? on spatial sound with LaS vs Khorn

[Coytee]

Ok... I'm coming clean here a bit

I auditioned the K-horns on a tube amp and was bowled over by the depth/presence of the sound. Never in my life, had I heard the band "so" right in front of me.

Now (here's the coming clean part) I've had a pair of LaScalas for probably 24 years, ALWAYS mated with solid state, for I didn't know any better It kind of kills me now to realize I might have had "good" sound for 24 years, but could have had EXCELLENT sound for same

Ok, I digress.

On to my curiosity.

Preface: wide soundstage, depth, high detail and very "here"

My understanding is if you mate a 2A3 tube amp with Khorns you will (or can) achieve all the above in the preface. I realize you might be able to do it with a different amp, but so far, most of the reading I've done has led me to conclude a 2A3 SET amp might be the most spatial (without wars, someone feel free to correct me if I'm thinking wrong)

The thrust of my question is, if in corner A, we have a pair of K-horns mated to a SET amp, and in corner B, we have a pair of LaScalas mated to the SAME type SET amp, will BOTH speakers give the SAME kind of stage presentation?

Oh, and the above "corner" reference, was not physical corner, but it was a fight arena analogy

What I'm wondering ultimately is, can person A with a pair of LaScalas achieve the same spatial sound as person B who happens to have a pair of K-horns, presuming both using same electronics.

Or, another angle I suppose, are the K-horns, by virtue of using the corner, holding an advantage over ALL the rest of the Heritage line that the rest of the speakers can NOT match (even if they are PUT into corner too)

Now, I KNOW the K-horns dig deeper than the LaScalas, so don't make THAT part of the answer. You dont necessarily have to dig deep, to be more spatial (so it seems to me anyways)

[Dylanl]

I have heard both and there is no way a LaScalla will match up against the Khorn everthing being equal (electronics). No matter what you do the 2 will be different. I just think it is that way because of the design. The horn loaded bass bin is not like a sub at all, it brings life to the music for some reason. It produces music not just bass ( a lot ). The rest of the components are the same between the 2. I also think that it may be because of the height that the horns are placed in the Khorn. When you sit on a couch they are a little above your head. Maybe you could try raising the LaScallas up and using a sub. then maybe it would sound closer.

[Dylanl]

Look at this picture. I think it describes what is going on. In a way you are sitting inside the mouth of the horn. So, it is much different than having horns or horn waves directed at you.

[Coytee]

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

On 12/22/2004 1:40:38 PM Dylanl wrote:

I also think that it may be because of the height that the horns are placed in the Khorn. When you sit on a couch they are a little above your head. Maybe you could try raising the LaScallas up and using a sub. then maybe it would sound closer.

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

Interesting point about height... so, (if I may hijack my own thread a bit)

If someone does HT with Heritage, OR, someone does the center channel with the Klipsch box, would there be any merit in raising the LaScala off the floor a bit (building some form of base perhaps) such that it's tweeter is the same height as the K-horns sitting on either side of it?

[Daddy Dee]

Coytee,

When I changed out my LaScalas for Khorns, I was taken aback at the big sound of the Khorns. It seemed to defy logic that speakers with the same dang drivers could sound that difference. LaScalas sound great... Khorns sound unbelievable. I have driven both with 2A3 SET amps and have been quite pleased.

I think you are correct in thinking that the Khorn's performance relative to LaScala is because it is able to appropriate the sonics of the corners in a way that is more optimal than another Heritage speaker placed in the same corner. It is easy enough to imagine that the bass horn would offer improved performance because of this, but what was really amazing to me was that the HF was also improved in the Khorn. This, though I don't understand the physics of it, attribute to the HF section also being able to load the walls in a way not achieved by LaScala, even in a corner.

On a LaScala center, I don't think it would improve sound to raise it up off the floor. The classic Klipsch three channel setup uses a Belle as center. It's a few inches shorter than the LaScala and works fine. I think it would be satisfactory, even cool, to lay a LaScala on it's side in the center to serve as a TV stand for HT.

[Colin]

I have heard the Chorus IIs, Cornwalls Is, LaScalas and AK-2 Khorns on the same equipment and the same music selections in the same living room in the last few years.

The LaScala is a little rough frequency response than the mighty Khorn and doesnt go quite as deep. Yet the classic Khorns has to fit snugly into equidistant corners, making them problematic for all but the most perfectly rectangular rooms.

"The LaScala," poster Ray Garrison says, "is plus/minus 5dB from 100Hz to 10kHz. (The similar Belle has a fairly smooth curve, but it has a smoothly falling output from 150Hz to 6 kHz, totaling a drop of almost 10dB from bass to treble.)"

