Equalization For Corner Horns ?

[ka7niq]

Just wondered what your experience has been using a bit of EQ on corner horns ?

Back in the early 80's, I went out to dinner in Seattle with Mark Levinson.

Mark was in town with his master tape machine at a local dealer friends store.

We all went out to the Space needle in Seattle for dinner.

I asked Mark what commercial speaker in his opinion was the ultimate.

To my suprise,, he told me Klipschorns!

He said they needed to be equalized, and the tweeter eedd to come out and be turned vertical so they image better.

I have corner horns, and I have a 5 band Parametric stereo EQ, a pro unit.

My horns sound pretty fair, but maybe with a little EQ they can sound better ?

I also have a 50 lb JVC Receiver with a 3 band digital parametric built in I could try.

[JJkizak]

I use tons of equalization (as all Klipsch purists regurgitate). +6 db at 30 HZ, -4 db at 240 and 480 HZ, flat out to 20Khz (I can only hear to 12.5 khz)with expander/compander and separate 2 channel receiver for the K-horns slaved to primary 7.1 receiver that feeds the sub, center, and side and rear speakers and set to +6 db bass output, treble +10 db and "PLII-C" . Everything balanced at around 15 on the volume dial for about 95 to 100 spl. With an accurate test frequency response cd the sub and the Khorns match up well from 60 down to 19hz. with the spl meter at 15 volume. If you don't like overwhelming bass and treble these settings are not for you. But it "will" knock your audio socks off.

JJK

[Daddy Dee]

Great story on ML.

On the k77, the manufacturer recommends a vertical orientation. As far as I know, it was only in one configuration of CW's that PWK used this.

As far as EQ that is a completely subjective thing, IMO. Trust your own ears on that one. If it sounds better to you, that's enough authority.

If you want to try out some tweaked sound, I'd suggest to swap the K 77 for a CT 125 and see if you like the sound. Much more realistic, to my ears.

What is your crossover and Khorn year?

If they are vintage and haven't had caps refreshed, it is quite possible you are hearing them drifted off spec.

[ka7niq]

Great story on ML.

On the k77, the manufacturer recommends a vertical orientation. As far as I know, it was only in one configuration of CW's that PWK used this.

As far as EQ that is a completely subjective thing, IMO. Trust your own ears on that one. If it sounds better to you, that's enough authority.

If you want to try out some tweaked sound, I'd suggest to swap the K 77 for a CT 125 and see if you like the sound. Much more realistic, to my ears.

What is your crossover and Khorn year?

If they are vintage and haven't had caps refreshed, it is quite possible you are hearing them drifted off spec.

I sold me Klipschorns over a year ago.

I have Speaker Lab Clones.

They are called SpeakerLab SK's.

The tweeter was told to me to be an EV T 350 or SpeakerLabs version of same

It is vertically oriented.

My crossover has L Pads on both the midrange and tweeters to control their levels.

I think they need to be cleaned, the speakers are quite old.

I went to radio shack and bought new caps.

I used a Mylar on the tweeter, and Non Polar Elctrolytic on midrange.

I had to parallel a few caps to get the value I wanted.

I do plan on buying better caps, this was all Radio Shak had, and the "Spirit" moved me.

I bought this cool 5 band pro EQ, it is called a Tascam.

It is a Parametric EQ with adjustable width, notch, and frequency.

It is most unusual for a Pro Piece of gear in that it has all RCA Jacks instead of balanced connectors.

Kinda make it more user friendly for a guy like me w/o a balanced system.

I don't really know the right way to EQ.

I remember Soundcraftsmen once had a EQ Record.

Think maybe I will trust my ears, since I don't have caliobration stuff.

I do have a pink noise CD ....

[PrestonTom]

I use tons of equalization (as all Klipsch purists regurgitate). +6 db at 30 HZ, -4 db at 240 and 480 HZ, flat out to 20Khz (I can only hear to 12.5 khz)with expander/compander and separate 2 channel receiver for the K-horns slaved to primary 7.1 receiver that feeds the sub, center, and side and rear speakers and set to +6 db bass output, treble +10 db and "PLII-C" . Everything balanced at around 15 on the volume dial for about 95 to 100 spl. With an accurate test frequency response cd the sub and the Khorns match up well from 60 down to 19hz. with the spl meter at 15 volume. If you don't like overwhelming bass and treble these settings are not for you. But it "will" knock your audio socks off.

JJK

JJK, I think equalizers can have a positive impact and it sounds like this did some good things for you. I just wanted to make a few comments before others go out and try this.

1. F. Toole makes a convincing argument that much of the output that we hear below about 400Hz is a strongly dominated by room acoustics.

2. We can debate about whether "bad rooms" and "bad speakers" should be modified by using EQ. However, the debate usually gets dominated by a confusion of what is meant by a minimum phase system (and whether this is a relevant distinction). Unfortunately, the confusion does not lead to education. Rather the confusion remains but the self-assuradancness of the arguing increases.

3. EQ is probably best used to gingerly knock down peaks especially at the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths).

