Speaker Placement and K-Horn (Can it image?)

[mikebse2a3]

mark1101 said:

Like everything today, they appear cost reduced. The whole top section is just a huge plastic horn, and the bass bin is MDF painted black. There are 3 drivers, two of them woofers. There is no network. Did I mention, no network? They are VERY pricey for what you get in my opinion. You pay for performance certainly not asthetics.

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

Well our versions of the Jubilee has a look that you will either love or hate most likely.

For the Record each Bass Bin is made up of about 3 sheets of Plywood not MDF.

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/thread/767705.aspx

Klipsch is very upfront that the finish will not be up to the furniture quality of the KHorn and I would imagine they would take a LARGE JUMP in Price if and when they are introduced in a home version. I must say I'm very happy with mine as they are and I would quickly go this route again over what would surely be a much more expensive Home Version.

mike tn[]

Anyway Mark I Love The Looks Of Mine[]

BUTT THEN I HAVE TOO SINCE I BOUGHT THEM![]

[mikebse2a3]

I went up to Richard's home and heard the Jubs. I actually bought Richard's Khorns. So I got to hear both in Richard's room.

The Jubs have a very highly flared horn and are only 2-way. So the dispersion is greater/wider at a shorter distance than the Khorn. Because they are 2-way speakers, I believe this also makes the image form at a shorter distance as well. They sound great up close, and consistent around the room. More consistent around the room than a Khorn.

Yes! The K402 Horn have a VERY WELL Controlled dispersion angles begining very low in it's frequency range and this makes for a very room friendly design IMHO.

The bass discharges out the front like a lascala, not down the side walls like a Khorn. This makes a BIG difference in the amount of bass you hear. In my opinion, the single best improvement. The room dependency is significantly reduced because of this design. The bass is like a tidal wave.

Same experience in my room and at Hope and the Jubilee LF Section just has to be heard to fully understand the difference between it and the KHorn as well as any other speaker I've ever heard in it's Quality and Clarity.

I was astounded by the amount of bass that comes out of the bins. Still I am. The design is very good, and it's hard to fault the sound.

But there are some negatives....so I'll discuss those as well.

Like everything today, they appear cost reduced. The whole top section is just a huge plastic horn, and the bass bin is MDF painted black. There are 3 drivers, two of them woofers. There is no network. Did I mention, no network? They are VERY pricey for what you get in my opinion. You pay for performance certainly not asthetics.

These are very Labor Intensive Hand Built Speakers Made In The U.S.A. of High Quality Materials even if they don't have the Very Nice Veneers of the Heritage Line. So IMHO Value Depends On Your Perspective Here. These Speakers Have a Sound Quality that Challenges many very costly Designs. I've listened to several systems worth between $25,000 to $40,000 dollars with Speakers costing from $8,000 to $20,000 and I would have chosen my KHorns as well as My Jubilees every time for SOUND ALONE ignoring the price tags.

Plus, you need to purchase an outboard active network module that costs another grand at least, and you have to have the extra amp to run the top and bottom sections separately. You need to get the "program" to download into the unit from Klipsch.

Actually you can get an active crossover that will do all you need from about $250 for the Behringer and around $400 dollars from DBX and other good brands.

As far as the programming for the electronic crossover thats a piece of cake that ROY WILL SUPPLY.

Roy Delgado has been a great support figure for Richard and the others who have gone this route. But without this support, I doubt it would have been possible for Richard to get the jubilees running at all. No disrepect intended. But that's what I believe.

Richard Sure Seems To Have Of Way Of Getting Things Done.[]

In the end there is no denying that the performance is very strong over the Khorn, but you just don't plug them in and have it happen.

Yes it will take a little more effort and some learning but it is worth it.

I hope no one gets mad at me about this. I will probably do all of this in the future and get a pair of Jubilees myself. But to a new person on the forum, I think they need to know what's really involved.

YES I FULLY AGREE!

You won't go wrong buying Khorns or Jubilees.

