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

[colterphoto1]

"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

It's the 'dumbing down' of the population. Just as in digital photography, people see grainy or pixelated imaged and get used to it. Like the ipod, it's what the masses are willing to put up with horrible loss of quality for convenience. People bragging about their Ipods make me wanna hurl.

M

[jackpod]

A couple weekends ago, My wife's stepmother and her new husband came to visit. As we were showing them the house, we ended up in the theater/music room. The guy asked me if there was a way to plug his Ipod into my system because he wanted to hear something he had on it on my system. Thank god I had enough similar material to avoid what could have been a dreadful experience. Now here this guy is like 75 and he thinks the Ipod is the greatest thing in the world, just goes to show what marketing can do

[psg]

My turn!

I did this exact scenario before buying KHorns, putting my speakers where KHorns would go, toeing them in at 45 degres and sitting in the crosshairs. But these were La Scala. Did it work? It worked so well I could cry about all the waisted years of not getting the La Scala to image like that becaused I had been positioning them like regular cone speakers. On the other hand, I had never heard speakers disappear like that, so I wasn't even on a quest for it. It was my day of audio revelation.

BTW, I have often wondered if any horned speakers should be placed wide with large toe-in like Klipschorns, since it worked so well for the La Scala.

I dropped the KHorns in the same spots when I got them, 18 feet apart in a 32x11 room. One KHorn in a real corner, the second with a false corner 18 feet away. Seated in the crosshairs of the speakers (half their separation from the front wall) on the couch on the back wall. They completely disappeared. Pin-point imaging occurs on almost every instrument, except most times the piano which stays a bit diffused or bigger. But voices and string instruments image very precisely. You can almost see where the strings are getting plucked.

It's funny because some people who don't own KHorns on other forum argued with me about KHorn imaging, insisting it was impossible. The fact remains that the KHorns imaged for me like nothing I had ever heard.

I moved into a larger house last June. The basement isn't finished yet, so the HT area isn't walled in. At first, I had the KHorn into two real corners 17'8" apart. They imaged nearly as well as in my prior home, but this was a bare room. I was since swapped things around and they are 21 feet apart. They pull the disappearing act again without a problem. The instruments are farther away from me, so the imaging setting is not quite as intimate. I had to get used to it. But I can still get bass strings plucked right on front of me, except I can't "nearly touch them" anymore; they are a bit too far out of my reach.

Do I need a center speaker to fill? Never. Everybody that gets to sit in the sweet spot swears that the center is working and that I'm using some matrixing or 5.1 content. If anything, the soundstage is often too narrow: the KHorns are at 45 degrees on either side of me, but most of the instruments usually image between 25 degrees either way. The speakers are often completely disconnected from the music.

So here's a vote for fantastic imaging with KHorns!

[ben.]

A couple weekends ago, My wife's stepmother and her new husband came to visit. As we were showing them the house, we ended up in the theater/music room. The guy asked me if there was a way to plug his Ipod into my system because he wanted to hear something he had on it on my system. Thank god I had enough similar material to avoid what could have been a dreadful experience. Now here this guy is like 75 and he thinks the Ipod is the greatest thing in the world, just goes to show what marketing can do

At least the guy's excited about listening to music. These new devices require less effort for the average cosumer to develop an emotional connection. So the finer points of quality aren't there. So what? As long as high quality media is available for those of us that value it, I see it as a positive thing.

It could have been a dreadful experience. Or, he might have had something on there that you'd never heard before and your musical experience may have been enriched. It is about music, right?

[bodcaw boy]

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.

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.

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.

them thar is fighting words........the horn is not plastic by the way. it is a fiber glass resin that makes the horn be very stiff and light weight and not be cost prohibitive. the bass bin is made out of furniture grade, 7 ply plywood with a c3 birch veneer. cost reduced? don't know what you are talking about. what you get is what paul and i considered paul's best effort to get music back to realism....that's all....

these models of the jub were made for the cinema where performance does rule and none of the touchy feely "cosmetic" concerns were addressed. now the wood horn and fancy front panel on the lf, with a network on the jub that we thought was going to market was going to cost around $14000. you think that is pricey??

