discussion about the K-5-J.

[Soundthought]

Hello friends,

I would like to hear from other people who have used or are using the K-5-J mid range lens in their Khorns.

-What do you think about them?

-What kind of driver do you use?

-What crossover?

I have a pair of '57 Khorns that came stock with these big fellas and I really enjoy them.

I'm currently running EV 1823M drivers on them and have an audiocontrol 520 EQ trimming the midband by 6 DB, centered around 1Khz.

I was going to mod the crossover, but for authenticity purposes have decided to use an outboard EQ instead.

Works really well, for me.

When I finally got them dialed in the way I wanted, they were "hands down" the best sounding mid range I have ever heard.

I do have the original university drivers that came with them, but IMHO, they aren't so hot.

Just couldn't seem to get the sound out of them that I was looking for.

I have been really wondering if the real reason the K-5-Js were discontinued had more to do with the end result of a cost benefit analysis, and how it relates to building a stereo paired speaker.

(less need for augmentation)= hence the slot width difference between a mono and stereo cabinet.

Plus, take into account the simple fact that PWKs true goal was to make mountains out of molehills.

I believe that the material cost for the K-5-J became to high.... and with the advent of stereo amplification the need for such large mid horns was diminished.

Now, I do have the "Dope from Hope" papers that concern the K-5-J (Thanks GFM) and have a good understanding why PWK said he discontinued their use, but I still think that they better any other mid lens used by the company..

What do you think?

Regards,

John.

(the true audioreality)

[WMcD]

I used the EVs on a homemade K-400 varient. They tested well.

The K-55-M was made by EV and may be some variation on the EV original.

Gil

[Soundthought]

I believe it is, Gil.

It has proven to be a fine driver for this application.

Though....there are, of course, some nay-sayers out there.

Be that as it may. they mate really well, IMO, with these K-5-Js.

I would be interested to try different drivers on these horns if given the opportunity.

Anybody want to loan me some drivers to try out?

Regards,

John

[WMcD]

This is an interesting area of discussion . . . and speculation.

It looks like PWK got the bass horn nailed down early. They he spent a lot more time getting the treble to work the way he liked it. Perhaps he never was satisfied. Consider that one reason for the Jubillee was to allow the use of a midrange horn which didn't have to go down to 400 Hz. A midrange could be optimized for higher freqs. Unfortunately he never go to that HF unit.

I've posted articles about the K-5 and the K-400, and other material.

It looks to me that in the K-5, PWK was making a conical horn for constant directivity, just as Don Keele (What's so Sacred . . . ") would do later. Keele credits the K-5 as the first.

Keele was using a hyperbolic first flare to match to a conical section. OTOH, PWK was keeping the side walls relatively conical and using spacers within to keep the overall flare area exponential.

It looks like in the course of the K-5, PWK found that the internal pieces at the mouth as shown in the patent were not necessary. That is to say it performed as well without them.

It looks to me that PWK was very concerned that the K-5, with available drivers, did not go high enough, or low enough.

The K-400 solved these issues by two effects. One is that it has a lower Fc. So there was better loading. Also, it beamed more to narrow the HF in the vertical plane.

To some extent, the high frequency problems were not entirely the fault of the K-5. It was that the Eminence driver didn't have the output. Note the fooling around with the phase plug.

Oveall, I suspect that the switch to the K-400 was indeed a matter of being "honest with myself" to make the plus and minus 3 dB window true. OTOH, a very inovative midrange horn (K-5) was put out of production.

Maybe a midrange driver with a better high end would have held off the need for the K-400. OTOH, it would not have solved the gap in the low end, which the K-400 solved.

It is intersting that new comers to the forum ask for info on the best vintage of K-Horn. This or that midrange and crossover, etc. Nonetheless, owners of the K-5 find little fault and impressive performance.

Gil

[khorn58]

I have both the early and late k5 horns (51 and 58).

I like the early better than the late and both better than k400.

[Soundthought]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Gil, I really appreciate the way you look at these things.

Very interesting thoughts, my friend.

I still often wonder if increasingly higher production costs of the K-5 in conjuction with the implementation of stereo somehow facilitated it's demise.

Raise the crossover freq, and the need for such a large exit area isn't needed.

Granted, i'm certainly no engineer of any discipline.

I'm meerly speculating here.

Just seems like it was an expensive horn to produce and it wasn't really needed, anymore.

I hear what your saying, though.

I've read many articles on the K-5 and you can plainly see where PWK was having "issues" with it.

Not saying that it wasn't the math that ultimately did it in, just that maybe there were other forces at work.

It is my understanding just like his Bose counterpart, PWK had a singular vision.

To make the most, out of the least.

Hense, the EV T-35.

huh....

been so long since i posted to this thread, i forgot what i originally wrote.

ha.

Oh Well.

So, just like Khorn58, i'm loving my K-5s.

They sound soooooo good.

Words cannot describe.

Regards,

John.

[djk]

The original K5 had the vanes for use with the wide range WE713 driver. Later versions of the Klipschorn had a tweeter and didn't need the vanes. Early K5 horns with the beige/tan plastic curves warped and made 'clacking' sounds. Klipsch replaced them on request. Later ones with the greenish fiberglass curves were better.

The K55M was an EV copy of an Atlas driver, and not really similar to anything EV made. I have measured the ceramic magnet Atlas version made for Klipsch and the EV version is smoother in the upper midrange. The K55V (Atlas) has better low end, and the solder terminal K55V is the best.

The K5 has an adaptor to go from the 5/8" exit University SAHF (used in the '50s) to the 1" horn entry. This mates OK with a K55. If you don't have a driver I would consider an EV 1829, It sounds quite a bit better. Parts Express sells the correct adaptor to use with the EV/K5 combo (about $5). The throat on the EV 1829 is a bit too large to use with the later K400 horn, but it does thread on and work.