Klipsch is Resting on Laurels of a Glorious Past

[Thoriated_Tiger]

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

On 2/10/2005 6:13:41 PM DeanG wrote:

You guys are killing me. You better have some serious quality gear behind your eBay Heritage setup if you want to dance with a set of RF-7's and a high quality sub.

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

Some of us do have top-shelf gear behind our Heritage boxen. Really top-flight stuff abounds in the forum, y'know. Most keep it quiet, because quality gear speaks for itself.

And I find your attempt at belittling the Ebay Heritage folks rather distasteful. If one can find better sound for less buckage via ebay, well, c'est la guerre, ne? Unless you enjoy blowing a large wad of cash just for the fun of it.. that's always your choice.

Come over. We'll have a couple of ales, and then proceed to crush your chestbone with 60 very nice, utterly dynamic, very transparent, and *extremely* wide-band, fully balanced tetrode watts. We won't even have to play loud. 80db will do just fine. You will also notice the lack of subs -- the Fortes don't need crutches to pulverize the listener. I'd still wish for a horn-loaded bass, but hey.. I have an apartment, not a house. There's no way to make a small bass horn.

While we're at it, you may also notice that voices, and instruments sound *different* through these. You'll likely note the voices and instruments float in space and are *completely*, utterly devoid of the "am-radio" scratchy hash common with cones (yes, even the pretty copper ones). It's actually quite eerie the first time you hear it. It makes you realize that sometimes the old, original way is still the best way.

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

I've been listening with K-55-V's and Type A's on my Klipschorns for the last few days, if you're good -- I WON'T tell you what I think.

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

Go ahead and say it. They need better bracing on the cabs. The mid horn could be better. So can the HF horn. If you don't want your k-55, A-network K-horns, I'll gladly give 'em a home even though I don't have the space they require. It's obvious they don't satisfy, and only the all-conquering sent-from-heaven Rf-7 will float your boat.

I'll say this: I found the RF-7's midrange to be almost as hashy and un-remarkable as those in common garden-variety speakers. If Klipsh coulda pushed the crossover to a much lower point, sub-1khz, they woulda absolutely rawked. They're better than the norm, but not by much, not enough better to justify the expenditure, in my view.

The fortes, tho, were stunning from the very first second. They had me the instant the needle hit the vinyl, the instant the laser hit the pits. Now why is it that neither the Syns nor the Refs blew my lid off at first listen? I wonder.

The only, *only* redeeming quality I found in the Rf-7 is the sound of that absolutely wonderful big Tractrix HF horn. I will concede it has the upper hand over the old exponential phenolics in transparency and clarity.. but not by much. Nice improvement.

Was that midrange hash the thing that prodded you to try and change what the Klipsch engineers determined was the best crossover for the RF? To try and cover up what can't be cleaned up?

I can only think of how nice of a midrange Tractrix Klipsch could build today, should they choose to do so. If it's half as good as their HF horn on the References, they'll have an instant classic on their hands.

The thought of a big Tractrix starting at 500, 600, 700hz makes me grin a very spacey, very content grin.

Till then,

Enjoy your cones.

[J.4knee]

"I WON'T tell you what I think."

Thanks Dean I appreciate that!

[scott0527]

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

On 2/10/2005 11:52:22 AM Joshua Ryan Hall wrote:

Also, as a point of reference with the Heritage line, we make and sell just as many of these speakers as they do Hummers, Rolls Royces and Maybachs. Not really a fair comparison, but I think it's interesting.

--Joshua Ryan Hall

Public Relations Manager

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

Glean what you can from this article but it looks like we're talking 500 to 1000 per year?

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=101052

[hsosdrum]

".. it would seem that non Heritage products are really no better than inexpensive mid-fi these days."