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.

you say that like's it's a negative....

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.

i got involved because the home jub didn't make it to market and i kept hearing, "why doesn't klipsch just make the jub, blah, blah". i wanted to show those interested that a jub, and in opinion even better than the home jub (i am a performance guy), was possible.

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.

i did offer a schematic for a passive. like alot of things in life, you gotta work for it and do that something extra to get to happen.

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.

neh, i ain't mad.... i just think you are misinformed.... that's all; no biggie.....[]

You won't go wrong buying Khorns or Jubilees.

boy!!

[mark1101]

Roy,

Thanks for stepping in and clearing the air. I was obviously way wrong about the materials the bass bins and horns are made out of. I wasn't misinformed, I just didn't remember correctly what I saw at Richard's. They had black paint on them, and I guess I can't tell fiberglass from plastic.

When I said cost reduced, I should have explained my opinion better. I was comparing to my opinion of the construction of the Khorns in my house. You obviously see things differently.

As a 25 year faithful Klipsch customer I love this stuff and spend a lot time and money on this hobby. It's only because of schedule conflicts that I haven't got to Indy or Hope. But I will.

I have to call an ace an ace. Once again the Jubilees I saw appeared to me to be a cost reduced product...but with better performance. In the business I'm in we do exactly the same thing. If you don't your toast. Build them to work better but cost less...increase the margin. It's life. It's the trademark of good engineering.

If I sat the top section of both speakers (K&J) on a table and asked customers which one they think costs more, I have no doubt which one they would pick. I feel the same about the bass bins.

No networks and the requirement for an outboard crossover....yes I think it is a negative. I say that as a customer. For the price you should be able to plug it in like a Khorn. It's great that this appeals to the tinkers out there (of which I am one). But overall it's a negative IMHO.

Why don't you take the networks out of the Khorn?[][]

The Jubilee models I saw should be priced less than a Khorn in my opinion. I can't fathom Klipsch putting a single piece of pretty wood on the front, and adding a nice wood horn and charging $14,000. That's too high...and not by a little. That's your customer telling you that by the way.

I thought your idea about putting a Khorn top on the Jubilee was a great idea, but that got shot down rather quickly. You should run that by marketing. I think it has merit, and makes sense. It's the one I'd probably buy. I'd rather see it without the giant theater horn and have it sound more like a Heritage speaker. They all have a common sound except the Jubilee. It doesn't sound like a Heritage speaker, and I would have liked that.

Well, sorry if I ruffled any feathers. Not my intention at all. I enjoy these discussions.

Richard, to you I want you to know that I still think you probably have the best home speakers I have ever heard, but they just aren't the best looking []. Please don't take any of my comments as me "taking a shot". I'm just being honest. I don't get pissed at you for saying negatives about your old Khorns. I love 'em most of the time, and I'll take your rejected junk anyday.[]

[bodcaw boy]

Roy,

Thanks for stepping in and clearing the air. I was obviously way wrong about the materials the bass bins and horns are made out of. I wasn't misinformed, I just didn't remember correctly what I saw at Richard's. They had black paint on them, and I guess I can't tell fiberglass from plastic.

When I said cost reduced, I should have explained my opinion better. I was comparing to my opinion of the construction of the Khorns in my house. You obviously see things differently.

As a 25 year faithful Klipsch customer I love this stuff and spend a lot time and money on this hobby. It's only because of schedule conflicts that I haven't got to Indy or Hope. But I will.

I have to call an ace an ace. Once again the Jubilees I saw appeared to me to be a cost reduced product...but with better performance. In the business I'm in we do exactly the same thing. If you don't your toast. Build them to work better but cost less...increase the margin. It's life. It's the trademark of good engineering.

