[Karl Uppiano]

I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

[Randy Yates]

"Karl Uppiano" writes:

I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

I haven't heard anything recently that makes me want to part with
mine, but I don't audition the new stuff too often these days, and
of course I'm biased.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Greg Berchin]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:06:17 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

Ask your question on the Klipsch forum:

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/default.aspx

They'll give you an unbiased answer.

Greg

[Trevor Wilson]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

**Back in 1973, I heard my first pair of K-Horns up close and personal. They
were very impressive beasties. About a year later I applied for a job at the
company who imported K-Horns into Australia. I was ushered into a listening,
whilst I waited for the boss to see me. I was encouraged to paly some music
while I waited. Given that the distributor was also the distributor for
Marantz, I couldn't resist the opportunity to play with equipment which was
the stuff of dreams. Real, 1974 high end equipment. I noted the mighty
Klipschorns serenely and imposingly residing in the corners of the room. I
put an LP on and advanced the volume, just to the point where the surface
noise was just audible (as you did in the vinyl days). Well. The room
exploded! A frantic rush to the volume control and a few seconds later a
salesguy popped his head into the room and said: "I see you've discovered
the dbx LPs." Sheesh! Who knew that vinyl could provide 100+db dynamic
range. A perfect match for the K-Horns. I settled in for the first of many,
many listens to the speakers. Very, very impressive.

Recently, I had the opportunity to upgrade a client's K-Horns with new
(Klipsch) drivers and new crossovers. I took the time to listen to the
speakers at length. Whilst the K-Horns still provide some tangible
advantages of many regular speakers, time has not treated them kindly. IMO,
they aren't worth the effort. High power amplification, better high
temperature materials and more intelligent design of regular speakers mean
the Klipsch is a design which is now irrelevant.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Randy Yates]

"Trevor Wilson" writes:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

**Back in 1973, I heard my first pair of K-Horns up close and personal. They
were very impressive beasties. About a year later I applied for a job at the
company who imported K-Horns into Australia. I was ushered into a listening,
whilst I waited for the boss to see me. I was encouraged to paly some music
while I waited. Given that the distributor was also the distributor for
Marantz, I couldn't resist the opportunity to play with equipment which was
the stuff of dreams. Real, 1974 high end equipment. I noted the mighty
Klipschorns serenely and imposingly residing in the corners of the room. I
put an LP on and advanced the volume, just to the point where the surface
noise was just audible (as you did in the vinyl days). Well. The room
exploded! A frantic rush to the volume control and a few seconds later a
salesguy popped his head into the room and said: "I see you've discovered
the dbx LPs." Sheesh! Who knew that vinyl could provide 100+db dynamic
range. A perfect match for the K-Horns. I settled in for the first of many,
many listens to the speakers. Very, very impressive.

Recently, I had the opportunity to upgrade a client's K-Horns with new
(Klipsch) drivers and new crossovers. I took the time to listen to the
speakers at length. Whilst the K-Horns still provide some tangible
advantages of many regular speakers, time has not treated them kindly. IMO,
they aren't worth the effort. High power amplification, better high
temperature materials and more intelligent design of regular speakers mean
the Klipsch is a design which is now irrelevant.

You allude to high-power amplification. Compute (or measure) how much
power would be required to play at 113 dB SPL (unweighted) at the
listening position with a pair of typical, 87-dB-efficient speakers.

I find 110 to 115 dB about the sweet spot for me when I give a classic rock
album or two a good listen.

Assuming 3 dB gain for two channels and 3 dB room gain, the computation
states we need 20 dB over 1 watt, or 100 watts. OK, so that's not bad,
right? There are lots of 100-watt amps around, right?

Yep, sure are. But that was 100 watts *average*. What happens when
a tom-tom roll or bass resonance jumps up 6 dB over? Now we're up
to 400 watts. I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

There's also the issue of dynamic compression in speakers of this
low efficiency.