I own/have owned the following Klipsch speakers:

2 x 1978 K-WO K-Horns (personally autographed by PWK, sold ten years ago)

2 x 1984 H-WO Hereseys (still being used by a family member)

2 x 1985 C-WO Cornwall IIs (still using as studio monitors)

3 x 1996 Klipsh KT-LCR + 2 x KT-DS (still using in home theater)

The KT-LCRs and KT-DSs are "non-Heritage products", and they by far have the greatest tonal accuracy of all the above sets of speakers. And I'll tell you how I know this...

As I said, I'm using my Cornwall IIs as studio monitors, but I can't rely on them to accurately tell me what I'm putting down on tape (I play and record acoustic drums). If I get things sounding great when played on the Cornwalls and burn that mix onto a CD, that CD does NOT sound like my drums when played through most other speakers (I work in the audio industry and have access to all sorts of different speakers.) BUT... if I take that CD into my home theater, audition it through my KT-LCRs and then make changes in the mix based on what I hear through those speakers, when I burn a new CD it sounds MUCH closer to how the drums sound in the studio through all sorts of speakers (hi-end, mid-fi, car stereos, boom boxes, you name it). In short, the Corwall IIs DO NOT TELL THE TRUTH nearly as well as the KT-LCRs do.

While it's true that the Cornwall IIs have about 5dB greater efficiency and dynamic range than the KT-LCRs, that difference doesn't impact NEARLY as much as the KT-LCR's much flatter frequency response, lower inter-driver phase error and greater sonic consistency throughout their specified listening area (CD horns as opposed to the Cornwall's old exponential horns, which ain't CD, let me tell you). And the subwoofer I'm using with the KT-LCRs goes flat to 32Hz with the same distortion and output as the Cornwalls, (which only go flat to 35Hz). It's just a better sounding, more accurate system -- period. If PWK ever got a chance to hear the KT-LCR/KT-DS system (they introduced it in 1994, so he may have heard it) I'm sure he would have been proud to have his name on it.

P.S. I sold my autographed K-Horns because I wasn't using them. They sounded absolutely awful in my home at the time (K-Horns are incredibly room-dependent -- after all, you sit inside of the bass horn), and their corner placement forced a room arrangement that was barely liveable. At that time I was using one Cornwall as the center-channel speaker in a L/L+R/R 3-channel stereo system with the K-Horns (read your Audio Papers and Dope From Hopes for more on this), so I bought a Cornwall II, upgraded my original to Cornwall II to match, used the Cornwall IIs in regular L/R stereo and stored the K-horns. Sounded light-years better than the K-Horns ever did in that room (or in most rooms I ever had them in).

After 10 years of not using the K-Horns, I put a few more coats of Casey's True Oil on them, replaced the top grille cloths that my cats had scratched-up (an all-day project, not recommended for the faint-hearted) and sold them. And I'm not sorry I did. They were exciting to listen-to, but they were also a total crapshoot when it came to integrating them into a listening room. (The smaller the room, the more likely you'd lose the game.) I had them in 6 different listening rooms, and only 2 rooms produced sound that wasn't severely compromised in some way (wide frequency response variations, or terrible deep bass performance, or lousy stereo imaging and soundstaging, or to some degree a combination of all 3). If you get lucky with the room, or are willing to put major time and $$ into changing the room to accommodate the speakers, K-Horns can sound great. But short of that, you're really taking your chances.

[Fish]

To whom it may concern,all others please excuse...

Man..I tell ya,I can't figure out for the life of me why a select few feel the only way they can really enjoy their speakers is to convince someone else that their speakers are inferior.You can blab about hz this and cone that but who cares?Are you trying to convince yourself,you must be cause you sure ain't convinced any 7 owners I know.Furthermore,since I and most others buy the speakers we want,not the ones YOU would have us buy,what the hell's your point?we're deaf,right?Why not design your own loudspeakers,put em' on the market and we'll see if the world agrees with you,till then spare us your BS.

Please excuse the rant but I'm burnt out on the my speakers better than yours.If you like the Fortes or whatever great,why not just say that?State why you're so happy with em',their strong points and leave off the part about how you know what should sound good to the rest of the world.