If I sat the top section of both speakers (K&J) on a table and asked customers which one they think costs more, I have no doubt which one they would pick. I feel the same about the bass bins.

so using that logic, a 4 way speaker should cost more than a 3 way.......never mind the phase plug design, the diaphragm design and compression driver topology.....

No networks and the requirement for an outboard crossover....yes I think it is a negative. I say that as a customer. For the price you should be able to plug it in like a Khorn. It's great that this appeals to the tinkers out there (of which I am one). But overall it's a negative IMHO.

Why don't you take the networks out of the Khorn?[][]

you'd be surprised how a khorn sounds with an active crossover and delay......

The Jubilee models I saw should be priced less than a Khorn in my opinion. I can't fathom Klipsch putting a single piece of pretty wood on the front, and adding a nice wood horn and charging $14,000. That's too high...and not by a little. That's your customer telling you that by the way.

we had customers telling us that $14,000 was a little on the low side....

I thought your idea about putting a Khorn top on the Jubilee was a great idea, but that got shot down rather quickly. You should run that by marketing. I think it has merit, and makes sense. It's the one I'd probably buy. I'd rather see it without the giant theater horn and have it sound more like a Heritage speaker. They all have a common sound except the Jubilee. It doesn't sound like a Heritage speaker, and I would have liked that.

you know that both paul and i wanted to know what the "heritage sound" was? does it count that paul thought it sounded heritage plus?

Well, sorry if I ruffled any feathers. Not my intention at all. I enjoy these discussions.

no problem.....don't have any feathers.....but now scales i have plenty of...........

Richard, to you I want you to know that I still think you probably have the best home speakers I have ever heard, but they just aren't the best looking []. Please don't take any of my comments as me "taking a shot". I'm just being honest. I don't get pissed at you for saying negatives about your old Khorns. I love 'em most of the time, and I'll take your rejected junk anyday.[]

boy!!

[mark1101]

Roy,

Thanks for the responses.

About PWK thinking "Heritage Plus", that's a fine way of describing it.......and yes, that sure counts.

Interesting comment about both you and PWK wanting to know what the Heritage sound was (or is). Hard to put into words, but we all know that cult sound when we hear it. Nothing else like it really.

Thanks again.

[Painful Reality]

I'll second Kudret here.

If you don't have the right room, just forget about the khorns. And even if you have the right room, if image is important for you the khorns might not be your cup of tea. These definitively do not belong to the "impressive imaging" list of speakers.

[mikebse2a3]

I'll second Kudret here.

If you don't have the right room, just forget about the khorns. And even if you have the right room, if image is important for you the khorns might not be your cup of tea. These definitively do not belong to the "impressive imaging" list of speakers.

I guess we can debate this till the cows come home but when I read statements that the Khorn can't image then that tells me that they just haven't heard them in a really good setup/room for them. When the setup and room is correct for the Khorn the speakers simply disappear (as a sound source) and the Image has Width , Depth, and yes to some extent a Since of Height that can have a VERY Realistic LIFE SIZE REALITY to it that very few speakers can reproduce. The problem is Imaging is easily masked and unless you have a reasonably good size (room acoustically speaking) and attention to any acoustical treatments that might be needed in the room then KHorns (or any speaker for that matter) will not give you all that they are fully capable of. For proper Imaging to develope you (must delay and/or reduce the SPL Level of) the early reflections from the room so that they don't mask the the imaging cues of the sound you are trying to reproduce and also that there is good diffusion over as wide a frequency range as you can acheive for a given size room. For those that really want to understand what is needed to get the most realistic reproduction from their Systems/Speakers then I would refer you to Forum member MAS efforts in the Architectural Section of the Forum to bring awareness to what for most of us is a very real limitation (The most negelected and weakest link in most of our situations IMHO).

