The SET Debate (again)

[coda]

Happiness is good health and a bad memory.

[SilverSport]

I like that from the '70's, right??? I like the kicker on the "C" model and that the decorator was then called the "U" model...in teresting...things change, yes?

Bill

[D-MAN]

DFH on efficiency.. I'll stop now...

DM

[BEC]

And there is this.

Bob

[D-MAN]

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

On 4/29/2005 3:23:44 PM seti wrote:

How many watts was the Brook 12A 2A3 Push pull monoblocks 2 X 2a3 a channel ?

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

I am thinking 10 watts as a guess.

DM

[D-MAN]

There is definitely some contradictory information here...

And from the same source, too (no, not me!).

No wonder we don't have the answer... I will try to get a computer-able copy of the flyer that I have from when I was in high school. It'll even make things WORSE!

DM

[SilverSport]

No worries, D-Man...isn't that why we have a Forum??? Isn't that why they put that little, "price and specifications subject to change without notice" disclaimer on everything nowadays???

See...We can get along in the sandbox!

Bill

[oldtimer]

Does anyone else here think that dman's avatar looks a little like meatwad from aqua teen hunger force? Just an observation.....

___________________________________________

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

[coda]

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

On 4/29/2005 3:39:16 PM silversport wrote:

I like that from the '70's, right??? I like the kicker on the "C" model and that the decorator was then called the "U" model...in teresting...things change, yes?

Bill

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

1957!

[Parrot]

Thanks, D-Man. I note that on your first photographed page of text it says "It thus seems reasonable to suggest amplifiers in the 25-35 watt output rating . . ."

And the third one says " . . . settle for good quality and 30 to 100 watts rating per channel."

[ben.]

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

On 4/29/2005 3:56:48 PM silversport wrote:

No worries, D-Man...isn't that why we have a Forum??? Isn't that why they put that little, "price and specifications subject to change without notice" disclaimer on everything nowadays???

See...We can get along in the sandbox!

Bill

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

No, it's why have our own ears and minds.

Easy on those smilies, now!!

[SilverSport]

Sorry about the date error, Coda...since recently aquiring used K'Horns and having to scrounge owner's manuals et al, I have done a lot of searching on this forum for stuff and read that...confused that with the recently sent 1973 and 2003 manuals...cool read...I should have known with the Model "U" and the kicker on the "C" models, eh??? Duhhh...I would normally insert a smiley here but I have been banned from using them for my violations in the past.

Bill

[dodger]

From the brochure with K-Horns and a Cornwall middle in front of it looks like sliding doors:

Page 10 RECOMMENDED ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT:

"...This makes it imperative that equipment of the highest quality be used. Freedom from distortion and actual power output (undistorted) at 30 hz is more important than published power rating..."

Page 11: ACOUSTIC DATA:

"..available acoustic power from qualified 10 watt amplifier is over three watts..." Speaking of efficiency.

The Bass Driver is not mentioned, Mid is K-400, Tweeter is K-77 hinting the tweeter will have an upper limit of 19 KHZ.

While noting what Bob Posted, what was not specified in the large brochure - a minimum power rating it is confusing.

Another Brochure I have also does not give a minimum, but does give a maximum. It would seem that that the technical writers chose 20 watts.

The Brook was not twenty watts.

Thus it depends on the brochure - one can see where the three watt figure comes from - put in ten watts get out three.

So in the end if the listener is happy with the sound, the output, the quality and they own the equipment,

does it have an effect on what we use, if satisfied, no,

will it cause us to change of our own free will, that depends on taste,

can it hurt our equipment? That depends, if it sounds better, it could embarass us,

does it cost us anything, electricity to run our computers.

Then There is the specification data Bob was kind enough to Post.

[D-MAN]

{edit} added for clarity:

Thanks, D-Man. I note that on your first photographed page of text it says "It thus seems reasonable to suggest amplifiers in the 25-35 watt output rating . . ."

And the third one says " . . . settle for good quality and 30 to 100 watts rating per channel."

***

Yes, but the DFH entitled "Blown Tweeters" also says that 0.1 amplifier watt would drive a Klipschorn to "realistic sound pressure output".

Go figure.

{edit#2) this seems to add up for me, as I stated before, I don't listen to more than 1 watt, and even less most of the time. The exception to this habit is HT, when the wattage sky-rockets to dangerous levels.