[cjgeraci]

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

On 2/10/2005 8:10:46 PM Thoriated_Tiger wrote:

And I find your attempt at belittling the Ebay Heritage folks rather distasteful. If one can find better sound for less buckage via ebay, well, c'est la guerre, ne? Unless you enjoy blowing a large wad of cash just for the fun of it.. that's always your choice.

Come over. We'll have a couple of ales, and then proceed to crush your chestbone with 60 very nice, utterly dynamic, very transparent, and *extremely* wide-band, fully balanced tetrode watts. We won't even have to play loud. 80db will do just fine. You will also notice the lack of subs -- the Fortes don't need crutches to pulverize the listener. I'd still wish for a horn-loaded bass, but hey.. I have an apartment, not a house. There's no way to make a small bass horn.

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

Go ahead and say it. They need better bracing on the cabs. The mid horn could be better. So can the HF horn. If you don't want your k-55, A-network K-horns, I'll gladly give 'em a home even though I don't have the space they require. It's obvious they don't satisfy, and only the all-conquering sent-from-heaven Rf-7 will float your boat.

I'll say this: I found the RF-7's midrange to be almost as hashy and un-remarkable as those in common garden-variety speakers. If Klipsh coulda pushed the crossover to a much lower point, sub-1khz, they woulda absolutely rawked. They're better than the norm, but not by much, not enough better to justify the expenditure, in my view.

The fortes, tho, were stunning from the very first second. They had me the instant the needle hit the vinyl, the instant the laser hit the pits. Now why is it that neither the Syns nor the Refs blew my lid off at first listen? I wonder.

The only, *only* redeeming quality I found in the Rf-7 is the sound of that absolutely wonderful big Tractrix HF horn. I will concede it has the upper hand over the old exponential phenolics in transparency and clarity.. but not by much. Nice improvement.

Was that midrange hash the thing that prodded you to try and change what the Klipsch engineers determined was the best crossover for the RF? To try and cover up what can't be cleaned up?

I can only think of how nice of a midrange Tractrix Klipsch could build today, should they choose to do so. If it's half as good as their HF horn on the References, they'll have an instant classic on their hands.

The thought of a big Tractrix starting at 500, 600, 700hz makes me grin a very spacey, very content grin.

Till then,

Enjoy your cones.

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

Dean's K-horns have AK-4s in them. I believe he was just listening to what K-55Vs and A networks sounded like in his K-horns. Its unfortunate you took Dean's comments as "belittling" Heritage owners - I didn't. Instead, Dean was simply opining that RF-7s and a sub can sound better than some Heritage gear of various years, various networks, and when those Heritage are being run by certain gear. I agree that well set-up RF-7s can run with various Heritage setups. Get some excellent gear behind that Heritage, and/or if the Heritage have better networks (and/or a different mid-horn), it becomes a different equation.

Glad you enjoy your Fortes. My invite is for you to come over and listen to either my Belles or my RF-7s with tubes, with some nice vodka - at 70-95db.

Carl.

[TBrennan]

Fish---If you don't want to talk loudspeakers here just what do you want to talk about?

It's a fact that most hornys consider direct-radiating speakers inferior to horns, no matter who makes those DRs. And with good reason.

If you want to trumpet (pun intended) the superiority of cones you will find a willing audience at a Bose forum. But on a forum populated by traditional Klipschites and other hornys you're often gonna hear the horn point of view. Best get used to it.

[T2K]

I have 3 tonally accurate KT-LCR's in walnut oil that I'm considering selling, in case someone cares.

Keith

[Deang]

Damn Carl, I think I'll just start having you write my posts for me! Yes, that's primarily what I was trying to say.

"...I find your attempt at belittling the Ebay Heritage folks rather distasteful. If one can find better sound for less buckage via ebay, well, c'est la guerre, ne?

