Room dimensions for Khorn HT

[Coytee]

The wife has been jabbering (hope she doesn't read that ) about building a new house...

I said if we DO build a new house, then the "media room" is going to be designed from scratch and I might want to put a 7.1 Khorn system in there. She of course, rolls her eyes since she thinks my current 2 Khorns are "hideous" to use her word so seven of them would be seven times as hideous.

So, that said, if you are going to the architect and want to tell him to START with this room what would the best dimensions be?

My thinking is making the walls (guessing here) about 18" thick so that I could bury the center and side channels into the non corner walls and just have the front "non corner" part of them sticking out into the room. We could put bathroom/laundry room, hallway or a variety of other rooms next to this room to help isolate it from the rest of house.

ok, so that said, what size would you make it? For the sake of this conversation (if anyone converses ) focus more on proper dimensions as a priority rather than cost.

[jdm56]

I can give you a room size NOT to use: 16 x 18.5 x 8.67. I had no bass unless I sat against the back (long) wall, which makes doing surround a bit difficult to say the least. I also have an 18" deep, 6' wide niche in the middle of the front wall. This was made with a belle klipsch in mind. It was a fine fit with the belle, but the bass problem was too much. I ended up selling all the heritage. I guess this is more information than you really need. Good luck with the house and music/theater room!

[DrWho]

Are you planning on having 7 khorns all around, or just an HT built around the khorn? Flush mounting into the walls is always a good thing because it gives you 12dB/octave boost in the lower frequencies...in studio settings we are always implementing EQ's to counter the slope and bring it back to flat, which has the advantage of lowering the overall distortion in the system (less cone movement). If you use something like heresies in the walls, then you may not need to implement a counter EQ considering they are already very bass shy.

As far as room dimensions go, bigger is always better. Here are some relative dimensions that work well...they're based off the height of the room as that is usually a fixed dimension:

__H__W__D__

1.00 1.14 1.39

1.00 1.28 1.54

1.00 1.60 2.33

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html#part2

If at all possible, you should look into making as few surfaces parallel as possible. So a vaulted cieling is one way to go. Another option would be to have the room slightly narrower in the front than in the rear. Even as much as a 1 foot difference between front and back can have a drastic improvement on the sound. With khorns this might get a bit tricky so you may have to get fancy and build the walls to be 90 degrees in the corners (it's hard to describe so if you're interested I can draw up some plans).

If you're gonna go with 18" walls (24" might be easier to work with), then you're going to get a lot of sound isolation just by the nature of the thick walls. To further isolate the room, you can stagger the studs...basically have the inside wall of your HT be on different studs than the drywall on the other side that connect to the rest of the house. Though it won't be an issue with your thick walls, staggering the studs makes it so that the studs can fit inbetween each other (which in a tight situation you only lose about 1/2"). Another cool thing about really thick walls is that you can embed acoustical treatment right in the wall so that you don't have anything sticking out. 18-24" gives you a lot of freedom with helmholtz radiators and straight up bass traps. It's even enough room to build subwoofers into the wall too.

One thing to consider when flush-mounting is to make sure the speaker isn't mechanically connected to the wall surrounding it (ie, don't build a shelf connected to the studs holding the dry-wall). What you'll want to do is build a shelf inside the wall that goes all the way to the floor inside the wall and make the cutout in your wall slightly larger so that the cabinet isn't touching it. If you don't do this then you run a very high risk for muddying up the sound with sympathetic vibrations (which can make it sound rather awful). Due to the nature of the beast it's generally easier to build the speaker shelfs before the drywall goes up instead of trying to build through a small hole in the wall. If you're worried about cosmetics, you can always put a frame around the hole that overlaps where you cut the hole...as long as the overlap doesn't get in front of any speakers and isn't touching the speaker then you'll be ok.

Now would also be a good time to start considering an IB setup as well...putting an attic above or a basement below the HT is a great way to accomplish this.