DM

[Parrot]

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

On 4/29/2005 4:44:26 PM D-MAN wrote:

Yes, but the DFH entitled "Blown Tweeters" also says that 0.1 amplifier watt would drive a Klipschorn to "realistic sound pressure output".

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

It doesn't really say that. PWK is basing that paragraph on the assumption that IF 25W were enough to power a horribly inefficient speaker (0.1% efficiency) to realistic levels, THEN a 1/10W amp would be enough for a Klipschorn. But the assumption is wrong, as PWK clearly knew, because at the bottom of the page he recommends a 25-35W amp for a Klipschorn.

[3dzapper]

Some of Klipsch's recommended amps were the Brook at 12 watts and the Mc-30 at 30. I don't think the higher power ratings and upper power warnings came before the SS era when tweeters started frying. Too low power from an SS amp's clipping would put excess power to the tweeter just as well as too high an amplifier power. With tubes more benign clipping characteristics, blown tweeters and excessive warrantee claims were not a problem.

Rick

[D-MAN]

Here's my angle on this:

If anyone thinks that the Klipschorn and its ilk really NEED 20 watts RMS per channel to produce a relatively flat frequency response, I PROMISE that they are ALL WET on this REGARDLESS.

Let me attempt to appeal to reason, before I REALLY go flying off the handle.

Let me see if I have this right -

a 104db sensitivity and it takes 20 watts to get off the ground?! Well, I would recommend that if that is true and you own Khorns then SELL 'EM as soon as possible, because THEY TOTALLY SUCK.

Now for the flying off the handle part...

The question really is this:

WHY DID PWK APPARENTLY CHANGE THE RECOMMENDED MINIMUM AMPLIFIER WATTAGE as he went along? It is notable that the drivers themselves did not change except in '61 when the K33C was changed to Eminence but that should have nothing to do with the overall sensitivity and power handling unless the driver was drastically changed, which it wasn't...

Bearing in mind that PWK was selling his products to a "new" generation of rock-and-rollers who were listening to amplified electric guitars and such at loud volumes (at least louder than the previous generation's music), he was forced to adapt to the "new" market.

It's clear that Klipsch and Associates were experiencing problems with blown speakers due to the newer higher wattage amps coming out at the time and for the first time.

And undampended pops and power-on clicks were giving him a fit by blowing tweeters which he replaced at first as if under warranty.

It's also clear that the Khorns were being routinely driven to levels previously considered by PWK as being "ear-splitting".

However, although PWK makes it plain that he considered anything over 10 watts and the resulting 115db SPL to be

excessive to the point of causing ear-damage.

The rock-and-hard-place that PWK found himself between was that in order to appear "progressive and up-to-date" technology-wise and in order to compete with less-efficient speakers in the market that actually required higher wattage amplification to power them, he was motivated to accomodate the high-current amps for economic reasons.

If the market had remained tube-based, I believe that his recommendations would not have changed at all and possibly have gone the other way.

However, as it was, the new higher powered amplifiers on the market caused the audio consumer to ask the question of PWK as to what to buy to power their Klipschorns...

Here's what I think his quandry was: if he ansered too low, then some (maybe most) consumers would shy away from his products as they were too restrictive and were not advanced enough to accomodate new and certainly more versatile technologies. Additionally, tube amps were dead and dying, so PWK didn't have any choice, per se.

If he recommended amplification that was too powerful, he would lose money, time, and reputation in the market as the result of blown speakers and warranty work. Or he would have to use different drivers, which he also stated that he did not want to do.

He therefore went mid-market. Covered both tubes (which were on the wane) and SS amplifiers in one fell swoop. For those of us who were around in the early 70's the switch from tubes to SS was lightning fast, and FORGET about buying any NEW tube gear at the time! It disappeared from the shelves like it was never there.

All of the contradictions that I find from PWK are all advertising and marketing things.

DM

[triode]

i am gonna give you my scientific reason for preferring low power SET amps over anything else.

Get Ready.

Here it comes.

One last chance.

They sound better!

[neo33]

You want more power with the same SET sound quality?

[D-MAN]

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

On 4/29/2005 3:57:14 PM oldtimer wrote:

Does anyone else here think that dman's avatar looks a little like meatwad from aqua teen hunger force? Just an observation.....

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

Does it make me look fat?

DM