I typically only belittle the "eBay Heritage folks" when it is often those same people who piss and moan about Klipsch not building the Jubilee, or not being more aggressive in pursuing dealers to showcase Heritage, etc. At this point, I pretty much feel like if you're not going to put your money where your mouth is -- then just shut the hell up. I'm tired of the whole thing, it's ridiculous. People around here drop a ******** if someone wants $2500 for a mint pair of Klipschorns. In the five years I've been here, exactly five forum members have bought new Klipschorns, and yet, everyone here wants to dictate to Klipsch the best way to Heritigize the world. Hey, if the hard and faithful aren't buying them ...

"Unless you enjoy blowing a large wad of cash just for the fun of it."

Sorry, but I actually considered it a long term investment in my listening pleasure. I'm sure my children will also enjoy them after I pass away. At the time, I didn't see it as "blowing" my money. There were times I wondered, thinking maybe I had paid too much. I could have saved some if I had bought used, and simply bought the AK-4 upgrade kit -- but nice Klipschorns don't seem to show up around here that often. Your comment almost sounds as if you don't think there is any real world performance difference between a 2003 set of Klipschorns and a set from even just 20 years ago, but I can tell you definitively -- there is.

"...the voices and instruments float in space and are *completely*, utterly devoid of the "am-radio" scratchy hash common with cones..."

I've never heard "scratchy hash" from any cone. "Hash" is something I only hear from HF drivers. As far as imaging goes, I'm quite sure a properly set up pair of RF-7's will do a much better job of pulling the disappearing act than the Fortes.

Was that midrange hash the thing that prodded you to try and change what the Klipsch engineers determined was the best crossover for the RF?

I don't change the crossover points. The only "mod" I do to the RF-7 is attenuate the response at 3.5Khz by 1.5db. This involves dropping one resistor value by a quarter ohm. With music, it seems to integrate the cones with the horn better. The mod was discovered by Leok, and since I liked the result with my personal RF-7's -- I decided to incorporate it into the upgrade I do involving the replacement of the stock capacitors with high quality polypropylene types -- something your Fortes would benefit from as well.

To try and cover up what can't be cleaned up?

There's nothing to "cover up", the RF-7's sound great. But like any speaker, better parts make a nice difference.

hsosdrum -- That was a very nice first post. Welcome to the Forum!

[MrMcGoo]

I chuckle at the assertion that the RF-7's cones cause distortion. The distortion that PWK discovered is called various things, such as doppler distortion or intermodulation distortion.

Doppler distortion is reduced by keeping cone excursion reduced. Klipsch accomplished this on the RF-7s by the use of two ten inch drivers. It also helps if the owner can avoid operator error and run the RF-7s as small to minimize cone excursion.

A good subwoofer solves the problem by allowing the small setting to be used and still get excellent bass. The RF-7's cones barely move, hence there is very little doppler distortion possible. On the other hand, the subwoofer's cone can and does move a substantial distance. It also helps to remember that the RF-7s were designed to be run with a sub.

Paul Klipsch postulated that distortion is inversely proportional to sensitivity. If he was right, then RF-7s should exhibit low distortion due to their high sensitivity.

The mid range of the RF-7s improves with high quality amplification. Many amps can't drive the woofer's low impedance properly. The cone lacks control due to the poor amp.

I have the impression that some folks are throwing theories around without bothering to check their facts. A key fact is whether or not the RF-7s cone moves more than the 1/16th of an inch that Paul Klipsch found to be the threshold of doppler distorion. If you assert that there is doppler distortion on properly setup RF-7s, then I would like to see or hear the evidence.

Bill

[edwinr]

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

On 2/8/2005 9:07:58 AM KT66 wrote:

.. it would seem that non Heritage products are really no better than inexpensive mid-fi these days...all else is BS...

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

Garbage...

Edit: And furthermore Klipsch are spending big dollars on R&D at the moment - and I understand that the Heritage range is getting a spruceup...

[TBrennan]

McGoo---If you really think a 2-way with a pair of 10s is the way to go I've some 30 year old Dynaco A-50s that should be right up your alley.