[DTLongo]

I would go with at least 15'x 20' or preferably 20'x '30' with the front array along the shorter wall and with a high (cathedral) celing so the speakers can open up. My HT room is 16' x 16' with a ceiling sloping from 7' to 12', Klipschorns plus a Belle across the front, RS-35's on the sides and rear and a Velodyne S1500R subwoofer in the right back corner.

That room is OK but minimal for the Khorns. In a larger room the bass would probably be fuller, but I would also want a screen bigger than my 50" plasma. In any event you will probably still need a subwoofer since the Khorns go down only to about 35 hz., which is fine for music but misses LFE and occasional musical (organ) stuff down lower. Plus, program material is sometimes bass-shy and you want to turn the sub up independently to compensate.

One other point. I strongly suggested you not build the side and back Khorns into niches. Their design REQUIRES them to sit tight in corners in order to develop their best bass. You might want to go with Belles for the center and sides/rear.

See a couple of pics of my system on the "Let's See YOUR Home Theater string on page 20 toward the bottom.

I have had my 2003 Khorns for over two years now and the more I listen, the more I am impressed by their stunning clarity and purity at all volume levels moreso than by their bass though that bass is there. To be honest, Khorns are "wasted" in a home theater since the picture draws attention away from the sound. But in pure listening mode on well recorded rock or classical, oboy!

[Coytee]

I WAS toying with the idea of 7 Khorns all the way around. Front two in corners, rear two in corners front center in a "V" notch built into wall as with the other surrounds.

[JJkizak]

With that much SPL floating around the room should be about 25 x 25 minimum with the rear corners even with your chair and the rear center recessed a bunch more---same distance from the chair to the front center horn. Anyway that would be a start on this ambitious project which I believe would be a tough one even for PWK. If you cranked up that system with a 1khz tone you could use it as a torture chamber for people you don't like.

JJK

[jdm56]

Personally, I wouldn't pursue the 5-7 k-horn system at all. I think the room would have to be huge, and even then it's a lot of firepower you just will never use. Even in a big room, say 20 x 30 x 10, If I were assembling an all heritage surround system, I'd do a pair of cornerhorns, a la scala or belle in the center, and either four heresy surrounds or if you must stay all-horn, four la scalas or belles. A point to remember: most commercial theaters "only" use heresy-size speakers for surrounds. I'm not knocking it, if you are set on it, just offering my ever-so-humble opinion.

[j-malotky]

I too would not suggest the 7 khorn system, and suggest just using Khorns for your mains, and LAS's for the rest.

Main reason for the surrounds is playing with placement. I always move them a foot here and there etc to get them sounding just right.

For the center, a Khorn would mean it located behind a perf screen. With projector bulbs getting dimmer with hours, I would hate to loose more brightness with less reflectivity of a perf screen.

A few years ago, Qman and horned were working on a 5.1 Khorn system where the room was more of a odd shaped diamond /pentagon shaped than square, stating that it would create a much wider sweet spot. Maybe do some searches from the past.

JM

[HornEd]

When building an ultimate Klipschorn system, my preference is a 6.1+2 arrangement with 6 k-horns for the six actual channels plus two Belles for front extension speakers and a custom subwoofer built into the floor and bass traps leading to infinite baffles adjacent to the subterranean bass chamber.

Granted, having at least a 144" High Resolution projector and compatible screen is more appropriate than the 65" Mitsubishi that I formerly used. The working model was built inside of a free standing 30' circular yurt with a conical ceiling (PacificYurts.com). Since the yurt is covered in fabric, the hard to handle long waves below 80Hz go through the walls rather than reflect back to create havoc. Also, the circular walls and conical ceiling offer no large reflective areas.

Granted that I have the luxury of placing the theater in the middle of a forest with 236 acres surrounded by thousands of acres of forestland on which no human habitation or development is allowed. Never-the-less, the new theater is being built to contain the sound and still preserve the clarity of the non-reflective subwoofer experience.

I cannot say enough about having a subwoofer array that flows all waves below 80Hz together... rather than have them competing for clear air space. Predicting the sound pattern of shorter wavelengths that largely get absorbed by furniture, walls, people and pets is fairly easy. Taming the long waves that physically bump into one another because of multiple speakers... and harder to fathom... multiple reflective areas creates a seemingly never ending need to shift speaker positions and/or heights and angles.