The LaScala however, can be positioned three to four feet away from the front and sidewalls, creating NOT only a wide, but also a deep and realistic soundstage. The classic Klipsch corner Khorns has a wide soundstage, but it is NOT deep. Although incredibly realistic sounding, players are spread across a wide stage.

[jdm56]

Even with identical drivers and amplification, and in the same room, the la scala and klipschorn will always sound different. Mainly for two reasons: The bass horn on the la scala is completely different from the k-horns, and the obvious effect of the k-horn being in the room corners, which is going to affect more than just the bass. (Colin's remarks are very on the money, imho.)

Even the height difference is audible.

I used a belle in between a pair of corner-horns, both on a home-made 12" riser, and on the floor. With video, the difference didn't seem to matter, but with music, I didn't like the lower presentation of the belle on the floor, compared to the 16" taller k-horns. Just a matter of personal preference, probably.

[DrWho]

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

On 12/22/2004 6:02:13 PM Colin wrote:

The classic Klipsch corner Khorns has a wide soundstage, but it is NOT deep. Although incredibly realistic sounding, players are spread across a wide stage.

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

Just curious, have you ever tried adding a center channel to the mix? Just wondering what your impressions were (if of course you've heard it).

Weren't there a few others on the forum that had both khorns and lascalas and felt that if you didn't have the right room, that the lascalas sounded better?

[jdm56]

You didn't ask me, but I'm gonna donate an answer anyway. I used a belle between a pair of k-horns, and I thought that in certain dsp modes, especially "jazz", that it did add a much needed sense of depth to the sound. Some music sounded better this way, and some didn't. It seemed to vary disc to disc.

I think that in some rooms, the big k-horns just don't work even if there are two nice corners. I had one myself, designed specifically for horns, but I compromised the room dimensions for the sake of having more space in the rest of the basement, and ended up with a room that was basically too square and a bit smallish. I just couldn't "get no satisfaction".

[colterphoto1]

Colin, how would you rate the Cornwall in your listening tests?

Michael

[Colin]

The bigger the big ole horns, the better. Compared to most of the conventional cone loudspeakers I seriously auditioned, in my own home, with the same music and equipment, for EnjoyTheMusic.com, I would take a big ole horns over almost all them, particularly since I love the sound of tubes. Why? Because horns LOVE tubes!

This generalization goes for the 3 foot wide Cornwall also. It is clear, clean, accurate, beefy bass with a wide presentation and wonderful dynamics, with the right amplifier. Mine were super-sensitive walnut-oiled Cornwall 1s, with their B2 crossovers. The Corns and the receiver you get makes a big difference though. Are they model Is or IIs? Do they have B2 crossovers?

In several rooms, over more than a decade, my Cornwall Is exhibited a 5-10dB or more bounce in the mid-bass (80-100Hz), which was actually nice. In fact many modern loudspeakers offer the same thing, in fact, I think the LaScala also exhibit a general rise across the upper and mid-bass area, though little low bass. Yet, my beloved Corns also had a viscous lower treble (5-9 kHz) bounce - which worried my ears during long-term, low-volume listening sessions, making high piano notes jarring and wore me down with high-volume rock sessions, making everything screech like barnyard owls.

I still loved their huge presentation and dynamic qualities, but this problem was worth fixing. Even when powered by tinny boom-boxes, the Cornwalls give a wonderful representation of what live music is all about. I wish I had invested the money in Dean, Bobs or Als much better crossovers, the big 3-driver loudspeakers are definitely worth it.

[D-MAN]

I run solid state on my horns, and I would have to say that "it depends on the gear".

If you have a good separate SS amp, go with a tube pre-amp.

That will give you what you want. I was amazed at the soundstage from a nice tube pre-amp.

The drawback is that the pre has to be as clean as possible, and that gets spendy. They tend to be a little noisy, with hum and such, but that depends on quality, too.

I have tube amps, but frankly there isn't anything that they can do that a good SS amp (like a McIntosh or the like) can't do - in spades. There is something to be said about having a very large power supply behind it, whether you use it at small or large wattages. Dynamic range, dude.

Tubes take more care-and-feeding than I have become accustomed to, and they require new tubes every-so-often.

Some find that they are worth the fuss. I am on the fence on that one as far as power amps are concerned, but I LIKE tube pre-amps!

My recommendation for a fabulous system is Khorns or the like, quality SS high power amp running off of a quality tube pre-amp. Now that's the ticket!