PWK was wrong about high efficency causing low distortion. As has been pointed out earlier a high efficency cone will have the same distortion as a low efficiency cone making the same output. And high efficiency full-range drivers suffer from more distortion than low-efficiency multi-ways. Were this not true all any of us would need are Altec 755s, EV SP-8s or Lowthers.

It's more a case that inherantly low distortion devices also happen to have high efficiency; woofers with huge magnets and 3" edgewound voicecoils, compression drivers and such.

Now if you like the sound of your 10s that's aces with me, one can't argue preference. But any speaker running from the bass through lower treble from a direct-radiator is a highly compromised device amd I'm including in this such stellar speakers as Altec 604s and 605s which run 15s of unequaled quality up to 1600hz.

[Fish]

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

On 2/11/2005 12:45:50 AM TBrennan wrote:

If you want to trumpet (pun intended) the superiority of cones you will find a willing audience at a Bose forum. But on a forum populated by traditional Klipschites and other hornys you're often gonna hear the horn point of view. Best get used to it.

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

TB,I don't want to trumpet the superiority of nothin',thats my point.I can like the 7s and prefer em'without claiming"superiority",its just my choice.I can brag on the 7s all day without knocking other peoples choice of Klipsch.There's nothin wrong w/the "horn point of wiew",does that mean it first must be proven that "shiney woofers"are slingin'hash?I found out a long time ago everyone don't like the things I like,thats probably a good thing or there would'nt be much choice and competition.

[KT66]

Hey guys, most of you contributors are old foggies like moi yet zap at each other like tean agers - steady now.

But great .. this hobby keeps every one young and stupid.. I mean silly.

Direct radiator paradigms :

B&W

Spendor

Rogers

Yamaha (NS1000M lowest distortion DR ever made bar none plus decent efficiency too)

Wilson

BBC LS series monitors etc etc

I suppose all the above are hi quality Bullsh1t for us horn lovers!

Alas I've never heard of horns used as true high quality (studio) monitors.

For 'bang and wallop' horns rule especially for users of pee wee power amps.

Don't read M Colloms' books if you don't want to see horns relegated to PA duty,

lo-fi, and headbangger land uses.

[sfogg]

"Alas I've never heard of horns used as true high quality (studio) monitors."

Then you haven't looked very hard.

Check out offerings from Altec, Westlake, JBL and I think Tannoy made some horn loaded studio monitors too among others.

Shawn

[Tom Adams]

Shawn - you make some very good points with regards to the issue of marketing true high-end gear from a company that also makes Pro-Media type products. I completely agree with your examples of H*nda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, etc. And dispelling those perceptions or changing the paradigm is certainly a tough row to hoe for marketing folks. But hey - that's why they get paid the big bucks, eh? Maybe the answer is for Klipsch to create a spin-off company....I dunno.

So I have serious question for you (or any of you shy non-opinionated forum members )....Just how do you think Klipsch is gonna tackle this "perception" issue with the Reference Premier speaker? From what little I know, it seems pretty clear to me that Klipsch is going after that high-end market.

Hey Dean - There's certainly no way I could debate, nor disagree with many of your comments. I have little doubt that you've spent much more time listening to various Klipsch products than I have. And to tell you the truth, I wish I had the time or the resources or the opportunity to listen to what your crossover tweeks do. However, I hope my diatribe about how Klipsch should market Heritage isn't truly killing you. Seriously though, I hear what you're saying about putting your money where your mouth is. Truthfully, as much as I love the sound from a Khorn, I doubt I'd ever own them (I know - never say never). And the same goes for LaScalas and Belles (actually use to sell the Klipsch line-up back in college). Why? Not really sure other than I'm very happy & content with my Cornwall/Heresy system. However, I think the focus of my constant drivel is that I'm not quite convinced that Klipsch is doing everything in their marketing power to see to it that consumers have the opportunity to listen to Heritage in the same way they have with the Reference line. I think it's safe to say that we'd all agree with one fundemental concept - we all hear things differently. That being said, why not offer to the consumer the opportunity to listen to a Khorn and an RF7 and let their ear decide? The way it is today, when a customer walks into a typical Klispch dealer the Reference line is prominently displayed (as it should be IMHO), yet there is little to let the consumer know that Klipsch has another line of speakers they're equally proud of. That's all I'm trying to say. Not saying one is better than the other or cones are crap or horns are the holy grail or copper cones are the cat's testicles....I just want the warm fuzzy that consumers get to see/hear all the offerings from Klipsch. IMO, we all win then.