So, *if* you like to listen fairly loud, then I think the Klipshorns
are still relevent. If you don't, I agree there are other speakers
that would serve you, and probably sound better overall.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Eeyore]

Karl Uppiano wrote:

I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago

No.

when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

Yes.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

Graham

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Randy Yates]

Randy Yates writes:

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

And BTW, I forgot to account for path loss, so add at least
3 to 6 dB more power, i.e., we're now in the 800 to 1600
watt/channel range.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Trevor Wilson]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" writes:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

**Back in 1973, I heard my first pair of K-Horns up close and personal.
They
were very impressive beasties. About a year later I applied for a job at
the
company who imported K-Horns into Australia. I was ushered into a
listening,
whilst I waited for the boss to see me. I was encouraged to paly some
music
while I waited. Given that the distributor was also the distributor for
Marantz, I couldn't resist the opportunity to play with equipment which
was
the stuff of dreams. Real, 1974 high end equipment. I noted the mighty
Klipschorns serenely and imposingly residing in the corners of the room.
I
put an LP on and advanced the volume, just to the point where the surface
noise was just audible (as you did in the vinyl days). Well. The room
exploded! A frantic rush to the volume control and a few seconds later a
salesguy popped his head into the room and said: "I see you've discovered
the dbx LPs." Sheesh! Who knew that vinyl could provide 100+db dynamic
range. A perfect match for the K-Horns. I settled in for the first of
many,
many listens to the speakers. Very, very impressive.

Recently, I had the opportunity to upgrade a client's K-Horns with new
(Klipsch) drivers and new crossovers. I took the time to listen to the
speakers at length. Whilst the K-Horns still provide some tangible
advantages of many regular speakers, time has not treated them kindly.
IMO,
they aren't worth the effort. High power amplification, better high
temperature materials and more intelligent design of regular speakers
mean
the Klipsch is a design which is now irrelevant.

You allude to high-power amplification. Compute (or measure) how much
power would be required to play at 113 dB SPL (unweighted) at the
listening position with a pair of typical, 87-dB-efficient speakers.

**Irrelevant. I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor is
anyone I know that stupid. Further and for the record: It is easy enough to
find speakers which provide mid-90s efficiency figures, without requiring
horn loading. In fact, as I recall, the old (ca: 1982) Electro-voice
Interface D specc'd out at in excess of 96dB/Watt/M with and easy 8 Ohm
load, an excellent frequency response and low distortion. I expect (in fact,
I know) that modern speakers can exceed those numbers, without using horn
loading. I have a ribbon driver in my living room right now, which provides
around 98dB/2.83V/M from 400Hz to 20kHz. No horn loading.

Then there's Klipsch's own, venerable product - the Forte and Forte II.
99dB/W/M from a standard bass reflex (passive radiator) enclosure. Mids and
HF were horns, but the bass was not. MUCH better sounding and measuring than
the K-Horn.


I find 110 to 115 dB about the sweet spot for me when I give a classic
rock
album or two a good listen.

**Your deafness could be a problem.


Assuming 3 dB gain for two channels and 3 dB room gain, the computation
states we need 20 dB over 1 watt, or 100 watts. OK, so that's not bad,
right? There are lots of 100-watt amps around, right?

Yep, sure are. But that was 100 watts *average*. What happens when
a tom-tom roll or bass resonance jumps up 6 dB over? Now we're up
to 400 watts. I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

**Yeah, I do.


There's also the issue of dynamic compression in speakers of this
low efficiency.

**Indeed. If you were aware of post 1970s technology in loudspeakers, you
would be aware that your original premise was wrong to start with.
Additionally, listening at 113dB is slightly unrealistic for those who wish
to retain their hearing intact. In the case of dynamic compression, there
are several solutions for low efficiency speakers. Electrostatics, for one.
Ferro-fluid cooling for another. I suggest you find some NEAR 10M-II
speakers and listen. Far a moderate efficiency speaker (ca; 90dB/W/M) they
demonstrate remakably low levels of compression. Less, in fact than any
Klipsch.


So, *if* you like to listen fairly loud, then I think the Klipshorns
are still relevent. If you don't, I agree there are other speakers
that would serve you, and probably sound better overall.

**Wrong. There are other choices. There have been for some time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Randy Yates writes:

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

And BTW, I forgot to account for path loss, so add at least
3 to 6 dB more power, i.e., we're now in the 800 to 1600
watt/channel range.

What 'path loss' ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_e...r_endstufe.htm

Graham

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

Randy Yates writes:

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

And BTW, I forgot to account for path loss, so add at least
3 to 6 dB more power, i.e., we're now in the 800 to 1600
watt/channel range.

What 'path loss' ?

Usually efficiency is specified at 1 meter. So, unless you're
listening 1 meter away from your speakers, there's going to be path
loss. I think it goes as 3 dB every doubling of the distance in the
near-field and 6 dB in the far-field.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Randy Yates]

"Trevor Wilson" writes:
[...]
**Irrelevant. I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor is
anyone I know that stupid.

I think you're a liar. Take a level check in just about any
automobile, even with the crappy factory-installed systems, while
playing the radio or CD at moderate volume, especially when you're
traveling down the road at 60 MPH. My bet is it's well over 100 dB
SPL (unweighted). And you don't know anyone who does this?

