Do I really need an Academy?

[vman71]

Here's my situation:

- Currently have KLF-20 mains and KLF-C7 center and Chorus II's would be surround

- Just bought a pair of Chorus II's that I may use for mains if I like them better than the KLF-20's

- RSW-15 sub

How well will the CII's match with the KLF-C7 if I go that route?

Does anybody have experience with running a KLF-C7 with Chorus, Forte or Cornwall?

Thoughts and comments please.

Mike

[mbajner]

I have the KLF-C7 for my center with Forte II's as mains

do not match exactly but the C7 is one heck of a center speaker

even with the 20's you had for mains you probably still could here a difference in tone compared to the C7

this is mostly due to placement of center speaker compared to the mains

I do have 3 KG 2.2's and even with all from three speakers being exactly the same, the center does sound a little different when performing the level setting test

so, just try to live with the C7 for awhile

[fletcherkane]

I run the C7 between some original Forte's, and have been pleased so far with the sound. I would love to try an academy, but at the approx. $600 dollar price point I am not sure I would here enough of a difference to make it worthwhile.

[Frzninvt]

Don't kid yourself, the Academy is the center that you will need if you plan to run the Chorus II's as your Mains. They have been going in the $500 range which is fair since if you bought all the parts to build one it comes close to $400 alone. Unless you can shoehorn another Chorus II at the Center position.

Why wouldn't you spend the money for the most important speaker in a Home Theater - The Center!

The KLF-C7, KV-4, or RC-7 will sound good but the overall tone will be a sonic mismatch and it will be immediately apparent with pans across the front stage.

[DrWho]

Well I still don't understand all the craze over the Academy as there

is absolutely no reason why it should be sonically matched...here's a

listing of all the parts:

Academy:

K-76 Tweeter on 90x40 Exponential Horn

2200 Hz Crossover

Two K-1011 8" Poly Cone woofers

KLF C7

K-90 Tweeter on 90x60 Tractrix Horn

2000 Hz Crossover

Two K-1062 8" Poly Carbon Graphite woofers

Chorus II

K-79 Tweeter on 90x40 Exponential Horn

5000 Hz Crossover

K-61 on 90x40 Tractrix Horn

600 Hz Crossover

K-48 15" Fibre Composite Cone

Cornwall II

K-79 Tweeter on 90x40 Exponential Horn

6000 Hz Crossover

K-57 on 90x40 Exponential Horn

600 Hz Crossover

K-34 15" Fibre Composite Cone

The reason I post all this is because the speakers in question have

absolutely nothing in common. If anything, the KLF C7 would be a better

match for the Chorus II due to the tractrix horn, and the academy might

be a better match for the cornwall II due to the exponential horns

(yes, the different horn topologies sound very different). The mere

fact that the center channels listed are two way designs whereas the

mains are 3-way designs right away voids any possibility for perfect

timbre matching. So of course you've got different crossover points,

but you've also got different woofer compositions as well as the fact

that the centers are sealed versus the ported cabinets of the mains.

When it comes down to it, there are just a bunch of differences and no

real similarities. On top of that you've got psychological issues:

people want the academy to be the best center channel for all heritage

for all sorts of reasons.

[Frzninvt]

The question is Doc have you ever heard the Academy? Because driver and network combinations don't tell you how the speaker sounds in a real world setting. You can speculate all you want though.

[Olorin]

Doc, the K-76K is a K-79K with a smaller magnet. They share the

same diaphragm and horn lens. IOW, the K-79K is a more sensitive

K-76K.

The Academy was designed by the smart folks at Klipsch to be a center

channel speaker for the Chorus II, Forte II, and Quartet. (The

K-75K, incidentally, is also a K-79K with a different magnet.) It

was not designed for "all Heritage series" -- it was designed

for these three. It happens to work well with some others, but no

wishful thinking or other BS is required to make the Academy match the

CII/FII/Q. That one was intentional.

I have long maintained that the Academy is a poor center for original

Heresys. I have also long maintained that the Heresy is a poor

center or surround for Fortes and Chorus IIs, but you seem to like it

all right.

OYABTW, the only Tractrix horn on the CII/FII/Q belongs to the K-61K

squawker. The tweeters all use exponential horns on this series.

To answer vman, hey, you've got the speakers, hook them up and decide

for yourself. You can see that everyone here has an opinion, and

each one is worth precisely the same. If you like it well enough

that you see no reason to spend the money, you're good to go, right?

[colterphoto1]

I'm very happy with my Munson K-stacked KLF-C7 between by CW's for now. Planning on a vertical CW in the future, but for now it's awesome. Much better match than my old RC7.

No I've not heard the Academy, but I believe in Dr. Who's reasoning.

If you enter economics into it, the KLF can be had for about half an Academy. I got mine in minty oak for $180.

Michael

[chuckears]

I had a KLF-C7 between my Fortes for about a year, and I will say this about the C7:

It sounds terrific; very immediate and clear. I can see why the Legend series lives up to its name. It has a nice, big sound that, provided your system is properly balanced, lets the listener in on great detail in reproduction of vocals and music alike.

