Just got my new 2007 Klipschorn AK5s

[jmslaw]

Well, I've just completed an entire day of listening to my new 2007 Walnut AK-5 Khorns and I am mightily impressed. Having owned the 2002 AK4s before these, I am very familiar with the modern Khorns, their strengths and limitations. I have owned MANY, MANY very high-end speakers over the years, most recently the Soundlab Majestics, Soundlab A-1s, Snell XA Reference, Thiel CS6, Magnepan Tympani 1d just to name a few. I have always come back to the Khorns, feeling they are the most dynamic speakers I have ever heard, and in the right set-up with the right equipment, they come very close to the good planars in the areas of detail and tonality. My AK-4s always seemed a little "boomy" in the bass compared to the best planars and lack the "air" on top, though the highs were definitley sweet and, despite the 15khz upper limit never seemed lacking in top-end extension.

The differences I discern between the AK4s and AK5s are subtle and may be a product of my new amps. I have moved to an all Mcintosh system ( MC275 mk.5 monoblocks, C2200 preamp, MVP861 SACD, VPI TNT mk.5, all connected with PAD Venustas cabling) and, therefore, I cannot make an absolute comparison, having never listened to these new amps with the AK4s. Still, I have listened to the AK4s with the above-listed equipment and the Mac 2102 in place of the new 275s. The AK5s are dealer demos, so I assume they are adequately broken-in. If I try to describe the differences in any particular frequency range, I'm not sure I could accurately discern much difference, save the bass, where I definitely feel that the "boominess" is less pronounced, though still noticeable. Again, I make these comparisons having recently owned $35,000 Soundlab speakers which had the tautest bass I have ever heard. With that frame of reference, the Khorns' bottom-end just doesn't hold as tightly, though I'm not exactly sure instruments in real life sound as tight, either. Give me a good recording of the 1812 Overture and I'll take the Khorns anyday over the big planars, which can't begin to approach the explosiveness of the mighty Khorns. I haven't gotten enough of a handle on the rest of the differences yet to make any meaningful comparisons, but I'm really enjoying my system. The fact that these $7500 speakers can compete with, and in some areas surpass speaker systems costing MUCH, MUCH more is very impressive. Certainly for large-scale symphonic works, the only speakers I have heard which can reproduce such scale as the Khorns are the large Genesis speakers.

I will report on my further impressions after I have had enough time to really appreciate these fine speakers. I would like to hear from any other owners of the newest version of the Khorns to hear their impressions, and, particularly, would be interested in hearing from any 60th Anniversary model owners.

Jeff

[LarryC]

Jeff,

I see you live in Maryland -- what dealer had these as demos? Do yours have the built-in false-corner backs? I'm not sure of the Mac models, did you move from SS to tube amps? I live in Bethesda, btw.

I'm glad to read your positive review, especially given the high-end equipment you've owned.

Larry

[oscarsear]

I owned 1986 Khorns and replaced them with 2004 Khorns using the AK-4. My impression of the AK-4 was that it was much too bright. The bass was clearly lacking compared to the earlier version. This impression was shared by all the members of my family who had experienced both sets of speakers. Eventually I replaced them with AlK's steep slope crossovers and they opened up in every respect. The bass returned with thunder, mids were smooth, clean and pure, the highs excelled. The entire speaker performance blossomed. Seems like we sit in different camps and that is actually understood. Not all people hear the same and the perception of bass resides at the core of that variation. If the AK-5 has less bass then it may be better for you but a serious disappointment for people like me.

[Marvel]

...Not all people hear the same and the perception of bass resides at the core of that variation. If the AK-5 has less bass then it may be better for you but a serious disappointment for people like me.

That is so true. I have LaScalas at home, and found I like the bass better on them that on the Cornwalls I heard in Indy this past summer. The Cornies seemed 'boomy' to me. Not as tight as the LS. I would perhaps like to try some Cornwalls in my own house, for a better comparison, though.

[DrWho]

I owned 1986 Khorns and replaced them with 2004 Khorns using the AK-4. My impression of the AK-4 was that it was much too bright. The bass was clearly lacking compared to the earlier version. This impression was shared by all the members of my family who had experienced both sets of speakers. Eventually I replaced them with AlK's steep slope crossovers and they opened up in every respect. The bass returned with thunder, mids were smooth, clean and pure, the highs excelled. The entire speaker performance blossomed. Seems like we sit in different camps and that is actually understood. Not all people hear the same and the perception of bass resides at the core of that variation. If the AK-5 has less bass then it may be better for you but a serious disappointment for people like me.

One of the biggest changes to the AK-4 crossover is EQ to take out one of the large peaks in the Khorn's response (I think it's like +6dB around 150Hz or something like that). If you didn't like the change, then I have to wonder if you don't have room induced dips in that frequency range. People that don't have dips in that range will probably perceive it as an improvement. And then some people might have room induced peaks in that frequency range and probably won't find the decrease to be enough.