A good subwoofer array that emits sound on a common plane and direction with no stray frequencies above 85Hz and can produce at least 121.5dB at 20Hz will cover the spectrum of all commercial DVD movies... and nearly all music... except for magnificent organs... and a stray alpenhorn or two.

Those who are familiar with other Klipsch Home Theaters I have built recognize the pattern of matched monopole purity and forbidding even the mighty Klipschorn from emitting sounds below about 80Hz. To my ear, even Klipschorns track midrange musical notes and sound effects more accurately if they are freed from having to make the long excursions that are required to push enough air to make a 36' long subwoofer wave into a gut shaking reality.

Note that I only use six Klipschorns rather than seven. 7.1 is a marketing ploy... 6.1 can be a marvelous cinematic experience... providing you have the right equipment to turn 5.1 DVD's into the six discrete channels of a so-called 7.1 system.

The rear middle channel has only one discrete sound source and the "7.1" configuration merely connects two speakers to a single discrete sound source. Following that logic, a person who put two speakers on each of the six discrete full range channels and two subs on the subwoofer out... and then he could brag that he has a 12.1 system! The only reason to put an extra speaker in the back is if you are using teeny-weeny speakers that cannot cover the gap between left and right surrounds adequately. Unless you are in an auditorium... there is no need to put two Klipschorns on a back center speaker.

Since I use a top-of-the-line Yamaha in my larger theater, the ability to have two discrete front effects channels along with the six primary channels and one subwoofer channel, the range of sound stage shaping and apparent directional source are legion. The sub channel should be powered by a separate pro amp that generates at least 1,000 watts to reach Dolby Digital's 121.5dB at 20Hz criteria for professional theaters.

While listening to strictly music is a joy that does not necessarily follow a 6.1+2 requirement (e.g., populated with six speakers of equal timbre), the full enjoyment of the cinema is quite spectacular when presented in a way that a sound from any speaker sounds as equal as possible. Having different size and design of speakers makes it impossible for the same sound to be heard from a speaker in the front of the room as it would be heard coming from a speaker in the back of the room.

And before a certain wag dangles his tongue around the "Klipsch sound engineers know best" line... let it be said that Klipsch sound engineers are need to know how to build speakers that people will buy so that the company may prosper. The motivation, spending capacity, and "ear" of the general public is probably not equal to that of the average member of the Klipsch Forum (wags excepted ) and, thus, there is reason for us to pool our knowledge and launch better sound environments as befits our individual tastes and pocketbooks.

For whatever it's worth, the acoustic theory that I use is an extension of that of Paul Klipsch and Dr. Floyd E. Toole... neither of which, to my knowledge, have experimented with round rooms with vaulted conical ceilings and bass traps that essentially preclude reflections... and a few more issues like altering motorboards to fit the function and placement of a speaker to maximize the sweet spot.

Of course, Bose and other purveyors of out-of-phase sound sprayers take advantage of strategic disorientation of your ears to create the illusion of "full" sound with cheaper speakers. Perhaps a sound engineering triumph to some... but it's mucking around with our inner ears in my book!

Klipschorns are capable of providing marvelous sound with relatively little amplification. Thus, a room doesn't have to be super-gigantic to accommodate six Klipschorns... and a couple of Belles for front effects.

To sum it up, a 6.1+2 Home Theater with non-reflective subwoofer surfaces creates a listening experience that allows the sound sources to emanate from the appropriate speakers... instead of spurious reflections. Thus, your hearing the movie the way the sound engineers always hoped you would.

My apologies to all those who have heard these words before... but there seem to be a new generation of Klipschers out there... asking the same old Klipschorn questions. -HornEd

PS: I have been very busy, very happily married to my Swiss Miss now Mrs. and currently negotiating to buy a 172 acre private ocean beach property 24 miles from my resort. My old heart nemeses slammed me down today and so I am supposed to be in bed. What better time could I choose to spend a few moments on the Forum with the folks that have been so good to me? Okay, with maybe an exception here or way, way out there!

