am a $ensible Sound kind of guy. I have VMPS Tower II mains with Outlaw 755 amp/950 pre-amp and an ancient 1995 Onkyo 6-CD changer (hey, I like the way it sounds). My center channel of choice would be an RM30C, but Julian didn't have any of those on hand, so he loaned me an LRC as my center channel. My room dimensions are 17Wx32Dx9H. Normally, my mains are 8ft apart, but Julian moved my mains to the extreme edge of the walls to increase the soundstage. My first impression was that of everybody else's: the center channel is too hot. It took me 3 days before I no longer perceived the center channel as being hot. At that point, the soundstage seemed to open up. My ears were still confused at this point, though. The side channels still seemed a little "beamy", and it sounded like they were occasionally out of phase (they were not). It was not until the 4th day of listening when I no longer experienced any disorientation. The best analogy I have of the trinaural is that it is a lot like those 3-D sterograms where you have to change the focal point of your eyes before the 3 dimensional picture pops up before you. When you first look at it, you don't see it. But when you change your focus, you see the image. I can stretch this analogy even further: I noticed that my perception of the sound could change depending on where I focused my eyes. When I looked directly at the center speaker, I perceived the center channel to be "hot", but when I lifted my gaze above the speaker towards the soundstage, the beaminess went away and the large soundstage opened up before me. Towards the end of my evaluation, I listened with the lights off to prevent my eyes from distracting me. That helped a lot. The trinaural will mess with your head. Two days after I started listening to it, I got into my car to run an errand. When I turned the ignition and the radio came on, I froze in my tracks. I didn't hear the sound coming from the windshield like I was used to. Instead it sounded like two door speakers aimed at the sides of my head. I no longer perceived a stereo image in my head from two channels. This really freaked me out! Let's talk about how it sounds. I probably listened to 50 different CDs from my collection during my audition. Stan Kenton's jazz orchestra on "Birthday in Britain" is stunning on a soundstage 17 feet wide and 10 feet deep. I can hear soloists stepping forward for their solos as well as musicians talking between songs. The drum echoes of Peter Gabriel's "Zaar" extend beyond the periphery of the main speakers. Solo piano sounds better than I ever thought possible on my system. With a 17 ft wide stoundstage, the piano image is about the size of a real piano. Herbie Hancock's "Harvest Time" sounds like it's being played right in front of me. And when the alarm clocks go off during Dark Side of the Moon's "Time", it is nothing short of spectacular. Copland's "Appalachian Spring" was sublime with its depth and detail. Just for fun, I popped in Wendy Carlos' "Switched-On Bach", and I laughed out loud. That CD is to the Trinaural what the Matrix is to DVD players! Even though that recording is older than I am, it was made for 3-channel reproduction with its LCR voicing. It is human instinct to turn your head toward a sound. I found myself turning my head towards each soloist around the soundstage as I was listening to jazz, something I don't remember ever doing while listening to recorded music. I no longer stared straight ahead all the time like I did with 2-channel stereo. I found the trinaural had the most impact on concert recordings and high quality ensemble recordings. It won't make an average Pop recording sound better, for example. I found a lot of Pop CDs didn't sound much better, but I could really hear the difference on live jazz and well-recorded studio CDs. After listening to the trinaural for 5 days, I switched back to 2-channel stereo to compare. The music lost a lot of detail. It still sounded good, but there wasn't as much clarity and detail as there was before. The clocks on DSOTM's "Time" didn't get me excited any more. I lost the big soundstage for jazz and symphonic orchestra. Summary: Does it work? Yes. The trinaural gives you a larger soundstage with more clarity and detail in the music. If you have a 19" computer monitor, upgrading to 21" will give you more resolution, but is it worth it? You have to decide for yourself. I have the luxury of a dedicated 2-channel listening area without any home theater variables. If you have only two speakers, you need to decide if the investment in new speaker + additional amplification + trinaural is worth the incremental improvement in sound. I have not made my decision yet. But I still have a couple of more days to play! In the end, I totally agree with the $ensible Sound reviewer who said: 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.