I'll Second THAT!!!!

mike tn[]

[Coytee]

Richard Sure Seems To Have Of Way Of Getting Things Done.[]

Schmoozer....

[pauln]

Of all the music I would choose to test imaging a concert piano would not be high in the list. They are huge and a studio recording may have used a couple of mics to get sound from the whole thing. A real piano in your living room will not source the sound from any one point but will spread based on frequency, volume, and dynamic effects characteristic of the instrument and the room.

Try some other music that has voices in the middle to see if the apparent size of the singer is appropriate. Or use a test record - most of the imaging content is upper midrange.

If you had not had a music system up in that room before it is likely that there were no planned acoustic treatments - so you may just have been auditioning the room more than the speakers - but auditioning the room was actually what you did this for in the first place, right? So now you may infer that some treatments may be required. That is a good thing at this point so you won't be immediately disappointed before you treat the room, which by measurement is darn optimal for your plans.

[rgdawsonco]

Wow, guys, thanks for all this discussion. Yes, the purpose of my little test was to audition the room and required speaker placement and orientation of the K-Horns versus where I would have to sit.

I chose the piano concerto because I was very familiar with the recording in my normal KLF-20 listening room, where I can pinpoint the piano. And also I actually have a piano in the test room that I could compare to. Voice would have been a good test, too. I wish I had thought of that before hauling everything back downstairs.

Judging from the discussion, it appears common for folks to go through great lengths to get their K-Horns and their rooms to sing together optimally (false corners, extra tweeters, sacrifice the bass by not using the corners, x-over mods, rotating the top section, etc.). It's apparent to me why Klipsch seemed to be decades ahead of his time with the idea of center channel speakers. It appears you really need one with the K-Horns.

Now wouldn't it be cool if Klipsch could design a K-Horn that allowed some flexibility in the direction they are pointed into the room? For example, instead of 45 degrees from the front wall, maybe 60 degrees. Something that would work on the short wall would seem better suited for typical HT room setups as well. Thoughts?

[Coytee]

Now wouldn't it be cool if Klipsch could design a K-Horn that allowed some flexibility in the direction they are pointed into the room? For example, instead of 45 degrees from the front wall, maybe 60 degrees. Something that would work on the short wall would seem better suited for typical HT room setups as well. Thoughts?

Hmm... perhaps see comments about the Jubilee?

With my Khorns, the sweet spot was right in the middle of the table and I really didn't have the flexiblity to move it (sweet spot) around. With the Jubilees, I CAN move the sweet spot back by adjusting their location and aiming point a bit.

Also, with that itsy bitsy, conservative, shy, understated horn that sits on top of them , my experience is the sweet spot is a lot WIDER than it was with the Khorns (stock drivers/horns).

I keep "harping" on the Jubilees, because I think the initial knee jerk reaction anyone has to any Heritage questions, is to start talking as though the Khorn is the king of the pile. The Jubilee was designed to replace the Khorn so in my view, if you're going to start at the top of the food chain (Khorn by habit), then you really need to replace that starting point with the Jubilee.

Agreement with the price and/or asthetics are of course an important consideration but if you're talking sound first, then (imho) the journey does indeed, start with the Jubilee.

I've had my Jubilees at almost flat against the back wall firing straight into the room. They weren't quite that far out of the corner, but I HAVE played around with them.

Not only do they smoke a Khorn (again, imho, in my house yada yada) regarding bass response & over all togetherness of sound, they can also do it without being "tight" in the corner like the Khorn requires.

So, if ya got the budget and want to shoot high... c'mon to Knoxville & give them a listen. I'll have Roy's order pad handy for when you're done!!

[]

[DrWho]

Now wouldn't it be cool if Klipsch could

design a K-Horn that allowed some flexibility in the direction they are

pointed into the room? For example, instead of 45 degrees from the

front wall, maybe 60 degrees. Something that would work on the short

wall would seem better suited for typical HT room setups as well.