DM

[Parrot]

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

On 12/22/2004 12:09:40 PM Coytee wrote:

My understanding is if you mate a 2A3 tube amp with Khorns you will (or can) achieve all the above in the preface. I realize you might be able to do it with a different amp, but so far, most of the reading I've done has led me to conclude a 2A3 SET amp might be the most spatial (without wars, someone feel free to correct me if I'm thinking wrong)

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

Well, you may have this impression because the 2A3 SET crowd are relentless in their propaganda. But such an amp can't do anything that a good push-pull tube amp can't do equally as well, and the 2A3 SET will fall flat on its face when asked to do anything that takes a fair amount of power. Stick with Paul W. Klipsch's recommendation of 20 watts minimum, and you won't have to limit yourself.

To save anyone the trouble, I'll state that if your listening room is more the size of a bathroom than a living room, and if you listen only to light jazz combos quietly after midnight, you might be able to squeak by with SET.

[edwinr]

I'm running solid state on my Klipschorns at the moment. I'm having mains transformer problems with my Jolida (that'll teach me for buying demo only models 'hardly used' from a dealer). I've gained in bass and sheer driving power. I've lost a bit in that essential midband. If I had never heard tubes through my Klipschorns, I'd never know what I'd been missing.

Comparing the Klipschorns and the La Scala/Belle is difficult. I believe the Klipschorns has it over the other speakers because of the way the K'horns interact with the room. They load the room and make the room part of the speaker. The others load the room, but to a lessor extent. Other factors like the height of the mid-range horn from the floor may be a significant factor in the Klipschorn sound.

I think that because of the way the Klipsachorns load the room so well, this gives any tube amplifier the best chance to give of it's best. A properly designed 2A3 SET amplifier, exhibits amazing midband presence. Combined with the Klipschorn, I can imagine the combination would be sheer mid-range magic. Not withstanding power and bandwidth limitations. So in summation, if I was going to go 2A3 SET, it would be with the Klipschorns.

[edwinr]

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

On 12/27/2004 6:33:17 PM paulparrot wrote:

To save anyone the trouble, I'll state that if your listening room is more the size of a bathroom than a living room, and if you listen only to light jazz combos quietly after midnight, you might be able to squeak by with SET.

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

LOL! Ah, I love it when you sharpen your pencil, Paul.

[Parrot]

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

On 12/27/2004 6:40:14 PM edwinr wrote:

So in summation, if I was going to go 2A3 SET, it would be with the Klipschorns.

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

But you're not, so you have nothing to worry about.

[D-MAN]

Edwin, I would also like to test the 2A3 setup on horns.

Maybe even a PP setup like PWK used to use. You know, to see what all the hub-bub is about and a PP lashup would be just about the right wattage IMO.

There is a technical reason that tube amps are reputed to sound better on horns. The saying "tubes love horns" comes from the fact that a fully-loaded horn system provides a less-reactive load to the amplifier output stage. For tube gear, this means that a better impedance match is attained and tubes operate in an optimised fashion due to the lessened variance as compared to other types of dynamic speakers. Additionally, the efficiency of the horns also allows for the use of less powerful amplifiers, and that is 2 good reasons that horns are a perfect application for a good tube amp.

Personally, since I find that the horns themselves basicially reproduce whatever goes into them, that rather than "Horns love Tubes", it seems more true that "Tubes love Horns". The horns don't seem to care what drives them.

DM

[Dylanl]

Just recently I moved my 2nd set of horns to my upstairs. I never did this before because my wife thinks they are ugly. This placed them on the long wall at 11' apart and an 8' ceiling vs. the short wall in my basement at 6 1/2' with a 7' ceiling. I feel these speakers react so much with the room it is scary. For the record they sounded much better in every category in the larger room. So, the forum members have been correct in all accounts ( Tubes, room,rope caulk on horns, sealing to corner etc. ). The reason I say this is because the original poster need to take all these things into account when contemplating Khorn. If you apply what you learn here you will have a system that none can compete with at a budget price.

[edwinr]

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

On 12/27/2004 6:50:05 PM paulparrot wrote:

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

On 12/27/2004 6:40:14 PM edwinr wrote:

So in summation, if I was going to go 2A3 SET, it would be with the Klipschorns.

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

But you're not, so you have nothing to worry about.

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

Ha, ha! You're right. I'm not. Gee I talk a lot of s**t sometimes!

[edwinr]

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

On 12/27/2004 7:08:11 PM D-MAN wrote:

Personally, since I find that the horns themselves basicially reproduce whatever goes into them, that rather than "Horns love Tubes", it seems more true that "Tubes love Horns". The horns don't seem to care what drives them.

DM

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

You know something, D-MAN? That is really profound. I've been trying to say that, but in a muddled sort of way.