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/thread/796165.aspx

mike tn[]

SIMPLY PUT: IF YOU HAVEN"T HEARD THE REFLECTIONS OF THE SOUND SOURCES IN THE RECORDING OFF THE SIDE AND BACK WALLS OF A GOOD RECORDING THAT HAS CAPTURED ALL THIS (INFORMATION OF THE RECORDING VENUE AND PERFORMANCE) AND THERE ISN"T A GOOD SINCE OF LIFE SIZE PEOPLE AND INSTRUMENTS (WITH A VERY GOOD SINCE OF PLACEMENT IN BOTH THE LATERAL AND DEPTH DIMENSIONS) THEN YOU HAVEN"T HEARD ALL THAT THE KLIPSCHORN CAN DO.

[DrWho]

I would propose that the finicky nature of any speaker indicates a shortcoming in that area of its performance...

Of course that's not to say that shortcomings can't be addressed in

other parts of the signal chain. There are many speakers out there that

can image well in any situation, regardless of the room, speaker

position, source material, etc etc. There is some trait present there

that is lacking in speakers that require "special care".

Anyways, not trying to talk smack bout the khorn as I am very aware

that they can image well in the right circumstances. But it's definetly

not one of their strongest points.

[garyrc]

O.K., I've lived with Klipschorns in two different houses, and heard them in 5 other venues (repeatedly, for long periods), with room sizes ranging from tiny (9 x 12) to gargantuan. To me, the question becomes "Imaging from what seats, in what room?" I'll share my impressions of the image in these different rooms in a moment, but I should state that imaging is not particularly musically important to me, compared to what Holt called "triggering one's musical Gestalt," which involves bringing one the feeling of both the reality and the joy of live music, regardless of objective accuracy, with localization being not very important. For me, this feeling of realism and joy seems to involve a subjective purity of sound, and clean and powerful dynamics that are not contained in a "safe" and fully predictable envelope. With good recordings, Klipschorns are among the few speakers I've heard do that well, and in that crowd, they are among the least expensive,

Now, Imaging (no solo piano was used, but there were full orchestras in every audition, and jazz groups in most):

1) In a huge room (a store), about 60 feet wide, and much longer, with a very high ceiling (18 feet??) the Klipschorns were in the corners of the 60 foot wall, with quite a few other floor standing speakers between them. All were driven by a very large Crown amplifier. There was no center channel! The Klipschorns had the advantage of the widest spread, but also the most vulnerability to "hole in the middle," due to their great separation. Their imaging capability and reality/joy were jaw dropingly good, and made the other speakers sound more restricted, tame, and artificial. With a variety of music, their imaging was very precise from not only the center position, but several other chairs (5, I think), all about 30 feet from the speaker wall.

2) The opposite extreme: in a room 9 x 12 feet, with a high ceiling that sloped from about 8 to 14 feet, Khorns on the 12 foot wall, the imaging was great from the one "sweet seat" on the center line between the Khorns, with the chair about 1 foot from the Sonex covered rear wall (i.e., about 8 feet away from the speaker wall), BUT, the imaging was not good from the chairs on either side of the sweet chair. Strangely, from way to the side, the imaging was better than from the slightly to the side chairs.

3) In my current room, 17 x 24 feet, with a too low ceiling (a little less than 8 feet), with the Khorns along the 17 foot wall, the imaging is usually very good from the three center seats( about 11 feet away from the speaker wall), especially the dead center chair. Imaging quality seems to vary a lot more with the recording than in the other rooms. Sometimes a center channel (Belle Kilpsch, same drivers as Khorn) is used, sometimes not. With about 1 in 4 CDs, I turn the center channel off, because the illusion, including imaging, is better with just the Khorns, About 3 out of 4 times it is better with the center on. From extreme side seats (I try to avoid using these) the imaging suffers, unless these seats are farther from the speakers I'm hoping that when we get around to raising the ceiling, and using some diffusers and a few absorbers the imaging will improve.