Thoughts?

The new 2006 KHorns do exactly that...they have a pseudo false corner

strapped onto the back to ensure proper transmission of the higher

frequencies of the bass bin (~300Hz) and then as long as the sides of

the bass bin are within 1/4 wavelength of the walls (around 1 foot) you

will have sufficient loading down to the bottom of its response.

Or as Richard mentioned...the Jubilee was PWK's response to the

placement issue. Heck, you could just get the bass bin finished in

perty wood and use whatever top section you wanted. This would give you

full flexibility with the position of the speaker.

Btw, I just wanted to ditto the comments about using piano for testing

soundstage and imaging - though I guess it depends on what people are

referring to with those terms. I also wouldn't ignore the possibility

of false images as a result of room acoustics...one recording is

certainly not sufficient in determining the performance of any system.

[mas]

Hi...maybe I should just remain quiet here, but allow me to play the curmudgeon a bit and provide a bit of counterpoint, not to say that anyone is wrong as much as to simply provide a bit of balance to the perspective... before anyone spends allot of time or money chasing any particular rabbit...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There seems to be an idea that the KHorn must exist on the long wall to 'image'. How can I state this subtly. I know...."Nonsense". [] ...Unless you simply like your early order reflections to come from the back wall (and floor/ceiling) instead of the side walls.

Your sweet spot is going to be limited by the polar pattern of the tweeter, as it is the highest Q (most focused) of the drivers. Other than that limitation, with corner placement you are not that limited.

Third - regarding this proverbial "image". There seems to be some unwritten assumption that all you have to do is pull out any recording and listen for the "image" - some celestial manifestation of all things wonderful approaching nirvana which begins by assuming that there is indeed some acoustically accurate "image" and not simply a hodgepodge of panned sources due to someone's arbitrary but creative assignment with their equally arbitrary assignment of relative levels. The sad fact is that most multi-tracked recordings lack an acoustically coherent accurate image (in the sense that you can actually localize the actual relationship of the pieces as they existed during a performance). Most modern recordings have been done with various players playing to pre-recorded drum/ensemble tracks and overdubbing. And where was the rest of the band during those sessions? Were they even in the same room let alone the same city at the sae time? It is rather hard to assemble an accurate acoustic image when one person is wiring in their part from SF while the other player is in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />London - 2 weeks apart!. Or perhaps you just need a wider room and a really nice delay unit! []

Now of course I am playing a bit and using just a touch of hyperbole (yep, back that dump truck right over here... That's it!), but the fact is the speakers are probably responsible for exposing more poorly recorded sources than they are accurate recordings - simply because there are fewer really accurately recorded and mixed sources available!

If you want to test imaging, get a copy of the LEDR test recording. It is available on test disks such as the SRD Studio Reference Disk which actually provides for a rigorously defined and accurate manipulation of an image for your evaluation. In other words, make sure that the image that you think you are evaluating is Accurate.

And then recognize that the acoustics of the room play an enormous role in this process. I fear that what is happening is that we are focusing on many small rather spurious issues rather than on the fundamentals. And I just hate to see someone get caught chasing rabbits down holes when the really fundamental issues are being selectively (unintentionally of course) ignored.

Again, I am not intending this to step on any toes...or rather perhaps it is meant to step gently on everyone's toes, but let's not get caught up with minutia when the really fundamental issues are being ignored. After all, the illusive "image" is not dependant upon a particular part being comprised of polyester or metalized film; nor on the insulation of a particular interconnect being blue or black. (Well, OK...I will back off a bit...maybe the color of the insulation does matter!) []

Oh, and I have included an idealized illustration of the various regions measured in an ETC that I was/am planning on referring to in the Small Room acoustics post....indicating some of the measured components of the room that can cause actual image issues. So you might want to read up on the Small Room acoustics material already posted until I have sufficient time to post all of the remaining info...