You know there's a "but" coming, since I speak of the C7 in the past tense...

My biggest complaint about the speaker came from the fact that it was not timbre matched to my Fortes. I did not decide this because I read it, my ears decided because, with panning sounds, and material that was designed by the sound engineers to be off-center locatable, and therefore reproduced by one of the mains and the center, sounded "wrong", due to this timbre mismatch. It eventually drove me to relentlessly pursue the Academy, which, upon first listening to it, caused me to understand what everyone had been raving about. This center was designed to be played between Klipsch speakers from its era, and my (original) Fortes sound well enough in that range to make it an almost seamless match.

As for the C7 and the "II" series of Fortes and Chorus, I had always suspected that it would be a better match-up than with the original series, given that they all sport a Tractrix horn. Not having heard the combination, I cannot say for sure, but I can say that the woofers in both the Academy and the C7 are responsible for most of the vocal playback, and I suspect that the C7 is different enough in the voicing of its woofers to make the Academy the better choice.

The final decision, of course, up to you and your own ears.

[oldtimer]

I experimented with different centers and with phantom setting with my Forte II's. When I installed an Academy I finally heard multi-channel the way it was meant across the front soundstage. On its own, the Academy is not by any means a be all and end all speaker. What it does do is work perfectly with Forte II's, and I suspect the same must be true for the Chorus II's and Quartets, given the space requirements of most set ups. I later added Forte II's for the surrounds, and even though they are perhaps under utilized in this capacity, it only added to the seamless sound experience for multi-channel. I know it will be great when I upgrade to multi-channel music. If what you are using now is acceptable, then you can afford to be patient while looking for the best Academy deal you can find.

[DrWho]

The question is Doc have you ever heard

the Academy? Because driver and network combinations don't tell

you how the speaker sounds in a real world setting. You can

speculate all you want though.

Nope, never heard the academy, but I do believe in physics... [] (but

I will take the first opportunity that comes my way to hear it and I

will do so with an open mind - I'm just a skeptic on the forums cuz it

makes life more interesting).

Anyways, allow me to present another argument....if the academy is a

perfect timbre match to Chorus II, Forte II, etc etc.... then why

aren't people using academies for mains and sticking with the smaller

footprint speaker? Afterall, if it sounds identical and takes up less

space then that seems like a more logical choice. I understand that the

bigger floorstanders are more powerful in the low end, but just like

the people with scalas or heresies all around, a properly integrated

subwoofer system would totally negate that difference...

and it's funny because the same people arguing for the academy are the

same ones who will go about praising the benefits of large cabinets and

of horn loading and how it minimizes cone excursion thus reducing

distortion and sounding cleaner, and of 3-way designs and the

importance of horn loaded mids (or hornloaded everything for that

matter) - yet when it comes to the academy all that goes out the window

and it supposedly sounds identical to bigger more awesome speakers...

Then there's the fact that ported systems have greater group delay on

the woofer (though group delay and time-alignment doesn't seem too

popular around here) - you've got different dispersion patterns (even

though the nominal horn coverages are the same doesn't mean that it's

consistant through every frequency - let alone it being the same for

each speaker) - the academy doesn't have a tapered array crossover and

the woofers are more than a 1/4 wavelength apart for much of their

duty, which could even be considered a design flaw! (there are many

reasons why klipsch didn't go with an MTM design for the THX Ultra II

lineup...not to mention all the other manufacturers giving up on it

too). These are all quantifiable attributes that greatly contribute to the timbre of a speaker.

All that said, I can believe that the academy is a closer timbre match

than the KLF-C7, but it's far from perfect...and to me, the difference

between one non-perfect match and another non-perfect match is more of

a matter of personal opinion...and not worth the huge difference in

price when compared against a perfect alternative. Btw, I prefer the

ever so slight extra brighness of the heresy when used as a center

between my Chorus II's because it makes dialog much much easier to

understand. I would however prefer a wider dispersion solution as I

often have people sitting close very close to the mains (which means

extremely off-axis). Likewise, I find that the biggest difference

between the C7 and Chorus II's and Cornwalls is that the C7 has a

little extra "sparkle" to it - so if the academy was a better timbe

match, I would anticipate it to have a duller sound than the C7.

[oldtimer]

"Anyways, allow me to present another argument....if the academy is a perfect timbre match to Chorus II, Forte II, etc etc.... then why aren't people using academies for mains and sticking with the smaller footprint speaker?"

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

People (myself included) already have ForteII's, etc. from buying them for 2 channel back in the days before all this ht stuff. Economically, it is still cheaper to buy used Forte, Chorus II's, and quartets as mains than going with rarer Academies all around. You can put together something pretty nice without a sub this way. Academies all around with a good sub would make a good system.

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

"A man's gotta know his limitations."

[merkin]

My academy doesn't sound exactly like my forte II's. My academy has a kstack. But it does sound good with them. I don't know how the c7 sounds, nver heard one with or without forte II's. If you like what it sounds like more power to ya. I don't think you can ever have a perfect match unless you use all the same speakers all around.