4) With similar seating, In a room similar to the above in size (16 x 24, with a beamed ceiling 9 feet high to the beams, and about 6" higher between them), the imaging was phenomenally good, with fine gradations of stereo localization all along the speaker wall, from the center chairs. Never tried side chairs,

5) In three other rooms of unmeasured sizes, probably ranging from about 14 x 19 to 17 x 26, all with approx. 8 foot ceilings, all with the Khorns on the short wall, the imaging was adequate from seats near the center, and very good in the one sweat chair.

[Coytee]

Richard, to you I want you to know that I still think you probably have the best home speakers I have ever heard, but they just aren't the best looking []. Please don't take any of my comments as me "taking a shot". I'm just being honest. I don't get pissed at you for saying negatives about your old Khorns. I love 'em most of the time, and I'll take your rejected junk anyday.[]

Edit: forum lost everything I first said when I hit send.. I got that dreaded error

Anyway...

Mark: I've got no problems with any of your comments about the Jubilees...I still luv ya brother! []

That said, I DO think the Khorn would win any asthetic contests we might put them to, with our wifes. I gotta admit that I like the look of intimidation the Jubilee (and its HF horn) has.

I just got done poking fun at your comments here: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/3/805921/ShowThread.aspx

It was said in good humor so your comments to me, get reflected back to you... it was said in fun, don't misinterpret it.

[]

As for my rejected junk... does that mean you'll drive up & take my empty aluminum cans away? []

[mikebse2a3]

I would propose that the finicky nature of any speaker indicates a shortcoming in that area of its performance...

Of course that's not to say that shortcomings can't be addressed in other parts of the signal chain. There are many speakers out there that can image well in any situation, regardless of the room, speaker position, source material, etc etc. There is some trait present there that is lacking in speakers that require "special care".

HEY MIKE

I would like to know the name of these speakers you speak of (that can image in any situation) because in my 38 years in this hobby I've never heard a speaker that could ignore the room, recordings, or setup (in the room and listening position). I've never heard a speaker that could recreate a image when the recording doesn't contain the information needed to reproduce an image.

Mike I have to ask why is MAS trying to bring attention to the requirements that need to be met for us to properly reproduce sound in our rooms if there are speakers out there that can do what you said above and ignore the room, setup, recordings, and etc.........?

Sorry but I have to totaly disagree with your above statement Mike since sound reproduction with the methods we use today and the physoacoustic requirements of human hearing cannot be met with any speaker I'm aware of today without attention to the details that you say some speakers can ignore.

mike tn[]

[mikebse2a3]

O.K., I've lived with Klipschorns in two different houses, and heard them in 5 other venues (repeatedly, for long periods), with room sizes ranging from tiny (9 x 12) to gargantuan. To me, the question becomes "Imaging from what seats, in what room?" I'll share my impressions of the image in these different rooms in a moment, but I should state that imaging is not particularly musically important to me, compared to what Holt called "triggering one's musical Gestalt," which involves bringing one the feeling of both the reality and the joy of live music, regardless of objective accuracy, with localization being not very important. For me, this feeling of realism and joy seems to involve a subjective purity of sound, and clean and powerful dynamics that are not contained in a "safe" and fully predictable envelope. With good recordings, Klipschorns are among the few speakers I've heard do that well, and in that crowd, they are among the least expensive,

Now, Imaging (no solo piano was used, but there were full orchestras in every audition, and jazz groups in most):

1) In a huge room (a store), about 60 feet wide, and much longer, with a very high ceiling (18 feet??) the Klipschorns were in the corners of the 60 foot wall, with quite a few other floor standing speakers between them. All were driven by a very large Crown amplifier. There was no center channel! The Klipschorns had the advantage of the widest spread, but also the most vulnerability to "hole in the middle," due to their great separation. Their imaging capability and reality/joy were jaw dropingly good, and made the other speakers sound more restricted, tame, and artificial. With a variety of music, their imaging was very precise from not only the center position, but several other chairs (5, I think), all about 30 feet from the speaker wall.

