Pyschoacoustics and the LAS vs. Khorn debate

[sfogg]

"t is a FACT that the khorn has more bass than the lascala. If one were

to argue that either has "enough" low frequency extension, then he must

do so in reference to specific pieces of music and the format of the

medium."

Basically the same argument as some SET users make with regards to power levels and the music and or levels they listen at.

"...but I just find it ironic that this "EQ curve," if you will, totally corresponds to what one might consider a tubby sound."

Measure them in 5 different rooms and you are going to have 5 different

'EQ curves'. Ditto with a LaScala. Rooms have their own 'EQ' that they

impose on every speaker placed in them.

"Well I wouldn't want either speaker unless I had two capable

subwoofers mated with them, which I would without a doubt crossover at

80Hz."

80hz works well to a pair of subs with the LaScalas. I have done 60 and 70hz too with good results.

Shawn

[DrWho]

Measure them in 5 different rooms and you are going to have 5 different

'EQ curves'. Ditto with a LaScala. Rooms have their own 'EQ' that they

impose on every speaker placed in them.

I agree completely, but this same signature sound has also been present

in the 3 dedicated listening rooms I've heard them in []

(btw, the measurements were taken in the anechoic chamber with a special corner for the khorn to sit in).

Btw, what slopes were you using with the other crossover points? I couldn't imagine anything less than 24dB/octave

[sfogg]

"Btw, what slopes were you using with the other crossover points? I couldn't imagine anything less than 24dB/octave"

You mean, for the crossovers to the subs? Those are all fourth order on the high and low pass.

Shawn

[edwinr]

A well considered post, Doc. One of your best. []

I would question the veracity, however, of your source vis a vis the measured frequency response of the Klipschorn. What was the source? Anecdotally, I understood the Klipschorn measures essentially flat to around 30 hz in a sympathetic room with good corners.

Your point relating to the difficulties of comparing the La Scala with the Klipschorn is a good one. Again I reiterate that they are entirely different animals. Each will sound the best in rooms that the other may not. To do side by side subjective comparisons with these speakers is nigh on impossible - the results would not do justice to either loudspeaker. The same consideration would, of course, apply to any attempt to perform in-room measurements for comparison purposes.

In fact I am wondering whether an anechoic chamber is the best place to measure a Klipschorn - regardless of whether a false corner has been employed during the tests.

Now subwoofers... a sensitive subject with me. I have heard some absolute cr*p sound with these things. Many manufacturers just jump on the bandwagon with little or no R&D, knocking up a box with off the shelf drivers and amplification, and then they sell these abominable devices to the great unwashed as a 'subwoofer'.

There are those manufacturers, however, like REL, Klipsch, Sunfire etc, who properly research their products. REL in particular make a big play on the ability of their devices to be tuned into a full range loudspeaker system. Which leads me to my to my point. IF we are to consider adding a subwoofer to say the Klipschorn or the La Scala, I argue that we shouldn't set an arbitrary frequency cutoff point of say, 80hz, so the speakers only essentially work from that frequency upwards. If we do so, I reckon it changes the whole character of the speakers concerned. Unless you have two subs, you lose the stereo bass effect. You may also introduce coloration and other tonal aberrations. A loudspeaker cabinet is, I guess, tuned to reproduce a certain sound. If you remove that speakers' task of reproducing frequencies below 80hz, would not that change the tonal signature of the speakers?

A REL sub bass system can be tuned to operate from the natural low frequency roll-off of the speaker. If I was adding one to a Klipschorn, I would attempted an integration close to it's low freqency roll-off of around 30hz. This would then enhance the Klipschorn's ability as a full range speaker and is conducive to the accurate reproduction of music.

[jbsl]

Last year I heard a pair of KHorns with a RSW 15. Without the sub the bass was low and filled the room but it sounded a bit boomy. I felt it but it was not the tight, fast, thump ya in the chest bass that my La Scalas have. Turned the sub on and then ya had the fast, tight, thump ya in the chest bass and this combo sounded much better than the KHorns alone!

The music was about 15 cds and DVD Audio that I brought so I know how they sound on my system. He could have had the KHorns crossovers set at 80hz and let the sub do the rest. But I don't think so cause without the sub the KHorns bass filled the room and I felt it all over but it just did not have the slam I'm use to with La Scalas. His system was a top of the line Sony A/V preamp with a 5 channel A/V amp(don't remember the brand) so he had SS with plenty of power. Had them in corners in a room 18 x 16 x 10 sloping up to 12-14.