Have you ever been to a club? Do have any idea what a live band, even
something like jazz, can get up to? How about a symphony orchestra with
contra basses and tympany at fortissimo?

And we haven't even gotten to a rock concert (even a relatively tame
one) yet.

How about home theater? Care to discuss the levels of certain scenes
in certain movies?

So unless you want to listen to your home system at the geriatric levels
afforded by many speaker systems of today, you might want something a
little more efficient.
--
% Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_e...r_endstufe.htm

Fair enough. So if you buy one of these and want to play at
the levels discussed, you'd be coming damn close to clipping.
Actually, past clipping if you take into account path loss.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:
Randy Yates writes:
Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

And BTW, I forgot to account for path loss, so add at least
3 to 6 dB more power, i.e., we're now in the 800 to 1600
watt/channel range.

What 'path loss' ?

Usually efficiency is specified at 1 meter. So, unless you're
listening 1 meter away from your speakers, there's going to be path
loss. I think it goes as 3 dB every doubling of the distance in the
near-field and 6 dB in the far-field.

So ?

You don't think it applies to Klipsch's too ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:
Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_e...r_endstufe.htm

Fair enough. So if you buy one of these and want to play at
the levels discussed, you'd be coming damn close to clipping.

So ?


Actually, past clipping if you take into account path loss.

Don't be so effing retarded !

I suggest you try listening to 1kW in an average size room even with lowish
efficiency speakers.

And get over this idiotic 'path loss' fixation you seem to have.

An SPL of ~ 110dB is really quite loud indeed. Certainly plenty loud enough to annoy
most neighbours and loud enough to give you temporary threshold shift too.

I have once briefly ( ~ 15 secs ) been exposed to SPLs in the near 130dB region ( it
was an 'experiment' ) and my skin went blotchy ! You really don't need to listen
that loud. honestly although it's mightily impressive.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

There's also the issue of dynamic compression in speakers of this
low efficiency.

Most dynamic compression is due to voice coil temperature rise.

It can be minimised by the use of larger voice coils. It's not explicitly
connected to efficiency.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" writes:

**Irrelevant. I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor is
anyone I know that stupid.

I think you're a liar. Take a level check in just about any
automobile, even with the crappy factory-installed systems, while
playing the radio or CD at moderate volume, especially when you're
traveling down the road at 60 MPH. My bet is it's well over 100 dB
SPL (unweighted). And you don't know anyone who does this?

Really ? Do you have an SPL meter ? I do. I'll check this out.


Have you ever been to a club?

Regularly.


Do have any idea what a live band, even something like jazz, can get up to?

Oh yes ! If it's left to me though I avoid anything much over 110dB peaks at the
mix position.


How about a symphony orchestra with
contra basses and tympany at fortissimo?

Not as loud as above where the audience sit. It's the musicians themselves who
are exposed to the loudest sound.


And we haven't even gotten to a rock concert (even a relatively tame
one) yet.

I have. 110dB in most of the auditorium is really silly and few sound engineers
I know are that silly. It does happen sometimes but it's usually painful to
listen to and I'll retreat to a safe distance.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" writes:
[...]
**Irrelevant. I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor
is
anyone I know that stupid.

I think you're a liar.

**That would be your prerogative.

Take a level check in just about any
automobile, even with the crappy factory-installed systems, while
playing the radio or CD at moderate volume, especially when you're
traveling down the road at 60 MPH. My bet is it's well over 100 dB
SPL (unweighted).

**OK. I'll do that tomorrow. I'll let you know what I find. BTW: MY car
stereo is not the factory fitted one.

And you don't know anyone who does this?

**Hang on a sec: I'll repeat your claim:

"I find 110 to 115 dB about the sweet spot for me when I give a classic rock
album or two a good listen."

The difference between 100dB and 115dB is VERY significant. I would say that
my car stereo + road noise does sometimes exceed 100dB peaks. Nowhere near
115dB though. I don't know anyone dumb enough (unless they're 20) to listen
for extended periods at such levels. To do so would quickly render one of my
favourite senses useless. And I ain't that dumb.


Have you ever been to a club?

**Yep. And if it's too loud, I leave. I will not endanger my hearing.

Do have any idea what a live band, even
something like jazz, can get up to?

**Indeed. I attend live music venues somewhat regularly. And, as I said
before, if it's too loud, I leave, or use my ear plugs.

How about a symphony orchestra with
contra basses and tympany at fortissimo?

