Hartsfield vs. Khorns?

[Clipped and Shorn]

What appeared to be a horn, the large round gray thing visible from the back said "Jim Lansing Signature Model 75", there were some kind of crossover controls elsewhere on the back of the cabinet. Other than that I could not tell what else was iniside this thing. Apparently they are rare since the owner of this one said he had never encountered one in all his years. He recently picked up a beautiful JBL Paragon. He already had a few Altec 802 units, and several of the various EV Patricians. The placque on the front down near the bottom only said "Signature", but in every other respect this new acquisition appears to be an early Hartsfield.

Actually I like my home built Altec tri-amp system better than any of these so far. From the little I have heard of fini's Khorns, I would say the Klipsch has these other vintage things beat.

C&S

[Parrot]

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

On 5/5/2005 11:39:17 AM garymd wrote:

I understand what Paul was trying to say but he certainly struck a nerve with a Hartsfield fan.

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

I try as hard as humanly possible to be polite and nonconfrontational in all of my posts, especially when interacting with thin-skinned, tone-deaf souls who can't distinguish quality from dreck

[Allan Songer]

What really kills me is that 90% of the "audiophiles" I know listen to really DREADFUL music 90% of the time. The only exceptions I have come across are the few who listen to classical music exclusively.

But most "Klispch" lovers are NOT audiophiles and that's why this forum is such an interesting place--that is until these POINTLESS argrumentative threads about "SET vs. PP" or "JBL vs. Klipsch" show up.

Maybe someone should start a "Kenny Dorham vs. Lee Morgan" or an "Eric Clapton vs. Jeff Beck" thread--that might be just as much "fun."

[Audio Flynn]

My miniscule experience with the Hartsfield is that it was more of a siesmic experience than a musical one.

Hit my body like a concert PA system.

[ZAKO]

Allen ....How did you come up with 90 percent. Who do you hang out with?

[ZAKO]

AudioFlyn...Its a gigantic wavefront that will peel the green off your teeth.

[Edgewound]

Out of one side of his beak:

"I try as hard as humanly possible to be polite and nonconfrontational in all of my posts"

Out of the other side of his beak, in the same breath:

"especially when interacting with thin-skinned, tone-deaf souls who can't distinguish quality from dreck"

You're a real sweetheart.

[Edgewound]

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

On 5/4/2005 7:22:02 PM johnyholiday wrote:

edgewound, your a real ballon-knot

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

I believe the word you're looking for is "ballonet".

"Felon" only requires (1) "L"

[fini]

Maybe he meant "ballet nut."

[NOSValves]

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

On 5/5/2005 3:30:18 PM Allan Songer wrote:

What really kills me is that 90% of the "audiophiles" I know listen to really DREADFUL music 90% of the time. The only exceptions I have come across are the few who listen to classical music exclusively.

But most "Klispch" lovers are NOT audiophiles and that's why this forum is such an interesting place--that is until these POINTLESS argrumentative threads about "SET vs. PP" or "JBL vs. Klipsch" show up.

Maybe someone should start a "Kenny Dorham vs. Lee Morgan" or an "Eric Clapton vs. Jeff Beck" thread--that might be just as much "fun."

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

Allan,

While I will not profess to be a Audiophile but what is or isn't good music is completely subjective. I like to listen to your favorite genry from time to time but if it was all I listened too I would soon commit suicide one can only stand a mix mash of a dude randomly blowing a horn with a stand up bass player in the back groud some what carrying a tune LOL !!!

Peace bother

Craig

[maxg]

"What really kills me is that 90% of the "audiophiles" I know listen to really DREADFUL music 90% of the time. The only exceptions I have come across are the few who listen to classical music exclusively."

I can find absolutely nothing to object to in that statement! I am almost moved to say "classical or Jazz" but lets not lose it completely.

[Klewless]

Some thoughts.

Isn't the JBL rear loaded? I remember Altec preaching about the "sins" of that type of design. You will run into cancelations when the wavelength between front/back of the driver find each other.

I also am of the belief that originally Paul Klipsch planned to design his horn to work the same way. He discovered that approach to be less than desired, hence his version of the folded horn, which most of us love to pieces.

[TBrennan]

John--The Hartsfield was a front loaded horn. Note though that JBL is famous for the rear-loaded "scoops" they used to make.

[D-MAN]

Some musings on the Khorn/Hartsfield historical sales performance...