With a different room and different equipment and no sub the KHorns would have more of the type of bass I'm use to plus the low bass. There are so many factors that affect the sound of both speakers that can make them sound incredible[] or horrible.[:@]

The KHorn and La Scalas are fantastic speakers but each of us in the end decides for ourselves which speaker suits our need, wants, and tastes. So yes the KHorn is the better at reproducing lower bass than the La Scalas. But that does not mean it is the right speaker or the better speakerfor everyone.

The forum member whose Khorns I saw also had a projector and a 110 inch screen. Blade 2 never looked so good! When I got home and powere up my system and listened to it I was not wishing I had a pair of KHorns but I was wishing for that projetor and 110 inch screen.

That is what's great about this hobby lots of choices to fit all the needs, wants, and tastes.

Enjoy!!!

Xman

[mark1101]

Dr. Who,

Great post. Since I have LaScalas and subs (2) I like to read about the direct comparison to Khorns which I don't have and which are a HUGE temptation to buy. I think everyone wants some Ks. deep down. I know I would like a pair. But....I am pretty darn satisfied with what I have actually, and I have heard many Khorn systems.

From my own experience with LaScalas and subs I found that 1 sub is not effective enough in my large room. I found this to be true in my last 2 houses. Same thing. Although the bass output can be close to adequate, there were places in the room that lacked coverage. Plus, using 2 subs allowed preservation of the stereo signal in addition to solidifying coverage. I found that with 2 I didn't need to run them very hard at all. I also found that you don't need to go out and purchase the top of the line subs to significantly improve the LaScala situation. Just MHO.

I've tried various crossover points and have settled on 60Hz here. Of course as the music selections change you could play with it all day long. But in general, 60 has accomodated most of my listening. 80 booms somewhat in my current room.

Thanks again for such a great post.

[homemade]

There aint no way a khorn is going to be flat to 30hz. Mine (mine are homemade but same internal dimensions and woofer a good match to khorn) are perhaps 12-15db down at 30hz. A khorn has horn response down to 40-45 at most and below that is just a sealed box with fairly high resonant freq. plus a hump in the 125hz range. A room would have to be designed to actenuate the lowest octave significantly. I've had mine in 2 different sized rooms (not even close dimensions) and the freq. response was about the same. If you listen to mostly symphony without a bass drum, no synth. music or modern music, maybe you can be satisfied without a sub. Organ and home theatre need lower, flatter bass and most other music even pop 40 on radio sounds better. A speaker that is flat to 35hz without any hump higher up would probably satisify most of my music but one that is 12db down at 40 just doesn't cut it.

[DrWho]

I yoinked this outta another thread, but I forget where it originally came from...

It looks like all the other klipsch documentation I've seen though. (sorry about the fuzziness when you zoom).

Btw, I'm pretty sure they were tested in the same fashion with the same

room and same mic and therefore are accurate at least relatively to

each other.

[edwinr]

Thanks for posting that, Doc. But it doesn't really help.

Much is made of the ability of certain loudspeakers to test virutally flat in an aenochoic room. But when you place them in a real listening room, the response curve is all over the place. The end result is disappointing.

I suggest that the truly great loudspeakers may start off as a computer model, or in the case of PWK, as a twinkle in his eye. But in the end they must be tuned by ear for an accurate response in-room. PWK got it right with the Klipschorn. He tuned it for real world performance. If you pull the Klipschorn out of the room and into an acoustically dead chamber, even if you build a false corner for it, the result will not be as expected. Before you try and measure the Klipschorn, you first need to define what you are measuring. So how do you measure greatness?

P.S. The Klipschorn may use the same drivers as other Heritage loudspeakers, but in my opinion, the application of the Klipschorn design makes any comparison with these other speakers inconsequential.

[jbsl]

In a bigger house with a living room that had the correct deminsions and the extra money I would try a pair of KHorns. I love my La Scalas but I would buy a pair under these circumstances. But right now KHorns don't fit my house or budget so in 3-5 years I'll get a pair.

I agree with everyone who says the KLipschorn is the top of the Heritage speaker line. I waited 39 years for La Scalas so I can wait 3-5 years for KHorns.