**Short amounts of relatively high level sounds do not damage hearing.
Orchestras tend to be like that. And further: I doubt that orchestras, in
typical halls, can generate anything like 115dB levels for extended periods
at typical listening positions.


And we haven't even gotten to a rock concert (even a relatively tame
one) yet.

**I haven't been to one in decades.


How about home theater?

**No interest whatsoever. I enjoy high fidelity, not also-ran fidelity.

Care to discuss the levels of certain scenes
in certain movies?

**I always take my ear plugs. However, I rarely go to movies anymore. The
sound tends to be pretty horrible.


So unless you want to listen to your home system at the geriatric levels
afforded by many speaker systems of today, you might want something a
little more efficient.

**Care to address my other points? Klipsch Forte's, for instance?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
You allude to high-power amplification. Compute (or measure) how much
power would be required to play at 113 dB SPL (unweighted) at the
listening position with a pair of typical, 87-dB-efficient speakers.

I find 110 to 115 dB about the sweet spot for me when I give a classic
rock
album or two a good listen.

Assuming 3 dB gain for two channels and 3 dB room gain, the computation
states we need 20 dB over 1 watt, or 100 watts. OK, so that's not bad,
right? There are lots of 100-watt amps around, right?

Yep, sure are. But that was 100 watts *average*.

No it wasn't. 113dB AVERAGE would only be necessary if that's what you have
been using for quite a while, and thus have made yourself totally DEAF!
And imagine trying to play the 1812 overture on your KHorns at 113dB
*average* anyway!!!

However I am certainly not a fan of very low efficiency speakers. There are
plenty of medium efficiency speakers though that can be safely driven to
that level in any normal house, with readily available power amps.

MrT.

[Peter Larsen]

Eeyore wrote:

An SPL of ~ 110dB is really quite loud indeed. Certainly plenty
loud enough to annoy most neighbours and loud enough to give
you temporary threshold shift too.

Optimum listening is done at peak levels no higher than 100 to 105 dB
SPL, also when listening to live recorded rock, as measured with a B&K
peak hold sound level meter in my then living room in 1978 using large
Duelund horns equipped with Tannoy 12" units and Coral H 100 tweeters.

The average level was around 80-some dB, I haven't kept the notes, so I
can not be more precise. This system was fairly linear after EQ. This
happens to be exactly the monitoring level Bob Katz also suggests as I
recall his site, but real world monitoring and mixing is often done at a
level some 10 dB lower. Listening at louder level is generally - hearing
damage risk disregarded in this context as it is when doing it - a cause
of balancing errors.

Listening at higher levels than some 100 to 105 dB instantanous peak
will cause a loss of detail due to mechanical distortion in the ear,
something that corresponds well with the end of its safe operating area
being at 100 dB SPL instantaneus peak.

I have once briefly ( ~ 15 secs ) been exposed to SPLs in the
near 130dB region ( it was an 'experiment' ) and my skin went
blotchy ! You really don't need to listen that loud. honestly
although it's mightily impressive.

Good systems can be dangerous if used unwisely and without calibration.
I have experienced reaching for the sound level meter that happened to
be nearby at Steen Duelunds place when he was demonstrating because he
was speaking somewhat muffled and seen it indicate 117 dB C weighted on
FAST. It is very easy to fool oneself in a very foolish way if not using
a calibrated system, fader creep follows directly from ear fatigue,
normally I would have used ear protection at such levels if it was a PA
I was testing.

Graham


Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen]

Randy Yates wrote:

I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded
as they were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or
if other technological advancements in the intervening years have
made the folded horn design obsolete.

Folding a front horn always has been seen as a major design compromise
because i makes it very difficult to get it linear in the high range.

I haven't heard anything recently that makes me want to part with
mine, but I don't audition the new stuff too often these days, and
of course I'm biased.

Take them to this millenium then, triamp with an active cross-over. The
design is problematic because the low midrange takes the detour via the
bass horn, but there may be more compression driver clarity to reap than
what you get with a passive cross-over.

There will probably be some linearity issues, usually there is with
horns, so getting a digital x-over, for instance the Behringer, could be
an idea. It is generally considered prudent to protect the horn drivers
from baad things, such as DC and turn on transients. My initial
expectation is that the cabinets need additional stiffening, perhaps
bracing.

Be careful if you measure directly on the units, do not input stuff
below the resonance of midrange- and treble drivers, and listen for
signs of stress in their low range as you measure. Be careful with your
ears too .... it does not take a lot of watts on a compression driver to
experience discomfort or worse from sinewaves.