[DrWho]

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

On 8/16/2005 7:02:17 PM HornEd wrote:

Note that I only use six Klipschorns rather than seven. 7.1 is a marketing ploy... 6.1 can be a marvelous cinematic experience... providing you have the right equipment to turn 5.1 DVD's into the six discrete channels of a so-called 7.1 system.

The rear middle channel has only one discrete sound source and the "7.1" configuration merely connects two speakers to a single discrete sound source. Following that logic, a person who put two speakers on each of the six discrete full range channels and two subs on the subwoofer out... and then he could brag that he has a 12.1 system! The only reason to put an extra speaker in the back is if you are using teeny-weeny speakers that cannot cover the gap between left and right surrounds adequately. Unless you are in an auditorium... there is no need to put two Klipschorns on a back center speaker.

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

Though I am not qualified to make the claim, I have come across many articles lately that talk about how 7.1 is NOT a marketing ploy (written by guys who certainly have nothing to sell). There is some psychoacoustical phenomenon where any sounds emitting only from the rear speaker tend to be percieved as coming from the front because that is where the focus of our attention is (and we are physically unable to distinguish between sounds centered in front and behind).

It can also be argued that the sound emitting from the two rear channels in a 7.1 is just as discrete as the rear center in a 6.1. When listening to 5.1 material, the surround channels get matrixed across the rear speakers, maintaining the same position of the sound to come from where it was intended, but spreading it out amongst more speakers so as to overcome our psychoacoustical limitations. There are a few articles that discuss how important this is and even how 7.1 was "decided as the absoluted minimum" before 5.1. Of course 5.1 came out because it worked for most source material and was cheaper (thus easier to get the market to accept it).

When listening to 6.1 source material, the rear speakers in a 7.1 still recieve a matrixed signal, which is even accounted for during the mixdown of the movie's soundtrack...so it still maintains the original spacial locations while overcoming the limitations of our ears. Yes 6.1 is discrete, but there is the rare instance where sounds emitting only from the rear channel MIGHT be percieved as coming from the front. I've never had this problem in my 6.1 setup, but I'm never listening that closely either. I do however enjoy the more enveloping and less distracting sound of the 7.1 rigs I've heard on other systems.

I would however defend the claim that any properly integrated 7.1 rig sounds better than a 6.1 rig...at least that's what my ears indicate...

[j-malotky]

Good to see you back HornED!

JM

[colterphoto1]

Good to hear from you again HornEd! I too have followed the equal-timbre lesson and have surrounded myself by Cornwalls in my modest system. Your place sounds like heaven man!

Yes there is a new crop of Klipschophiles who need your lessons, please chime in any time.

Michael

[HornEd]

A fair assumption, Dr. Who... and one that may well apply to adapting lesser quality speakers to less than ideal listening areas. But it was my understanding that this was a thread dealing with optimization of classic monopoles like the world's longest selling speaker design, the Klipschorn.

Dr. Floyd E. Toole is the pro's "Whose Who of Audio"... an Englishman by birth who spent decades employed by the Canadian government as the head of acoustic and psychoacoustic research. For the past several years, he has been Vice President of Acoustic Engineering for Harmon Industries. His "White Papers" (located at http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=120.0) make a great starting point in this fascinating field.

Again, Dr. Toole's comments are more directed toward standard home and theater environments... essentially mainstream concerns for buyers of Harmon Kardon, JBL, and other somewhat upscale products. My acquaintance with Dr. Toole and his work resulted from my research on the acoustic theories of Paul Klipsch (who was often at odds with "Klipsch engineers" in the era when he no longer controlled his namesake company) and the many engineers, Heritage line speaker builders, and key executives with whom I have been privileged to relate over the years.