But I don't think the KHorns I heard were so much better sounding than my La Scalas that I had to go get the next pair of KHorns that were on sell. To me my La Scalas are a 9 on a scale of 10 and Khorns would be a 9.5.

Again this is my opinion of the KHorns I heard last year. In a different living room with a different system the KHorns could have blown me away with their sound and made me want a pair as soon as I could get them.

Xman

[dubai2000]

I am with homemade on this one. It might just be my room, but without

sub even Khorns don't come close enough to the real thing when it comes

to bass extension. Perhaps if I was living in a detached house (i.e. no

neighbours) I might be able to increase volume for the bass to be as

distinct as at a live venue, but that is not the case, so a sub is a

must for my listening environment.

Although this is not the sub section of the forum, I'd still like to

add that changing from a REL sub to my currents SVS was very

beneficial. Somehow the Stadium II never really had enough power to add

a solid foundation to my Khorns.....and believe me, I tried adjusting

it in varous ways for ages.

This has been a lot easier with the SVS and even 'better' was the

addition of an external crossover instead of using the one the sub

offers. Interestingly enough in my room it doesn't really work crossing

the sub as 40hz, I much prefer a setting around 80hz. To my ears I do

get a solid bass foundation without any holes .

BTW: by accident I had been running my system without sub for the last

few days.....and I was wondering why it sounded.....kind of thin and

less three dimensional [].

Wolfram

[homemade]

I have the same literature that Klipsch put out. I don't have it in front of me and could hardly read the cycles part of the scale. The top graph is the Khorn and bottom is the La Scala? Doesn't the top graph show -10db dip at 30hz? The Khorn is strong to 40hz (but substantially lower than the 125-250hz band) but response below that falls off like a cliff. One thing I did notice on my speakers is that I was running the woofer straight without any coil to kill the top end and found out that a coil reduces the efficiency of the woofer aprox 1.5db and it sounded much more balanced in my system. The coil probably started to cut out the higher midbass around 250hz and gave a more balanced system but it still sounded "thin" without either a subwoofer or max eq. boost on the lowest octave.

[NOSValves]

I yoinked this outta another thread, but I forget where it originally came from...

It looks like all the other klipsch documentation I've seen though. (sorry about the fuzziness when you zoom).

Btw, I'm pretty sure they were tested in the same fashion with the same room and same mic and therefore are accurate at least relatively to each other.

Those graph's are a joke and mean nothing in the real world. It makes my skin curl every time someone pulls them out. Totally misleading propaganda.

Craig

[sfogg]

Dr. Who,

I wouldn't put much faith in those measurements. Test them yourself and

see what they can do in the real world. It will look very very

different then what those measurements look like. I haven't pulled one

outside to measure yet but in two very different rooms the

LaScalas woofer looks to have a *big* peak around 170ishhz for example.

Shawn

[DrWho]

Hmmm...I see a peak around 170Hz on the lascala graph too, go figure. []

Btw, rejecting ANY kind of measurement based on pure emotion is a

complete waste of time. If you disagree with anything, you must

certainly have a reason for it and then be able to back it up.

I might as well just claim the khorn doesn't dig below 80Hz based on a

listening test. I know I'm wrong, but how do I know? Because I can

easily measure the speaker and say hey, look how it digs deeper. And

then I can confirm this by listening to some music and noting the

correlation. Anyone claiming that measurements don't correspond to what

we hear is essentially claiming that the models used to design speakers

is completely false. And this means you are up against the entire audio

industry where these models are being used on a daily basis.

And please don't interpret this as a claim that the frequency response

tells us everything about the speaker. Apart from the distortion

measurements it is most important to look at all sorts of other

things...like for example the impulse response of the speaker. Both the

stock lascala and stock khorn have nasty cabinet resonations, which

will only show up in such measurements. And in fact, they were able to

fix a few of them with the new lascala (and cornwall). Funny that you

don't see these issues coming up very often, but people will go on for

hours about slight nuances between different amplifiers. Do the stock

speakers sound great? Most certainly! but they are very far from being

perfect.

To look at things from another perspective, speaker manufacturers

wouldn't generate and use such measurments (specifically frequency

response plots) if there was no useful information to be gained. Now

I'm not talking about advertising here, but rather the use of such

measurements inside the facility as the speakers are being engineered.