% Randy Yates


Peter Larsen

[Randy Yates]

Peter Larsen writes:

and seen it indicate 117 dB C weighted

Please keep in mind that my SPLs were stated *unweighted*. The
weighting filter can shave another 5 to 10 dB off, and at the high levels I
was already at (110 dB unweighted), another 5-10 dB WOULD be getting
ridiculous.
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Randy Yates]

"Trevor Wilson" writes:
[...]

Your claim was this

I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor
is anyone I know that stupid.

So it logically follows that no one you know:

1. attends symphony concerts
2. drives a car at highway speeds with the radio turned up
3. goes to jazz or rock concerts
4. listens to home theater

You must be a very lonely man.

Until we can get acknowledgement that 110 dB (unweighted) is near, if
not at, some common listening environments, we don't have the honesty
required for a discussion of this matter.
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" writes:

**Irrelevant. I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor is
anyone I know that stupid.

I think you're a liar. Take a level check in just about any
automobile, even with the crappy factory-installed systems, while
playing the radio or CD at moderate volume, especially when you're
traveling down the road at 60 MPH. My bet is it's well over 100 dB
SPL (unweighted). And you don't know anyone who does this?

Really ? Do you have an SPL meter ? I do. I'll check this out.

I used to.

Have you ever been to a club?

Regularly.


Do have any idea what a live band, even something like jazz, can get up to?

Oh yes ! If it's left to me though I avoid anything much over 110dB peaks at the
mix position.

That's fine. Trevor's claim was that "no one he knows listens at such levels."

How about a symphony orchestra with
contra basses and tympany at fortissimo?

Not as loud as above where the audience sit.

I think you are in error on this. Do you have some data?
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Peter Larsen]

Randy Yates wrote:

Peter Larsen writes:

and seen it indicate 117 dB C weighted

Please keep in mind that my SPLs were stated *unweighted*.

Yes.

The weighting filter can shave another 5 to 10 dB off

In as much as it is about C weighting and about music the acronym
version of the comment is NBL. If it was about music and A weighting a
probable difference would indeed be in the 10 to 15 dB range. If we take
the same scenario to A weighting and SLOW then the difference is likely
20-some dB.

In comparison with current standard risk criteria 85 dB A for 40 nours a
week it is some 12 dB louder, so for a gross approximate estimate you
can listen at that level for 2.5 hours pr. week without unduly
increasing your risk of hearing damage assuming that a fair amount of
asumptions apply, including the asumption that re-curring threshold
shift will not get permanent. Which is to say that long term concern
_is_ relevant. Do be aware that safety criteria are statistic and based
on how large a percentage of the population it is deemed politically
acceptable to have to pay damages to.

What you need to be aware of is that you have at your age some level of
pre-existing hearing damage, it is illusory to assume that a concert
grand can be operated without the risk of hearing damage. A very early
symptom is increased tolerance of loud sound, not because it is not as
damaging as it would be if less loud, but because your loud-sound
protection system does not get triggered because of the incorrect
perception.

You are a nice guy Randy, do yourself two favours: get a checkup at an
audiologist, having recent data is wise anyway and get your system
calibrated. There is lots of info on this - and on many other things
audio - at http://www.digido.com.

You might also want to look into improving its sub 100 Hz linearity, a
pair of 15" subs crossed over at 40 Hz could be an idea. Your SPL
requirement _will_ get reduced with more linear low range reproduction
and spatiality gets an improved rendition.

% Randy Yates


Peter Larsen

[Randy Yates]

Peter Larsen writes:
[...]

Peter,

Today is my 49th birthday. I began playing piano and organ at 12 - 37
years ago. I began playing in rock bands at 15. I've played in bands
and church's on and off ever since.

Your kind comments are not unappreciated, and though I have absolutely
no doubt that you're correct in your assertion that I have at least
some hearing loss, I still know damn well what loud is, what soft is,
what's in between. That's because I've owned my Klipschorns for 23
years - well before I had any appreciable hearing loss - and have been
listening to music and performing live music for another 14 years past
that. I am also an electrical engineer, and have studied the (relatively
simple) math behind SPL measurements. In short, I have experience, and
I know what I'm talking about.

What you have failed to acknowledge is that this level (110 dB
unweighted, or close to it [1]) is commonly encountered by almost anyone
in the civilized world, as stated earlier in various venues such as
theaters, symphonies, etc.

Until we can acknowledge reality, there will be no further progress on
this topic.

--Randy

[1] Keep in mind that a 10 dB increase results in about a factor of
two increase in volume as perceived by humans.
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:
Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_e...r_endstufe.htm

Fair enough. So if you buy one of these and want to play at
the levels discussed, you'd be coming damn close to clipping.