I guess my point is that the room plays a HUGE role in the performance of the Khorn...probably because it uses the room itself to complete the flare of its bass horn. Sometimes I wonder if we don't blame our speakers when really the room is the culprit...

[DTLongo]

Congratulations! I too am in Maryland and if you're anywhere close to the Eastern Shore, maybe we can get together and compare notes (see system info below). You're far ahead of me in amplification and such. But Klipschorns are so darn sensitive in terms of room placement, amplifier-responsiveness and such it still could be interesting. Let me know. GaryMD, you too, if interested. Anyone else nearby too.

[Guest " "]

congrats...

I would like to hear some khorns with AK-5's in them.

I have a set of 60's, but I am told by someone in the know, they have split AK-4's.

I tried some ALK ES's on a pair of 1985 Khorns and found them to have a more weight on the bottom end.

[oscarsear]

I owned 1986 Khorns and replaced them with 2004 Khorns using the AK-4. My impression of the AK-4 was that it was much too bright. The bass was clearly lacking compared to the earlier version. This impression was shared by all the members of my family who had experienced both sets of speakers. Eventually I replaced them with AlK's steep slope crossovers and they opened up in every respect. The bass returned with thunder, mids were smooth, clean and pure, the highs excelled. The entire speaker performance blossomed. Seems like we sit in different camps and that is actually understood. Not all people hear the same and the perception of bass resides at the core of that variation. If the AK-5 has less bass then it may be better for you but a serious disappointment for people like me.

 

One of the biggest changes to the AK-4 crossover is EQ to take out one of the large peaks in the Khorn's response (I think it's like +6dB around 150Hz or something like that). If you didn't like the change, then I have to wonder if you don't have room induced dips in that frequency range. People that don't have dips in that range will probably perceive it as an improvement. And then some people might have room induced peaks in that frequency range and probably won't find the decrease to be enough.

I guess my point is that the room plays a HUGE role in the performance of the Khorn...probably because it uses the room itself to complete the flare of its bass horn. Sometimes I wonder if we don't blame our speakers when really the room is the culprit...

I ran my 86 Khorns in several residences that had very different room configurations each using the same amplifier complement. They never lacked punchy solid and tight bass. The rooms varied from 8 foot ceilings to 25 foot ceilings. My 2004 Khorns are in ideal corners ,15 feet apart with 9 foot ceilings and using the same driver complement sounded bass anemic. When I installed Als crossover design I ran them side by side, one unit with an AK-4, the other with the steep slope. The difference in bass was very discernible. The AK-4 is fast but is lacking any depth. The steep slope bass is quick and deeply palpable without sounding overwhelming, something to savor like good chocolate slowly melting in your mouth. It is an excellent match for the Khorn design and probably not everyones liking.

[joessportster]

hey jeff

so ii take it you are still liking the tnt 5 HR, thats good to hear what about the lyra are you using it or did you go another route..............is this a second system you are setting up or did you do a 180 and ace those monster conrads and snell (if i recall correctly) the laurels are still kicking at another members house, i am now using welborne drd 45's now....................if you still have the tnt 3 for sale i may know someone interested let me know

later Joe

[Audio Flynn]

Well, I've just completed an entire day of listening to my new 2007 Walnut AK-5 Khorns and I am mightily impressed. Having owned the 2002 AK4s before these, I am very familiar with the modern Khorns, their strengths and limitations. I have owned MANY, MANY very high-end speakers over the years, most recently the Soundlab Majestics, Soundlab A-1s, Snell XA Reference, Thiel CS6, Magnepan Tympani 1d just to name a few. I have always come back to the Khorns, feeling they are the most dynamic speakers I have ever heard, and in the right set-up with the right equipment, they come very close to the good planars in the areas of detail and tonality. My AK-4s always seemed a little "boomy" in the bass compared to the best planars and lack the "air" on top, though the highs were definitley sweet and, despite the 15khz upper limit never seemed lacking in top-end extension.

The differences I discern between the AK4s and AK5s are subtle and may be a product of my new amps. I have moved to an all Mcintosh system ( MC275 mk.5 monoblocks, C2200 preamp, MVP861 SACD, VPI TNT mk.5, all connected with PAD Venustas cabling) and, therefore, I cannot make an absolute comparison, having never listened to these new amps with the AK4s. Still, I have listened to the AK4s with the above-listed equipment and the Mac 2102 in place of the new 275s. The AK5s are dealer demos, so I assume they are adequately broken-in. If I try to describe the differences in any particular frequency range, I'm not sure I could accurately discern much difference, save the bass, where I definitely feel that the "boominess" is less pronounced, though still noticeable. Again, I make these comparisons having recently owned $35,000 Soundlab speakers which had the tautest bass I have ever heard. With that frame of reference, the Khorns' bottom-end just doesn't hold as tightly, though I'm not exactly sure instruments in real life sound as tight, either. Give me a good recording of the 1812 Overture and I'll take the Khorns anyday over the big planars, which can't begin to approach the explosiveness of the mighty Khorns. I haven't gotten enough of a handle on the rest of the differences yet to make any meaningful comparisons, but I'm really enjoying my system. The fact that these $7500 speakers can compete with, and in some areas surpass speaker systems costing MUCH, MUCH more is very impressive. Certainly for large-scale symphonic works, the only speakers I have heard which can reproduce such scale as the Khorns are the large Genesis speakers.