I think a lot of manufactureres would be surprised if they built a

system that modelled perfectly and then have it sound awful (and if it

ever were to occur, then there would be an explanation and this is how

the science further develops).

In regards to the speakers that measure flat and sound bad....they

sound bad because they are making sacrifices in other areas of the

design (usually the off-axis response). This however does not indicate

that a flat response is not the ideal. All it goes to show is that

there are other aspects to speaker design that influence how the

speaker sounds.

[sfogg]

"Hmmm...I see a peak around 170Hz on the lascala graph too, go figure."

Nothing like what I have seen with actual measurements. On the order of +10dB or more

". If you disagree with anything, you must certainly have a reason for it and then be able to back it up."

I can back it up, I've measured my inroom response of LaScala's in two

different rooms. The attached is the LaScala woofers response alone fed

directly by pink noise in my old room.

Have you ever measured one? Or are you just working of manufacturer supplied graphs?

"Anyone claiming that measurements don't correspond to what we hear is

essentially claiming that the models used to design speakers is

completely false."

First... who has claimed that speaker design models are completely false. You are making a major extrapolation.

Second... one measurement alone isn't nearly enough to tell you enough.

Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't have a deep enough understanding

of how a speaker interacts with the room.

"And this means you are up against the entire audio industry where these models are being used on a daily basis."

There is *not* a single consensus on how a speaker should be

measured/designed and how it relates to inroom performance. There are

numerous theories on it with some manufacturers perusing one method

over another. That is obvious just from looking at the numerous

different designs there are out there.

Shawn

[sfogg]

This is a measurement in the new room while I was in the middle of setting up the tri-amping.

This is measured at the listening position. At this point I have around

-10dB of cut on the peak around 170hz along with some other EQ shaping

response somewhat.

Shawn

[DrWho]

I hope I didn't come across as over simplifying the nature of taking

measurements...I am well aware that engineers run around with more than

just a single piece of paper with a response chart on it []

I have never measured either a lascala or a khorn, nor do I own one.

But I have heard them plenty of times and have seen a few different

measurements taken, some manufacture supplied charts and some others

have taken as well. To me they all present the same general nature of

the beast.

On the first chart you posted, if you call -20 the "0 line" then the response

is +-5dB from 50 to almost 500Hz. Slight emphasis in the 175Hz region

and a slight demphasis in the 80Hz region. I'm sure the polar response

gets much wider as you get lower in frequency, which should (hopefully)

help fill in that 5dB gap. Was this a nearfield or farfield

measurement? Might as well ask what mic you were using too.

Anyways to me it looks rather close to the manufacturer chart I posted

above...maybe a bit more exagerated, but the same general flow. And

that's all a frequency response chart is good for anyway....just a very

rough idea of how it performs.

Btw, my comment about those rejecting the speaker models was directed

to others that continuously like to reject the validity of all

measurements. The second you mention the idea they will automatically

disagree with you. I don't claim any one measurement tells us

everything about the speaker, but they certainly do tell us some

things. In fact, my entire post was using "you" in the form of anyone

in general, I didn't have any specific person in mind (man, gotta love

english...)[+o(]

[DrWho]

lol, seems we're writing at the same time []

Do you happen to have a measurement of your system without the EQ? I think that would be a lot more applicable.

And what drivers are you running in those subs that gets you output down to 10Hz?!?

[sfogg]

"Was this a nearfield or farfield measurement? Might as well ask what mic you were using too. "

I think that first one was with the mic about a foot from the mouth of

the horn. Mic is an ETF mic/mic pre-amp. The later measurement is in my

new room at the listening position. I've changed the woof/mid crossover

since then and tweaked the EQ a little more too.

"Do you happen to have a measurement of your system without the EQ? I think that would be a lot more applicable."

Not handy, the EQ is an essential part of the crossovers as I'm using notch filters to greatly increase the crossover slopes.

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/593513/ShowPost.aspx

"And what drivers are you running in those subs that gets you output down to 10Hz?!?"

4 JBL Sub1500s.. two drivers per 6ft^3 sealed cabinets. F3 of the

cabinets should be around 33hzish (Q 0.5) but these were sized to take

advantage of room gain. The room is well sealed and solid. When I say

LaScala's are bass shy I mean it.

Shawn