Tom

[KT66]

"That's all I'm trying to say. Not saying one is better than the other or cones are crap or horns are the holy grail or copper cones are the cat's testicles"

__________________________________________________________________

I did not realize the word crap was understood in the US .. only other euphemisms. crap was invented in teh UK like so many other things :/

If a speaker worthy of sporting the label 'MONITOR' means it is accurate,

precise, neutral, flat, faithful etc, why aren't we all using them ? What redeaming features do non-monitor speakers have left then ? Any thing else is coloured by definition.

True, some manufatures claim they make horn based 'monitors' but anyone can claim any thing. Truth is not all monitors are created equal some are more equal than others - George Orwell I think ?

Those so called horn monitors are most likely used to mix Acid rock freak "music" that will be played thru - you guessed it- acid rock freak horn gear, the only darn things capable of reproducing those blood curdling SPLs.

Horns sound GREAT monitor grade or not - so hold thy fire. Simple, they create larger than life sound satges some folks will not live without whether true to the original performance or not. If you like it ..

[Deang]

Tom A -- boy, I was in mood last night. Sorry about that.

Don't misunderstand me. All I'm saying is that there is apparently more than one way to achieve high efficiency and low distortion.

Tom B -- you know, the various midrange horns have problems too, and I think it's being intellectually dishonest to not admit it. A horn with excessive pressure in the throat sounds much worse to me than a cone. Besides, you keep throwing all cones together, when I know you know that all cones are not created equal. I figure if it sounds clean, than it IS clean. Isn't that the bottom line?

As far as big Heritage goes, the point here is that if those who love them the most won't invest in them, why should it be expected for others to do so? If there isn't a market here, what does that say for "out there"? They may be wonderful, but they're also huge. And yes, they are expensive, but like John Albright told me last night -- every company needs its "Corvette".

I think the new stuff kicks butt. That's what Klipsch is all about to me -- kicking butt -- and I don't give a hoot how they do it.

I've posted the below link several times in the past -- it's worth a read.

http://www.infinitysystems.com/homeaudio/technology/whitepapers/cmmd.pdf

[TBrennan]

KT---Well you certainly don't know much about the history of monitors.

From the 1940s through the 1970s the Altec 604 was by far the most popular monitor and was used in ALL kinds of music including the famous Mercury Living Presence recordings, hardly acid rock. Altec VOTs were also very popular.

If you go the Stax Museum in Memphis you'll see the original Altec A5 and A7s used as monitors there. Booker T and The MGs, Sam and Dave and Otis Redding were hardly acid rock. Around the corner at Hi, where Al Green recorded, the monitors were Altecs using double 416s and 802-511s. Hardly acid rock. And over at American Chips Moman used 604s. The Box Tops, Bobbie Gentry and Elvis doing Suspicious Minds, hardly acid rock, no?

The Beatles used 604s.

[TBrennan]

Dean---Well when the dedicated horny runs into distortion he looks for better drivers and horns, not a direct-radiating cones. Listen to some large format compression drivers and you won't hear much distortion; your ears will go into distortion before the drivers do.

In any case if one wants to do cones right one doesn't do a 2-way; one uses a dedicated mid cone like Rudy Bozak did. The RFs are highly compromised cone speakers.

I think they went from the KLFs to the RFs simply to save a few bucks; the cost of a mid driver and horn and a few moves in the factory. I can't believe engineers at Klipsch seriously think the RF is a better way to make a speaker.