2) The opposite extreme: in a room 9 x 12 feet, with a high ceiling that sloped from about 8 to 14 feet, Khorns on the 12 foot wall, the imaging was great from the one "sweet seat" on the center line between the Khorns, with the chair about 1 foot from the Sonex covered rear wall (i.e., about 8 feet away from the speaker wall), BUT, the imaging was not good from the chairs on either side of the sweet chair. Strangely, from way to the side, the imaging was better than from the slightly to the side chairs.

3) In my current room, 17 x 24 feet, with a too low ceiling (a little less than 8 feet), with the Khorns along the 17 foot wall, the imaging is usually very good from the three center seats( about 11 feet away from the speaker wall), especially the dead center chair. Imaging quality seems to vary a lot more with the recording than in the other rooms. Sometimes a center channel (Belle Kilpsch, same drivers as Khorn) is used, sometimes not. With about 1 in 4 CDs, I turn the center channel off, because the illusion, including imaging, is better with just the Khorns, About 3 out of 4 times it is better with the center on. From extreme side seats (I try to avoid using these) the imaging suffers, unless these seats are farther from the speakers I'm hoping that when we get around to raising the ceiling, and using some diffusers and a few absorbers the imaging will improve.

4) With similar seating, In a room similar to the above in size (16 x 24, with a beamed ceiling 9 feet high to the beams, and about 6" higher between them), the imaging was phenomenally good, with fine gradations of stereo localization all along the speaker wall, from the center chairs. Never tried side chairs,

5) In three other rooms of unmeasured sizes, probably ranging from about 14 x 19 to 17 x 26, all with approx. 8 foot ceilings, all with the Khorns on the short wall, the imaging was adequate from seats near the center, and very good in the one sweat chair.

Because of the way we hear sound and also the way most recordings are made and the method of using speakers to reproduce that sound there is only one optimum listening position and that is exactly equal distance from both the right/left speakers which means only a centrally located listener will hear the best imaging possible. As you move away from the central location the cues our hearing system needs to form an illusion of an image becomes corrupted and the image becomes distorted. So yes some setups/room can allow for a wider listening area there is still only one optimum listening position. PWK did extremely good research in the 1950's and 1960's on Stereophoney based on earlier research by Bell Labs and if anyone hasen't read these papers please do so since those works are the foundation on which the methods many of us use today are based on in our attempt of the reproduction of sound in our rooms.

mike tn[]

[Deang]

With 'imaging', there is side to side, front to back (depth of image), and 'separation of instruments'. I personally don't believe the latter has as much do with the room as it does with the speaker design. A small, well designed monitor or single driver excels at this -- and in my limited experience with horns -- they don't seem to do this very well.

I've been doing audio since the middle seventies, but all of my experience is pretty much limited to the confines of smaller rooms. So, keep that in mind when I say that the depth of image -- that front to back thing tends to collapse into two dimensions when the speakers are placed in corners or against the wall. The bass is fuller but the mids and highs just seem to hang about a foot in front the baffle. Of course, high SPL's overcome this, but listening like that can be pretty fatiquing after a couple of songs. When the speakers are pulled off the walls and turned in towards 'the chair' -- and this is a game of inches -- the image moves forward and will begin to extend past the edge boundaries of the cabinet. In my room at least, the Klipschorn behaves much the same way. Once in the false corners I was able to pull and turn them -- and there it is. No, they don't image like a good set of monitors, but they do other things that a good set of monitors can only dream of.

[mikebse2a3]

With 'imaging', there is side to side, front to back (depth of image), and 'separation of instruments'. I personally don't believe the latter has as much do with the room as it does with the speaker design. A small, well designed monitor or single driver excels at this -- and in my limited experience with horns -- they don't seem to do this very well.