I will report on my further impressions after I have had enough time to really appreciate these fine speakers. I would like to hear from any other owners of the newest version of the Khorns to hear their impressions, and, particularly, would be interested in hearing from any 60th Anniversary model owners.

Jeff

Super review in brief!

I have pondered the taughtness of bass in comparing my Belles to my Chorus IIs. No easy answer. Other than organ and electronic generated low bass; many low bass instruments have wood involved which to me has a little "give" in it.

Look forward to hearing more.

Rick

[Guest " "]

"particularly, would be interested in hearing from any 60th Anniversary model owners. "

I'm very happy with my 60's. Went thru the whole upgrade gig on Khorns, (es networks, universals, metal diaphragm drivers, 511 horns, various woofer scheme's) . Also had 2004 LaScalas, 1976 LaScala's with AA, 1976 LaScala that were upgraded to Pro versions, as well as some mid 80's that were upgraded to Al-3, a few pairs og home made cornwalls and a few pairs of Heresy's,

The 60's have splt AK-4 xovers with the mid and tweeter section upstairs and the woofer section down stairs in the woofer dog house. The caps in the 60's xovers are at least one step up from the caps used on AK-4 single piece xovers. K-77-D tweet's and regular k-55-V single pase plug.

I've run them on SS amps, Mcintosh tube amps, no name tube amps, and get great results across the board.

Sound wise they sound more natural than the 1985 khorns I had reguardless of the xovers I put in them. I get a full sound stage across the whole music spectrum. I re-listened to hundreds of music tracks and the sound of the speakers are good enough that you just want to leave them alone.

I run them most of the time when I watch movies. The detail is enough that I rarely turn on the 7.1 HT system.

[SilverSport]

I really enjoy my AK-4 networked, Tweetered and Mid Horned Klipschorns...plenty of bass but I power mine with VRDs...very nice for me...

Bill

[jmslaw]

Very interesting to hear about others' experiences with the newer Khorns. Fritz: I considered the 60th Anniv. version, but I was concerned about the closed back. The venerable design of the original is what sold me on them in the first place. I can understand those without good corners might really appreciate the closed backs, but I have devoted corners and was concerned that they might not "couple" to the room as well. Do you feel they energize the room as well as the original design? Do you still put your's in the corners? I also think Klipsch missed the boat on styling. While I think the lacewood is beautiful, I think the top section should have also been lacewood to match the entire speaker. The two-tone approach doesn't appeal to me. Better yet, Klipsch should have offered the 60th in a rich heirloom finish like mahogany or brazilian rosewood. Taking a regular pair of Khorns, upgrading the wiring and crossover components and clothing them in a premium finish would have been the perfect Anniversary version. Oh well, at least they look better than the 50th Anniv. versions.

Joe: NO, this is my main system. I still have the CJ Premier 8xs amps, but, frankly, the Mac 275s sound even better. Yes, I still have the TNT mk.3 and would sell to a local buyer only. I'm using the Grado reference now, as I prefer the higher output.

Regards.

Jeff

[joessportster]

jeff shoot me an email at joespride02@yahoo.com or call at 240-925-4156..with the selling info price etc... and what all is included in the price of the table, serious about a possiable purchase

Joe

[Guest " "]

" Do you feel they energize the room as well as the
original design?"

I had a pair of mint 1985's immediately before with a overlap of a few weeks....the closed back version sounded better to me than the traditional version.

"Do you still put your's in the corners?"

They are in the corners. Room would be considered small from what I have seen on this forum. 18 X 14. The 60's are on the long wall. 10 inch thich cement walls, cement floors, etc.

"I also think
Klipsch missed the boat on styling. While I think the lacewood is
beautiful, I think the top section should have also been lacewood to
match the entire speaker. The two-tone approach doesn't appeal to me.
Better yet, Klipsch should have offered the 60th in a rich heirloom
finish like mahogany or brazilian rosewood. Taking a regular pair of
Khorns, upgrading the wiring and crossover components and clothing them
in a premium finish would have been the perfect Anniversary version. Oh
well, at least they look better than the 50th Anniv. versions."

Ok, sure, any of the above would have some appeal to some customers. I personally like the look of the 50's.

[IndyKlipschFan]

I am very happy with my closed backs....