So ?

I'm sorry, Eeyore - I assumed you were familiar with music dynamics
and their interaction with reproduction equipment at these levels.

Any stated level of music, e.g., 110 dB SPL unweighted, is an
approximation. The peak level is very dependent on the program
source.

So if you're operating within 1 dB of an amplifier's limit at
one peak, the next peak down the line can be almost impercetibly
stronger and drive your amp to clipping.

Perhaps your ear is more tin than mine, but even I do not appreciate
clipped music.

Actually, past clipping if you take into account path loss.

Don't be so effing retarded !

I suggest you try listening to 1kW in an average size room even with lowish
efficiency speakers.

And get over this idiotic 'path loss' fixation you seem to have.

So it is your contention that the distance away from a sound source
does not impact the SPL? If so, then I'll leave it to the public's
judgement as to who is the idiot here.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Peter Larsen writes:

and seen it indicate 117 dB C weighted

Please keep in mind that my SPLs were stated *unweighted*. The
weighting filter can shave another 5 to 10 dB off, and at the high levels I
was already at (110 dB unweighted), another 5-10 dB WOULD be getting
ridiculous.

C weighting is as close to 'unweighted' as most SPL meters offer. The difference
is *very* small. Don't confuse it with A weighting.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" writes:

**Irrelevant. I'm not brain-damaged enough to listen at such levels. Nor is
anyone I know that stupid.

I think you're a liar. Take a level check in just about any
automobile, even with the crappy factory-installed systems, while
playing the radio or CD at moderate volume, especially when you're
traveling down the road at 60 MPH. My bet is it's well over 100 dB
SPL (unweighted). And you don't know anyone who does this?

Really ? Do you have an SPL meter ? I do. I'll check this out.

I used to.

Have you ever been to a club?

Regularly.


Do have any idea what a live band, even something like jazz, can get up to?

Oh yes ! If it's left to me though I avoid anything much over 110dB peaks at the
mix position.

That's fine. Trevor's claim was that "no one he knows listens at such levels."

I think he was referring to an *average* level actually.

110dB 'peaks' at a rock concert are quite normal and probably in line with an average
level of about 100dB. I say 'peak' as in what an SPL meter will register on 'fast' as
opposed to instantaneous peaks that are likely a few dB louder.


How about a symphony orchestra with
contra basses and tympany at fortissimo?

Not as loud as above where the audience sit.

I think you are in error on this. Do you have some data?

It's something I simply know from decades back. SPL for musicians in an orchestra can
certainly peak over 120dB AIUI but not where the audience are seated.

Graham

[Peter Larsen]

Randy Yates wrote:

What you have failed to acknowledge is that this level (110 dB
unweighted, or close to it [1]) is commonly encountered by
almost anyone in the civilized world, as stated earlier in
various venues such as theaters, symphonies, etc.

I don't think I failed to acknowledge that in as much as I did refer to
a concert grand at close range as a hearing damage risk and in as much
as I stated that just about anything that peaks above 100 to 105 dB SPL
LIN measured with a B & K peak hold sound level meter is "beyond safe".
Where "unsafe" begins is a different issue ... but it is real easy to
get a peak hold meter to read 120.

[1] Keep in mind that a 10 dB increase results in about a factor of
two increase in volume as perceived by humans.

Yes, that is what the books say, but from a musical viewpoint 5 dB seems
more "like it". I wonder whether it is the probable almost instantanous
threshold shift a continuos tone causes that is the explanation of the
finding in the books compared to how I experience musical loudness.

--Randy


Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:
Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:
Eeyore writes:
Randy Yates wrote:

I don't know a lot of moderately-priced 400-watt per
channel amplifiers, do you?

Look at pro-audio amplifiers. They're two-a-penny.

For example?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_e...r_endstufe.htm

Fair enough. So if you buy one of these and want to play at
the levels discussed, you'd be coming damn close to clipping.

So ?

I'm sorry, Eeyore - I assumed you were familiar with music dynamics
and their interaction with reproduction equipment at these levels.

I'm *very* familiar with musical dynamics. You might be surprised how little
there is in much modern 'pop' music btw and especially 'dance' music.


Any stated level of music, e.g., 110 dB SPL unweighted, is an
approximation. The peak level is very dependent on the program
source.

Yes.


So if you're operating within 1 dB of an amplifier's limit at
one peak, the next peak down the line can be almost impercetibly
stronger and drive your amp to clipping.

Perhaps your ear is more tin than mine, but even I do not appreciate
clipped music.