4. The additional problem with boosting the low frequencies (regardless of whether it is appropriate or not) is that this can put a big strain on your amplifier. If the amp is just adequate (free from excessive clipping) at 10 watts in a certain frequency band, what happens when the EQ demands an increase of 10dB. Well, that means you need to go from your 10 watt amp to a 100 watt amp (10 dB more power). One really needs to understand the power requirements involved. Since many around here are heavily invested in smallish amps, this could introduce some real headaches.

5. If the EQ has an expansion circuit (many of the electronics ones wil have this, i.e., DBX, Behringer etc), this is a very intriguing idea. It would be a great deal of fun to undo some of the damage done when engineers compress recordings (so you can hear them on your IPOD).

6. The real problem with EQ is that it needs to have resolution better than the usual 1/3 octave, this means lots of knobs & dials. The real problem with lots of knobs and dials is that you will go crazy adjusting this & that for the next several months. If you have a microphone and RTA (or something), the craziness will slightly decrease. If you are doing this "by ear", then good luck since you will probably be running in circles for next several months.

I am not being entirely pessimistic, since some real benefits can be gained. It depends on what problems you are trying to solve. For those of you who like a "warm sound" (or a less "forward sound" etc), you would be surprsied by what a change that a couple of dB, in a couple of bands, can do. I am not referring to accuracy, rather I am referring to a "customized" sound.

Good Luck,

-Tom

[ka7niq]

Thanks Tom for a well thought out post!

Audio contiunues to be a learning experience for me.

I guess I will have to learn how to EQ ?

Mark Levinson literally shocked the bowels out of me when he recommended Eq'd Khorns.

Of course, at that time he still owned Levinson, but he told me of a prototype EQ he wanted to make.

That EQ later was introduced as the Cello Audio Pallette!

I guess it is the Great Mother Of All Equalizers ?

better be for 20 grand ?

So, you think I ned some measuring tools ?

Maybe a RTA ?

I know the "audiophile" arguments against EQ, but I spoke to Floyd Toole once before he retitred from Infinity.

He told me in a perfect world we would not need what he called "Tone correction".

Julian Hirsch, a fellow ham, told me the same thing when he was alive.

Both felt that frequency response was the most important thing.

I have tried the straight wire with gain approach, now I just want to keep an open mind, and try another way.

[PrestonTom]

Actually, I would simply do an experiment with a Behringer DEQ2496. They only cost about $250 new and will sound best if you do NOT introduce additional DAC & ADC conversions.

Re: the Floyd Toole advice. Have a look at his white papers posted on the Harman website his approach is a bit different now.

Re: using RTA (or something). This would require disentangling speaker problems from room problems. This is not easily done with RTA. However, many folks like to customize the sound (not necessarily make it more accurate) and make it "warmer" or more "detailed" or more whatever. In which case, simply messing around with modest increments & decrements in one or a few bands would be sufficient. But let me warn you that the messing around will never cease, since there will not be a clearly defined objective other than "different is better" (or at least for the time being).

Good Luck,

-Tom

[Islander]

So, you think I ned some measuring tools ?

Maybe a RTA ?

Try starting with your pink noise CD and a Radio Shack SPL meter (and a notepad). At least you'll get some consistent readings and settings. It would be hard to do that by ear.

[sean5340]

I know they are not corner horns but my Lascalas sound excellent with +4db 65hz and -4db 1khz everything else flat. The display doesn't work anymore and I can adjust from my listening position. Just kept tweaking for hours (Maybe more than hours!) until it sounded perfect for me. I'm happy with the EQ.

[michael hurd]

Trying to EQ with an SPL meter and test tones is a stab in the dark. Move the meter a foot and repeat the tests. ( don't forget to compensate for the rolloff of the meter at low frequencies ! ) Move the meter another foot, repeat tests..... you will wear out the sliders on an EQ way before you get it EQ'd.

Tune the room, trying to ask an amplifier to produce 10 db more power at a certain frequency is sure to produce clipping, not to mention phase shifting. ( analog EQ ) If you eq heavily with an analog eq near the crossover point, you may have one driver way out of phase with another. This is certain to bring about different sounds of it's own.

[ka7niq]

I have a Parametric EQ, but I had better luck with a cheap Kenwood Graphic.

In my room I have a tubby sound on a few male voices.

I also have a JVC Reciever with a built in digital EQ you can operate by remote control.

It does it in digital domain, might be better ?

I unhooked the Corner horns, back to my dynamic speakers, miss em already!

Also have an older Pioneer receiver with remote control bass and treble.

Plus, it has tone bypass.

Maybe simply backing the bass off a bit will help on those few recordinngs ?

Most of the time the SpeakerLab SK's are awesome, nothing can touch them on most Rock.

[DrWho]

Most of the time the SpeakerLab SK's are awesome, nothing can touch them on most Rock.

Ah, that might be the problem...

I absolutely love rock, but one of the greatest annoyances is the quality of the recordings. If you've got a system that's setup to make rock sound awesome, then I can see why other things might sound a bit bass heavy. Basically, just about all rock is slightly rolled off in the low-end (though I hate to make such generalizations because there are always exceptions).

Didn't you mention at one time that you have variable L-pads on the squawker/tweeter?

I almost wonder if it wouldn't be worth your time to invest in some inexpensive time-domain measuring equipment. It sounds like there might be a lot going on that would be very easy to surgically remedy once the exact problems are known.