The place where my acoustic and psychoacoustic theories differ from those of Paul Klipsch and Floyd Toole occur in the construction of idealized listening environments which take maximum advantage of the ability to shape sounds with "horns" rather than planer surfaces or cone speakers. After all, I did pick the pseudonym "HornEd" ...rather than "PlanerEd" or "Cone'Ed" ...and certainly NOT "BiPolEd!"

Both Klipsch and Toole overwhelmingly favor front-firing radiators with an emphasis on properly designed horns and the "perfection" of a non-reflective audio environment. Most speakers are designed in a "flat field" in which there are essentially no sound reflections. Modern recordings are made with the assumption that the sound engineered is the sound that the consumer will hear. Practically speaking, this doesn't happen at home or in professional theaters.

Standing waves, differing timbre characteristics of speakers, Gestalt reflective surface considerations, compromised speaker heights and placements, and coloration by reproduction electronics and speaker systems collaborate to make problematic the quality of sound that reaches the consumer's ear. In cases where "sound sprayer" techniques (bi-pole, di-pole) attempt to conquer poor room dynamics, re-creating laboratory sound perfection of discrete tracks is hopelessly compromised. It is the nature of the beast inherent in bi-pole and di-pole design. But... it IS a band-aid for chronically wounded acoustic environments... like movie theaters that compromise sound quality so that every seat in the house sounds "good" at the expense of those that could have been excellent.

The comment of the validity of an extra speaker on the sixth discrete (rear) channel does indeed have to do with the fact that human beings have eyes and ears biased toward the front... like most predators. The ability to hear sounds directly from the back of one's head is poor at best. Putting two speakers with the exact same material at some distance apart creates a wider "rear sweet spot"... particularly in very large rooms or with rear speakers that need distance to achieve a wide enough coverage area.

The forward focus of predators is compensated somewhat by the so-called "sixth" sense of danger behind the predator. However, as a "sound issue" the usual background sounds fade into ambiance and a sudden departure from that norm creates the "danger" signal. Since that danger signal tends to rise to the forefront of concern, it may indeed be misinterpreted as to location... but very quickly, location and level of danger is determined... and that, after all, is what the audio engineer intended when he set up the sound track. In a properly integrated multiple speaker sound system, few venues require an additional speaker on the sixth channel.

And that opinion comes from actually setting up seven Klipschorns to test the 6.1 effect with six or seven sound sources. In a round room, Klipschorns limited to producing sounds over 85Hz have an adequate angle of sound dispersion to blend in with their left and right rear brethren to provide a seamless sound wall that delights the "sound predator" within us all.

I have proven to literally thousands of listeners, including those with audio credentials, that properly engineered motorboards adapted to the mission of a front firing radiator can create an idealized sweet spot that works no matter which direction a listener may be faced. This benefit is only enhanced when one has the advantage of superbly designed horns such as my favorite, the venerable Klipschorn.

The "single source" rear sound is further a non-issue because the sound from 5.1 sources that is matrixed from the discrete offerings of the left and right rear channels... so the "unique" sound of the synthesized rear channel has associated sounds coming out of the left and right rear surrounds... making any reference to a "one speaker" sound source a non factor in nearly all acoustic situations.

I will grant you, however, the instance where listeners are subject to "sound sprayers" for left and rear surrounds and a direct radiators for the rear channel... the compromised effect of sound sprayer listening will be enhanced by two direct radiators on the sixth discrete channel. A situation in which I do NOT want to put my theater guests.

In 1934 (four years before I was born!) then state of the art acoustic research indicated that three equal speakers with discrete inputs relative to their positions across the front produced the best sound for music. At the time, it was not considered a marketable concept. If the speakers are very large, the WAF aspect may not allow that wonderful solution in many peoples lives. Fortunately, my wife bought another pair of magnificent Klipschorns for me as an engagement present! Ah, there are more ways to a man's heart than the stomach... as overly ample as mine tends to be.

I have not been as active on this beloved Forum for several reasons... including time constraints, health issues, and the fact that most of my acoustic and psychoacoustic research of recent years has been in idealized listening environments not achievable in most home or professional theater venues. Another issue is economic and domestic (WAF) resources... most Forum folks have more constraints on what goes into their systems than I do.