But have fun. Just don't be so quick to toss the baby out with the bathwater. And yes, the Q of the new Jubilee MF horn (& HF horn - if used) should enable them to provide a very wide 'sweet spot'!

Have fun! []

[DrWho]

bah, what's with the reverb in your chart? [][]

[rgdawsonco]

Now wouldn't it be cool if Klipsch could design a K-Horn that allowed some flexibility in the direction they are pointed into the room? For example, instead of 45 degrees from the front wall, maybe 60 degrees. Something that would work on the short wall would seem better suited for typical HT room setups as well. Thoughts?

The new 2006 KHorns do exactly that...they have a pseudo false corner strapped onto the back to ensure proper transmission of the higher frequencies of the bass bin (~300Hz) and then as long as the sides of the bass bin are within 1/4 wavelength of the walls (around 1 foot) you will have sufficient loading down to the bottom of its response.

Or as Richard mentioned...the Jubilee was PWK's response to the placement issue. Heck, you could just get the bass bin finished in perty wood and use whatever top section you wanted. This would give you full flexibility with the position of the speaker.

Btw, I just wanted to ditto the comments about using piano for testing soundstage and imaging - though I guess it depends on what people are referring to with those terms. I also wouldn't ignore the possibility of false images as a result of room acoustics...one recording is certainly not sufficient in determining the performance of any system.

Now I am intrigued by the 2006 K-Horn comment about more placement flexibility. I was not aware the design was different. This may open some new possibilities.

Somehow I'm not convinced that the Jubilee (in current form) was PWK's response to the placement issue because it does not appear to be intended for anything but comercial use or the most extreme horn fanatics among us. There is just no way such an ugly thing is going to make it in my formal living room. (Please don't be offended, Jubilee owners, I'm sure they sound fantastic.) The K-Horn on the other hand, though very large, is actually elegant looking. So, it looks to me like Klipsch's 2006 design is intended to address the problem a little. Does anyone around here actually have the 2006 version?

I admit my little audition was not entirely comprehensive. But just for the record, it was a piano concerto (Mozart #23, Rudlph Serkin, London Symphony Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon, 1983). It was not solo piano music. Second, it's an excellent recording as far as I am concerned and I have other rooms in the house I was comparing to. Since my KLF-20's could not image from the corners where the K-Horns would go, I was just trying to guess whether K-Horns would have the same problem.

I agree with the poster who recommends focusing on fundamentals. I think the room and placement of the speakers is really fundamental and K-Horns (except maybe the 2006 design) don't leave a whole lot of easy options with regard to placement. Too bad it's impossible to try them out and see.

[DrWho]

The Jubilee was originally named the "Klipschorn Jubilee"...it was

originally intended to replace the KHorn for residential applications,

but PWK died before his plans were realized. It just happens to be that

the Jubilee works great for pro-cinema applications. Roy Delgado (the

engineer that worked with PWK) has mentioned a lot about the speaker's

history in a few other threads. There are even some pics of the

original good looking prototypes...I'll see if I can't find them.

Anyways, I would have to agree that the big black giants are probably a bit intrusive in most environments.

As far as the new 2006 khorns, the attached rear tailboard was a

modification done by other engineers at Klipsch - not a PWK inspired

idea as far as I know (not that it really matters...). You can read

about some of the updates here:

http://www.klipsch.com/news-center/press-releases/details/klipsch-updates-the-original-klipschorn-la-scala-and-heresy-speakers.aspx

This one is about the limited edition khorn, but I think it touches on the rear panel:

http://www.klipsch.com/news-center/press-releases/details/klipsch-launches-limited-edition-klipschorn-in-honor-of-company-s-60th-anniversary.aspx

There was a better article back on the old website that talked about it

a bit more, but I can't seem to find the article at the moment...

Anyways, after talking some engineers at the last Pilgrimage, it seems

that the tailboard mod is one that can be replicated on any old khorn.