[Frzninvt]

Once again Doc nothing but theories and speculation, I guess the testimonials prior to your post didn't sink in.

Trust me when I tell you I replaced a KV-4 which has a much better HF driver than either the C7 or the Academy. A 2" driver and the KV-4 is 3db more efficient to boot. I was in the same camp as you at one time how could this cheap looking center with just a single small tweeter be all that. I did a one on one KV-4 vs. Academy and the Academy wiped the floor with it when it came to the articulate, accurate presentation of dialogue. I added a K-stack later and it brought it to a whole other level of accuracy, don't ask me to explain why this is, it just is.

I am not trying to say that the Academy is the perfect speaker or the perfect center but it sure sounds damn good and is a killer match to the extended Heritage line. They can be used and mains and rears very effectively if you can find enough of them in matching finishes. However, why do so because most folks already had FII's or CHII's as mains.

If people don't want to pony up the doe for the correct matching center that is their perogative. It's all about compromise right?

[Olorin]

The question is Doc have you ever heard

the Academy? Because driver and network combinations don't tell

you how the speaker sounds in a real world setting. You can

speculate all you want though.

Nope, never heard the academy, but I do believe in physics... [] (but

I will take the first opportunity that comes my way to hear it and I

will do so with an open mind - I'm just a skeptic on the forums cuz it

makes life more interesting).

You know, I wrote a big long response that addressed almost every point

you raised, but then I thought better of it. I remembered what it

was like to be a young man myself, when book learning, theories, and

formulae could sound impressive and pass for knowledge to people who

didn't know any better, and when I thought my knowledge of the general

applied to the specific and vice versa.

I respectfully suggest to you that you will do better to refrain

arguing from theory with people who are arguing from experience.

You are armed with information. The people whose feathers you are

ruffling are armed with knowledge. Until you have experience with

a thing, yoiu have no knowledge of it. You have rumor, hearsay,

intuition, induction. Maybe you could take a philosophy class to

explore the difference between information and knowledge. The gap

is substantial.

Always remember this, my young engineering friend -- in theory,

practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.

I will respond to one question you brought up -- why not use Academys

all around? It's simple -- economics. Cost and

availability. Nobody says you ought to use five Academys if five

Fortes will fit, now do they?

[dragonfyr]

in theory, practice and theory are the same....

Only to a fool who assumes ideal components are to identical with real world components.And that a model is an approximation of the real!

And I feel sorry for the person who went to a school that did not stress the difference.

But it is also a fool who dismisses the modeling of systems as a tool for the altar of pure subjectivism! After all, if this was sufficient, we could just 'dial' up Shirley McClain and ask her opinion!

And I would love to see a pure subjectivist design one of the systems the pretend to know soooo well! I certainly don't want to drive across one of your bridges!

This debate between the purely subjective, the purely objective, and the use of sound engineering methods (that are always to be balanced with empirical objective correlation!) is a spurious one!

And ANYONE who adheres solely to either the purely subjective, or an abstract model that does not constantly refer back to that for which it is a model, choosing at the expense of the other, is a fool! The answer is to use the tools, being mindful to modify them as more is learned, and to verify correlation between the real and the model.

After all, it is the goal of engineering to model the real world. And to constantly refine the model to achieve closer correlation. No educated person mistakes the model for the thing described! But pure subjectivism is to simply wander about in the dark and to simply be amazed when you stumble upon a warm spot!

This is a debate that should be considered trivial in an entry level technology class!

[Olorin]

Nowhere did I suggest pure subjectivism . . . and only you would cut an aphorism in half so as to insure missing the point.

[dragonfyr]

I remembered what it was like to be a young man myself, when book learning, theories, and formulae could sound impressive and pass for knowledge to people who didn't know any better, and when I thought my knowledge of the general applied to the specific and vice versa.

I respectfully suggest to you that you will do better to refrain arguing from theory with people who are arguing from experience. You are armed with information. The people whose feathers you are ruffling are armed with knowledge. Until you have experience with a thing, yoiu have no knowledge of it.

If only the experience and knowledge (simply the accumulation of facts) to which you refer NECESSARILY leads to WISDOM!

I know plenty of educated fools and plenty of very experienced fools!

One need not become any wiser as a result of experience then they will from an education.

And to simply dismiss others based upon your vast experience is a fascinating, if not a flawed, position. Neither position is sufficient to draw the conclusion that one is a necessarily superior position of understanding!

The lesson - don't try to confuse those who have experienced it all with facts or reasoned discourse!

[Frzninvt]

Where in the world do you dig up all this babble? A BSictionary or a BSpedia.

You must run dual browsers with the other setup to run queries on Yahoo and Google while reading through posts so you can respond with reviews, studies, theories, and chronicles conducted and determined by other individuals and not yourself.

[dragonfyr]

What would be a welcome change would be if there were published actual USEFUL measured specs ranging from impulse to ETC to waterfall to Vertical and horizontal polars, group delay and Nyquist plots - or simply a high quality impulse response that could be deconvolved by any of the many tools available to obtain the various real measurements to use rather then simple abstract theories!

The irony is that these specs are available internally! The surprise is why they are not published!