Actually how most standard speakers and especially small monitors are used are they are placed well away from the walls which causes the much needed delay between the direct and reflected sound needed for imaging to develope properly. But in many of these situations it makes for small speaker spreads and miniture images. The use of Properly Designed Horn Systems and their controled directivity can be of a great benefit in giving us the Delay and Intensity Differences needed between the Direct and Reflected sound. I will never forget the experience of hearing the KHorn in proper corners in a room approximately 16' x 25' with 9'ceilings absolutely make the wall they were arranged on disappear and the creation of perception of the Room Boundaries of the Recording Venue developed with the proper placement of instruments and vocalist and the space between them lateraly and depth wise being clearly laid out.

I've been doing audio since the middle seventies, but all of my experience is pretty much limited to the confines of smaller rooms. So, keep that in mind when I say that the depth of image -- that front to back thing tends to collapse into two dimensions when the speakers are placed in corners or against the wall. The bass is fuller but the mids and highs just seem to hang about a foot in front the baffle. Of course, high SPL's overcome this, but listening like that can be pretty fatiquing after a couple of songs. When the speakers are pulled off the walls and turned in towards 'the chair' -- and this is a game of inches -- the image moves forward and will begin to extend past the edge boundaries of the cabinet. In my room at least, the Klipschorn behaves much the same way. Once in the false corners I was able to pull and turn them -- and there it is. No, they don't image like a good set of monitors, but they do other things that a good set of monitors can only dream of.

If anyone has the "Audio Papers" collection by PWK look at the Papers written on Stereophoney and Localization by W. B. Snow, PWK, and John Eargle that pertain to the principles of Stereophonic Sound. Imaging is so easily corrupted when either the recording method doesn't properly capture it and when the Room dimensions cause problems with the timing and intensity of reflections and are left untreated masking the imaging information we need to localize sound.

I would really like to see these papers and others by PWK available somewhere on this Web Site since they are the foundation on which we reproduce sound today!

mike tn[]

[tigerwoodKhorns]

My 2 cents.

Mike,

If Klipsch added $250 worth of nice wood to the Jubilee and a pretty wood horn, and charged $14,000 or more, along with releasing info about the technical benefits of wood horns, they would sell a lot more. I have B&W's but stay on this forum because it is technologically driven. The B&W forum is about what the dealer told them they should buy. Audiophiles what expensive. Think Rolex, pay more get less.

Imaging,

I had false corners and my K Horns imaged very well, completely disappeared, and they were placed like normal speakers. To give you an idea of just how well, my 60 year old mother in law, who thinks that Wal Mart caries audio equipemnt that is too expensive, heard my K Horns and said, "Wow, you can really hear the instruments."

I sold my Belles and heresys to a forum member and we were talking about how well they imaged too (no toe in, just regular placement).

[Painful Reality]

The problem is Imaging is easily masked and unless you have a reasonably good size (room acoustically speaking) and attention to any acoustical treatments that might be needed in the room then KHorns (or any speaker for that matter) will not give you all that they are fully capable of. For proper Imaging to develope you (must delay and/or reduce the SPL Level of) the early reflections from the room so that they don't mask the the imaging cues of the sound you are trying to reproduce and also that there is good diffusion over as wide a frequency range as you can acheive for a given size room.

You don't have to convince me about the room, the need for a good recording and so forth. I know.

Look at the question from every angle, the khorn placement even in the best of room will always be an handicap for "outstanding" imaging. Other good speakers, especially single point sources will have the advantage, especially for having that nearfield 3D "holographic" type of imaging.

[Kudret]

Other good speakers, especially single point sources will have the

advantage, especially for having that nearfield 3D "holographic" type

of imaging.

Jeff, That might be what I am looking for. I think I also know the solution but they are too expensive for me, unless you are planning to get rid of some heavy speakers before the move.[6]

Kudret