Due to the better seal and coupling with the room, however, I seem to

recall that some modifications are necessary to the crossover. I

believe Klipsch sells a khorn upgrade kit that will bring your

tweeters, squaker, and crossover back up to spec - and you can just add

the tailboard yourself (it's just two pieces of wood).

[PrestonTom]

Now things are becoming alive!

Mike: Putting the tail board on Klipschorn may not be the best solution. I am not sure if this was only incorporated (at the factory) on the Anniversary cabinets. However there are other ways to get that effect that won't chew up the cabinet edges and may be structurally more sound. There is a nice thread(s) done by Dean (and perhaps others) for a "movable" false corner" system. These are well-thought out and debugged. It allows the toeing-in and provides the necessary final flare for the bass bin. These were nice creative solutions.

MAS: Multi-track recordings have certainly taken much of the accuracy out of "recreating" a musical event. You have stated what sorely needed to be said, and eloquently done. You paint a bleak picture however, but I think that is because you are concentrating on pop recordings. There are also other kinds of music that are more faithful to "documenting" a musical event. Many classical (esp the smaller ensemble) and some live jazz and folk are accurately recorded in terms of the spatial aspect (and nicely including the acoustics of the venue). This can be wonderful to listen to. This is where the the judgements of imaging should be done.

I want to empahsize that pulling the cabinet out of the corner (and not providing a false corner) really does degrade the frequency response. It is a bad solution.

Also being at a tanget to the speaker cabinet really is a benefit. The frequency response is much more even (and the reflections, which may not desirable in your room) are "comparatively" reduced. I think folks are reluctant on this last point since there are so many recommendations (made for "conventional" cabinets) that are contary to being on axis with the cabinet.

Incidentally, I think it is nice that perhaps more folks are appreciating that spending some time placing & re-arranging the cabinets and the listening chair really can make a difference in the sound. Although, frequently it is difficult to judge whether the difference is actually an improvement or not (a tougher judgement)

Good Luck,

-Tom

[DrWho]

I'm pretty sure that every 2006 and future khorn will have the

tailboards...if it's good enough for Klipsch it's good enough for me.

As far as recordings go..."imaging" and "recreation of a musical event"

is rarely the goal anymore - and if it's not the goal, then that

probably means it's not an important part of the enjoyment for the

target demographic. They are first trying to make money, not art.

But ignoring the greater population and mass produced crap, there are

still those that could care less if an image is there or not. If I

wanted the "it's so good it's like I'm there feeling", then I would

just go down to the local venue and hear the real deal. "Recreation" is

a hopeless cause - something that can only be emulated, never achieved

(though some of these In-Ear recordings seem quite promising). Instead,

I believe recordings should be viewed through the lense of "creation" -

hearing new sounds that could otherwise never exist. It is but a

different canvas on which to paint the masterpiece. I would argue

however that the design considerations for both types of listening are

completely identical...you want to recreate in the home what the

recording engineer intended to be heard.

[mas]

bah, what's with the reverb in your chart? [][]

Smart Man!!!! Thank you!!!! That's what I want to hear! (You don't know how encouraging that remark is! [] )

We might let you back into the thread after all! []

When you move beyond 80 ms and 27+ meter distances, you are in Large Acoustical Space territory!

This diagram is for 'all space' - Small Acoustical Spaces can ignore the reverberant component!

[DrWho]

I dunno....seems to me the equations refer to reverberation as a function of wavelength [] So doesn't that put about the top 1/2 of the audible bandwidth back into the reverberation category? (wow, talk about off topic)

[jackpod]

"But ignoring the greater population and mass produced crap, there are still those that could care less if an image is there or not."