Neither do I but the ear is remarkably tolerant of light clipping when it's at
120dB !


Actually, past clipping if you take into account path loss.

Don't be so effing retarded !

I suggest you try listening to 1kW in an average size room even with lowish
efficiency speakers.

And get over this idiotic 'path loss' fixation you seem to have.

So it is your contention that the distance away from a sound source
does not impact the SPL? If so, then I'll leave it to the public's
judgement as to who is the idiot here.

In a venue you might be surprised how little it drops off.

I've done the measurements. The reverberant field can be surprisingly large.

Graham

[Karl Uppiano]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

Ok, this discussion has taken some interesting turns. My reason for asking
about this is that I am considering replacing my 30-year old DIY speakers --
built when I was still in high school -- with something else. I have been
intrigued with the K-horns since my high school days.

If anything, the problem with my old ElectroVoice SP12B-based building-block
speakers is that they are too sensitive for today's high-powered amplifiers.
The usable volume control range with a 100 WPC amplifier is about 1/4 turn.
From this discussion, I gather that the K-horns would be even worse in this
regard. It seems that I would need something that is about 10dB *less*
efficient than the K-horns -- or what I have now.

Now this quote make more sense: "What this country needs is a good 5-watt
amplifier" -- Paul Klipsch

[Eeyore]

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

Ok, this discussion has taken some interesting turns. My reason for asking
about this is that I am considering replacing my 30-year old DIY speakers --
built when I was still in high school -- with something else. I have been
intrigued with the K-horns since my high school days.

If anything, the problem with my old ElectroVoice SP12B-based building-block
speakers is that they are too sensitive for today's high-powered amplifiers.
The usable volume control range with a 100 WPC amplifier is about 1/4 turn.
From this discussion, I gather that the K-horns would be even worse in this
regard. It seems that I would need something that is about 10dB *less*
efficient than the K-horns -- or what I have now.

Now this quote make more sense: "What this country needs is a good 5-watt
amplifier" -- Paul Klipsch

The SP12Bs are probably moderately efficient ( maybe 95dB ? ).

Even my own speakers at home ( kind of 'homebrew' except it was a co-venture
with an 'speaker nut' friend of mine ) are in the 90dB sensitivity region yet I
rarely turn my amplifier volume control beyond about 10 o'clock and it's only
30+30 W.

Graham

[Karl Uppiano]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Karl Uppiano wrote:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

Ok, this discussion has taken some interesting turns. My reason for
asking
about this is that I am considering replacing my 30-year old DIY
speakers --
built when I was still in high school -- with something else. I have been
intrigued with the K-horns since my high school days.

If anything, the problem with my old ElectroVoice SP12B-based
building-block
speakers is that they are too sensitive for today's high-powered
amplifiers.
The usable volume control range with a 100 WPC amplifier is about 1/4
turn.
From this discussion, I gather that the K-horns would be even worse in
this
regard. It seems that I would need something that is about 10dB *less*
efficient than the K-horns -- or what I have now.

Now this quote make more sense: "What this country needs is a good 5-watt
amplifier" -- Paul Klipsch

The SP12Bs are probably moderately efficient ( maybe 95dB ? ).

Even my own speakers at home ( kind of 'homebrew' except it was a
co-venture
with an 'speaker nut' friend of mine ) are in the 90dB sensitivity region
yet I
rarely turn my amplifier volume control beyond about 10 o'clock and it's
only
30+30 W.

Graham

Yes, well, I am a frustrated audio enthusiast. My family is not amenable to
"serious listening" at anything approaching live SPLs. So, most of the time,
my VC is barely cracked open, perhaps 8 o'clock. At this level, the control
doesn't track well (this has been a problem with many amplifiers I've used),
so I have to fiddle with the balance control all the time.

If I turn my VC up to 12 o'clock, where the gain alignment of my system
first begins to approach any risk of clipping, the SPL is much louder than I
would ever want to listen for extended periods. That fits my definition of
"mismatch".

On my old Heathkit AA-1214 (15+15 W), I put a 20dB pad in the tape monitor
loop (what my college roommate and I referred to the TAPE MON button as the
"low axle") so that we could play music during "quiet hours" without having
to turn the VC down into the critical range, but that still means that the
PA is running down in the crossover region all the time.

[Peter Larsen]

Karl Uppiano wrote:

If anything, the problem with my old ElectroVoice SP12B-based
building-block speakers is that they are too sensitive for
today's high-powered amplifiers.

A 12 dB attenuator on the input of the power amp, or after the volume
control if an integrated, can be very useful.