I think that JBL did indeed go for the "Cadillac" approach to complete with the Khorn and others. However, the complicated nature of the design meant that it was very labor intensive and that alone tends to limit production and prevents lower pricing.

It's clear that the Hartsfield was intended to be sold at a higher price-point than the Khorn. It also can be reasonably assumed that sales at that particular price point were insufficient to maintain production over a large span of years. Whether the Hartsfield outperforms the Klischorn is somewhat "undecided", although one can assume that due to the higher price-higher quality JBL components used in it could allow for that.

The design of the bass horn itself is quite a bit different from the Khorn in that the horn bifurcates at the rear reflector, rather than at the throat as in the Khorn. The Hartsfield also folds the horn more times than the Khorn. The overall horn length is relatively the same, as is the overall mouth area (approx. 4 sq. ft) as far as I can tell. The fc is close (35 or 40 Hz) in each, I recon.

So in my estimation, the nature and number of the foldings will have the greatest effect on the sound, and of course, the different drivers employed on top of that. Which crossovers were "better", I cannot hazard a guess. I would venture that the JBL would have smoother and "better" high frequency response, although I am not convinced of the efficacy of the high frequency "lense" on the Hartsfield, seems that the use of which has also tended to die out. This could also be attributed to the market and changing attitudes, though, and not the real efficacy of the thing.

It would seem that the lower price-point achieved by the Khorn proved to be a better choice all along from a manufacturing/sales point of view, and while the design of the Khorn is somewhat complicated, the use of "cheaper" components allowed for costs to be kept low(er).

Once overall performance is somewhat "equal", the matter of consumer "taste" comes into play, of course, constrained by economic capability on the part of the consumer.

So without a DRASTIC increase in performance to clearly separate the Hartsfield from the Khorn, I don't think that aesthetics would be enough to qualify it for a higher price point in the mind of the consumer.

Whatever level of performance that would take in order to differentiate it from the Khorn, I don't know. But I suspect from past market performance that it isn't enough.

That's just a guess. I've never heard one, so I'm just thinking about what went on in the past.

DM

[Clipped and Shorn]

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

On 5/6/2005 9:59:47 AM NOSValves wrote:

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

On 5/5/2005 3:30:18 PM Allan Songer wrote:

What really kills me is that 90% of the "audiophiles" I know listen to really DREADFUL music 90% of the time. The only exceptions I have come across are the few who listen to classical music exclusively.

But most "Klispch" lovers are NOT audiophiles and that's why this forum is such an interesting place--that is until these POINTLESS argrumentative threads about "SET vs. PP" or "JBL vs. Klipsch" show up.

Maybe someone should start a "Kenny Dorham vs. Lee Morgan" or an "Eric Clapton vs. Jeff Beck" thread--that might be just as much "fun."

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

Allan,

While I will not profess to be a Audiophile but what is or isn't good music is completely subjective. I like to listen to your favorite genry from time to time but if it was all I listened too I would soon commit suicide

one can only stand a mix mash of a dude randomly blowing a horn with a stand up bass player in the back groud some what carrying a tune

LOL !!!

Peace bother

Craig

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

It will sound way better longer if you shoot some dope.

c7s

[sunnysal]

Eric Clapton vs. Jeff Beck?

the answer is...

Carlos Santana!

[D-MAN]

Tony! Shame on you.

The CORRECT answer to any guitar question is JEFF BECK.

He pushes the envelope. Need I say more?

DM

[edwinr]

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

On 5/4/2005 4:25:14 PM Edgewound wrote:

Your contradictions and baseless comments make you sound like some pompous wine or food critic. If I understand what you are saying, you can criticize people who like the Hartsfield sound, while in the same breath, you admit you've never heard Hartsfields in a "known environment"? You also seem to pass judgement based on conversations you had with people who where there, to bolster your own limited perspective.

What a worthless post.

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

Wow! My dictionary says that pompous is 'magnificent, splendid, consequential'. A wonderful description of a Parrot. So, there you go, Paul. Another fan of yours! But like all fans he's fickle. He slaps you with one hand, and shakes your hand with the other!

[edwinr]

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

On 5/5/2005 3:30:18 PM Allan Songer wrote:

What really kills me is that 90% of the "audiophiles" I know listen to really DREADFUL music 90% of the time.

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

So what's wrong with Diana Krall?

[sunnysal]

though Santana has the soul thing covered...