That is assuming the greater population even knows what imaging is in this day in age. Today John Q Public is more concerned with how many days of music they have on their Ipods, regardless of the quality. I hear these people say "Oh I love my music" but how much of their music are they hearing? Compressed, narrow bandwidth, reminds me of when I was a kid, I had a 6 transistor radio. I was the man of the hour! until I realized that a whole lot more music came out of the 2 6x9 speakers in my mono zenith suitcase record player. The general consensus could care less about quality, imaging or content... how loud the kids can blast their car systems, how many days of music one has on the Ipod. that is what is important to the masses... not quality. Why should an engineer spend days doing mixdowns (like in the early 70's when I had my hand in it), when a few hours can bring the same money

[PrestonTom]

I'm pretty sure that every 2006 and future khorn will have the tailboards...if it's good enough for Klipsch it's good enough for me.

As far as recordings go..."imaging" and "recreation of a musical event" is rarely the goal anymore - and if it's not the goal, then that probably means it's not an important part of the enjoyment for the target demographic. They are first trying to make money, not art.

But ignoring the greater population and mass produced crap, there are still those that could care less if an image is there or not. If I wanted the "it's so good it's like I'm there feeling", then I would just go down to the local venue and hear the real deal. "Recreation" is a hopeless cause - something that can only be emulated, never achieved (though some of these In-Ear recordings seem quite promising). Instead, I believe recordings should be viewed through the lense of "creation" - hearing new sounds that could otherwise never exist. It is but a different canvas on which to paint the masterpiece. I would argue however that the design considerations for both types of listening are completely identical...you want to recreate in the home what the recording engineer intended to be heard.

Mike,

Again, I think you may be concentrating on pop music. Yes, it is major portion of the market. But it is not the only portion.

I appreciate that you are busy with your studies, however, sometime when you have time to kill you might read some of the work by Ben Bauer. He was an engineer at CBS, and had a couple of papers back in the 60s or early 70s (probably in J Acoust Soc Amer) that dealt with "stereophony". This is a more precise view of what is typically termed, stereo. There are some neat consequences to his work. Although it is difficult to achieve in a perfect sense, the ingredients are there for a faithful reproduction.

A very prominent guy in the field was on sabatical in our lab back when I was a student. He concluded that what consumers were looking for (re: home stereo reproduction) was just a "bit of decorrelation" betwen the two speakers. Most folks will not sit between the speakers etc to get the full benefit & spatialization. Regarding home systems, my girlfriend probably thinks it is sufficient to hear enough of the signal so that you can recognize the song and sing along. It really is a pathetic situation ....

Good luck,

-Tom

[mas]

I dunno....seems to me the equations refer to reverberation as a function of wavelength [] So doesn't that put about the top 1/2 of the audible bandwidth back into the reverberation category? (wow, talk about off topic)

Yes, there is a HF component where a reverberant field exists (just as the higher the 'cutoff' frequency calculation results in a smaller minimum room volume). That is why a small acoustical space is referred to as a "semi-reverberant" space. But these frequencies and associated levels do not contribute to the intelligibility and the articulation of consonants and are VERY easily damped. In other words, they cease to be of appreciable concern.

(BTW, its nice to see some critical analysis going on! You certainly don't have to apologize for that!!)

[ben.]

Interesting splintering of a thread. We are good at it, no?

As to the issue of music "recreating an event", the ultimate measure of musical effectivenes and legitimacy as a recorded product is the connection with the listener. If there is a connection that the listener values and appreciates, then it deserves a place in this world. We may view it with derision when compared to what we value and feel connected to, but that doesn't illegimatize somone else's connection to it.

Compare it to painting, as Mike alluded to. Should I look away from a Rothko simply because it resembles nothing in the natural world? Was Picasso a fool for painting a flower that looked like a six year old with crayons drew it?

I value a well composed and technically correct photograph, but I also took my most interesting (to me, of course) photographs when my flash broke and all I had was ISO 50 and 100.

[colterphoto1]

On the aestetics of the Jubilee system, I noticed that every consumer purchase has opted for the huge top horn. There is a much smaller horn available that Roy demo'd in 2005. I don't know how specs compare but seems that this might be an answer for the home environment.

There appears to be holes around the flange of the horn. How difficult would it be to affix a fabric covered frame to it?

Michael