Now this quote make more sense: "What this country needs is a
good 5-watt amplifier" -- Paul Klipsch

My upper midrange amp is preceeded by an attenuator so that its output
is 0.6 volts for one volt in. It is only very rarely that I have seen
its 1 watt LED light up ... O;-)


Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Karl Uppiano wrote:

If anything, the problem with my old ElectroVoice SP12B-based
building-block speakers is that they are too sensitive for
today's high-powered amplifiers.

A 12 dB attenuator on the input of the power amp, or after the volume
control if an integrated, can be very useful.

Now this quote make more sense: "What this country needs is a
good 5-watt amplifier" -- Paul Klipsch

My upper midrange amp is preceeded by an attenuator so that its output
is 0.6 volts for one volt in. It is only very rarely that I have seen
its 1 watt LED light up ... O;-)

Quite.

Some years ago I was over at the house of a former employer of mine ( he founded
the Studiomaster company ) and we were discussing SPL vs watts.

He had his 'stereo' on at a fairly average listening level and asked me what
wattage it was. He was thinking about how important it was that he had 1000 watt
amplifiers and so on. I replied 'probably a couple of hundred milliwatts'.

He looked at me in incredulity I got out my meter and it was indeed peaking at
around a volt into 8 ohms ( 125 mw).

Graham

[Randy Yates]

Peter Larsen writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

Peter Larsen writes:

and seen it indicate 117 dB C weighted

Please keep in mind that my SPLs were stated *unweighted*.

Yes.

The weighting filter can shave another 5 to 10 dB off

In as much as it is about C weighting and about music the acronym
version of the comment is NBL.

I don't recognize that code. Why is it necessary to write such
abbreviations?

If it was about music and A weighting a probable difference would
indeed be in the 10 to 15 dB range. If we take the same scenario to
A weighting and SLOW then the difference is likely 20-some dB.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "if it was about"'s, and I'm
not sure of your point, which seems to be shrouded unnecessarily
in obfuscation. Are you saying that the weighting is worth quite
a bit more than 5-10 dB?

You might also want to look into improving its sub 100 Hz linearity, a
pair of 15" subs crossed over at 40 Hz could be an idea.

Really? Why is it then that when Audio magazine reviewed the
Klipshorn's some decades ago, they attained of the lowest distortion
measurements in the low frequencies ever?

Your SPL requirement _will_ get reduced with more linear low range
reproduction and spatiality gets an improved rendition.

I'm not even sure what you're saying. Is this English (Queen's or
otherwise)?

In any case, until I get out of school and start making money again, a
sub is out of the question, and I'm fairly happy with the native
KHorns' low frequency response anyway. I would like to have a go at
the latest Velodyne monster, though...
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Trevor Wilson]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:JZ_gh.242$386.70@trndny01...
I am wondering if Klipschorn speakers are still as well-regarded as they
were 60 years ago, when they were first introduced, or if other
technological advancements in the intervening years have made the folded
horn design obsolete.

**Well, this thread has taken quite a few turns. You asked a reasonable
question and I will answer, based on what Klipschorns WERE ca: 1980.

When I first heard K-Horns, I was knocked out. They were brilliant speakers.
However, it should be remembered that, at that time, the AR3a was one of the
finest speakers on the market. My listening acuity and eduction was
rudimentary. More recent listening to K-Horns has revealed a number very
serious deficiencies with the design, compared to contemporary products
available today.

The bass driver was a cheap, crappy 50mm voice coil one. It was nasty and
probably the cheapest thing PWK could lay his hands on (my opinion, based on
what I have seen). Due to the folding of the horn, midrange frequencies
(which are needed to be reproduced by the bass driver, due to the cheap,
crappy Atlas midrange) must be reproduced and travel a convoluted path to
the listener. Naturally, the time alignment between bass and midrange is
appalling. And obvious, when you listen to it.

The midrange driver is a cheap, crappy Atlas compression driver, which
cannot achieve the required lower midrange in order to cross over adequately
to a 380mm driver. As stated before, time alignment between bass and
midrange is appallingly bad.

The tweeter is a reasonable Electro-Voice unit, which, although blends
reasonably well with the midrange, it also has poor time alignment with the
midrange. Additionally, being a phenolic compression driver, it has a rather
average HF response (17kHz is about it for the K-Horns).

I additionally found extremely poor choice of crossover capacitors in
Klipsch speakers at the time. These have been improved with later models.

The K-Horns have such serious faults they need not be considered any longer
in the area of high quality audio. Particularly in view of the fact that
other alternatives are smaller, cheaper and far better performing.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com