My concerns have always been with achieving better sound in a "practical" way... and, clearly, "practical" is a concept that is nearly as varied as the difference in "ears" that provide the ultimate sound reproduction that occurs within the dark folds of our respective brains. Six-and-a-half years in the Army Medical Corps shaping how the mind reacts to stimuli have served me well in understanding psychoacoustic aspects... but, perhaps, not well enough. It is an amazingly complex field... but one that seems to have found resolution in the minds of those who view movies in the idealized environments that I construct for the use of my family, friends, and self.

Although I have busied myself with projects that enhance the human condition and quality of life... at least this is what springs to my mind. I have not been engaged in activities to add to my wealth for at least fifteen years. Through the Klipsch Forum (and a couple of other lesser audio venues), I have tried to help a wide spectrum of proactive sound enthusiasts (I hesitate to use the term audiophile) to achieve better sound in light of their respective listening room and budgetary constraints.

Better sound begins with better assessment of one's listening environment and the appropriate placement of speakers. I was, perhaps, best known on this Forum for re-engineering motorboards for various Klipsch speakers to achieve better sound for movies and music. A point on which Paul Klipsch and Floyd Toole were always in agreement... and one in which I fully concur.

As Floyd Toole notes, 80% or more of the sound of movies is anchored in the center speaker. Having really great left and right speakers (a must for good music reproduction from sources other than movie DVD's), sound spraying or direct radiator surrounds, or one or two rear channel speakers are of lesser importance when they only share 20% of the total sound when watching the latest blockbuster.

The key to having a Home Theater and a Home Music Center of quality is having three speakers of equal capacity across the front array... ideally mounted in exactly the same way (including distance from the floor and ceiling) to keep the timbre signature of each speaker more nearly the same.

Well, it will be dawn soon, and my meditation to quell the fire in my spinal chord from my neck breaking experience of yesteryear has worked well enough that I might get an hour or two of blissful slumber. For those of you who burn the candle at both ends... and sometimes in the middle to boot... be advised that there is a 100% correlation between those who average less than six hours of sleep a night... and being afflicted by type 2 diabetes before the age of 65. And, sadly, I fit those parameters... and then some.

But lifelong industry does have its rewards. Last month my Swiss born, naturalized American, wife celebrated her 40th birthday (I am in my 67th year) and I brought her to a private ocean beach in Northern California. She was reluctant to go because as she put it, she was born in the serenity of the alps and oceans always seemed a bit noisy and ominous. After an hour or two relaxing on the sand under a warm sun and rhythmic sounds of the surf, she turned to me and said, "I think I would like to own a beach."

That evening, I dashed off a letter to the owner of the beach. Upon receiving it, he came up to visit (Ah, yes, yet another convert to the HornEd approach to Klipsch home theaters)... and we are now into the final stages of negotiation by which I expect to acquire his ocean beach and an adjacent "pristine" canyon with an ever flowing stream that has carved a magnificent canyon out of solid rock in its push to the ocean. The canyon includes caves with where probably used by early Native Americans and has only known the lumberman's axe and saw once... and that was before 1920.

My concern, of course, is the preservation of the beach and canyon ecology for the benefit of present and future generations. I have he benefit of friends who, like me, are essentially retired from commerce but kept busy by our common interest in improving the quality of life for all. Some of these friends were highly placed in the implementation of the Superfund and with the EPA. The last thing we want to see in either place is another money grubbing condo project to "modernize" the landscape.

So, now you can see why, even in my private forest, I have concerns about creating effective traps for sound waves that would otherwise pollute the surrounding forest.

There is so much joy in being alive... and so much work in doing so... -HornEd

PS: To all those who tire of the length of my responses... my sincere best wishes for a quick mouse click to areas where you can find "your thing."

[sunburnwilly]

Coytee , I can't comment on the ideal room size , but I would suggest you have a seperate HVAC system for it . Otherwise your attempt to isolate the room from the rest of the house will be all for naught , and the sound will reveberate thru your airducts to every room like a pipe organ .