Thanks. You are so right. Paul died in 2002.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Stereophile Reviews New Klipsch Forte, Klipschorn
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
I still miss the old man, one of the first fighters against the coming wave of audiophools.
That photo is worth a million, I love it!!!
I sooo miss Audio magazine. Here is a review from November 1986 of the Klipschorn with extensive measurements.
https://www.vintageshifi.com/repertoire-pdf/pdf/telecharge.php?pdf=Klipschorn-TEST-1986-11-us.pdf
https://www.vintageshifi.com/repertoire-pdf/pdf/telecharge.php?pdf=Klipschorn-TEST-1986-11-us.pdf
Last edited:
Look who wrote it and did the measurements, probably the smartest man in audio. Those actual speakers he tested and measured are now in the Museum of Audio History.
As do I, of all the mags back then, Audio was always the one I looked forward to getting in the mailbox the most. I was quite sad when they closed the doors, there was no one of their quality to continue on. Back in the day, of what was left, only Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" really had my respect though measurements were few and far between.
"Overall, the Klipschorn is a Golden Oldie that survives
modern recording and electronic technology very well. A bit
jagged in the midrange,it still demands a great deal of
respect as an accurate reproducer.
Richard C. Heyser"
And 35 years later the same things are still being said about the latest K-Horn AK6
If the room and finances were available I'd love to try out the current beast or a pair of La Scala's using maybe some dampening material on the big midrange horn and a custom digital crossover ala JBL M2.
Time marches on but Paul's horn designs are forever.
Have fun.
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,578
- Likes
- 25,276
I've gotta say -- and I realize I may be applying logic in a situation that is a-logical
-- to use the words "jagged" and "accurate" in the same sentence... is... interesting.
35 years ago - hmm. I must have been reading Audio Magazine in my crib!As do I, of all the mags back then, Audio was always the one I looked forward to getting in the mailbox the most. I was quite sad when they closed the doors, there was no one of their quality to continue on. Back in the day, of what was left, only Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" really had my respect though measurements were few and far between.
"Overall, the Klipschorn is a Golden Oldie that survives
modern recording and electronic technology very well. A bit
jagged in the midrange,it still demands a great deal of
respect as an accurate reproducer.
Richard C. Heyser"
And 35 years later the same things are still being said about the latest K-Horn AK6
If the room and finances were available I'd love to try out the current beast or a pair of La Scala's using maybe some dampening material on the big midrange horn and a custom digital crossover ala JBL M2.
Time marches on but Paul's horn designs are forever.
Have fun.
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,578
- Likes
- 25,276
I was reading bound back issues in the Johns Hopkins University's Milton S. Eisenhower library (when I should have been studying) nigh on forty-five years ago now.35 years ago - hmm. I must have been reading Audio Magazine in my crib!
/looks at shelf behind meI was reading bound back issues in the Johns Hopkins University's Milton S. Eisenhower library (when I should have been studying) nigh on forty-five years ago now.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,949
- Likes
- 17,169
In stock form the AK6 measures and sounds like a mess with todays standards (same as also other versions of K-Horn)And 35 years later the same things are still being said about the latest K-Horn AK6
The Klipschorn's measured behavior reveals that the performance parameters that are generally held in the 21st century to correlate with good sound quality in both the time and frequency domains have been compromised to achieve that astonishingly high sensitivity.
and above with JA's very diplomatic language but as he writes too
I can't help wondering what a fully DSP-corrected, tri-amplified version of this loudspeaker, with the high sensitivity coupled with optimized step and frequency responses, would sound like.
Source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-klipschorn-ak6-loudspeaker-measurements
Quite true but I believe he was thinking that there is more to "accurate" reproduction than only it's FRI've gotta say -- and I realize I may be applying logic in a situation that is a-logical
It may be alogical or non-rational, but not irrational. Some experts maintain that only subjective judgement really counts, one's hearing and experience are what counts, and one maintains that specs, including honest ones, fail utterly in predicting how a speaker will sound.I've gotta say -- and I realize I may be applying logic in a situation that is a-logical
As everyone's ears know, "accurate" is composed of more than just smooth frequency response. If two speakers have the same smoothness or roughness of frequency response, but one of them has much lower distortion, especially lower modulation distortion (https://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-3), OR has much lower compression at high (but natural) SPL, OR has cleaner transient response, it may be more "accurate." The ultimate judgement may be in the listening, with good recordings in the the treated room in which the speakers will be heard long term. Judging "accuracy" by frequency response only was the mistake Consumer Reports (CU) made for years. Later, when they also looked at the F3 for a while, that may have helped, but they couldn't very well put the speaker being evaluated in your room. Some think the room affects frequency response, and other stuff, only below Schroeder, but, to take an extreme case, try listening in a room that has ceiling to floor windows all the way around, like some penthouses, & specular reflections.
IMO, Klipschorns, and La Scalas have slightly jagged response in the midrange (the new Jubilee, may not) but make up for it with low modulation distortion, low compression and clean transient response. Maybe that is what Heyser meant by, "A bit jagged in the midrange, it still demands a great deal of respect as an accurate reproducer."
But, compared to what? How jagged is a bit jagged in the midrange? Stereophile's own tests of the new Klipschorn A6 ($16,498/pair) show about + 2.5, - 5 dB (+/- 3.75 dB) on the part of the midrange (450 to 4.5K Hz .. crosses over a little lower than spec at the top of midrange, according to Stereophile)
Now, how about speakers with a reputedly smooth midrange? The Wilson Alexx ($109,000) over the same range, produces ~~ +2.35, - 2.35 dB, obviously, +/- 2.35 dB, about 2.8 dB smoother than the Klipschorn in the midrange, costing only $92,502 more. Naturally, only your ears in your treated room will tell.
How about the Yg Sonja 1.3 ($106,800)
A little smoother, maybe +/- 1.75 dB.
Here's what I get for midrange with the K401 horn and with the help of room treatment and Audyssey Flat 1/3 octave smoothing, around +/- 2.2 dB
I wondered about all this, so I wrote down the +/- dB figures in various reviewers thought were "essentially flat" (never the manufacturers specs) and got an arithmetical average of +/- 3.48 dB (due to some high scores), and a eyeballed center of +/- 2.75 dB.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,744
- Likes
- 6,475
Audio was perhaps the most 'gear' related of the big three. Their equipment reviews were generally more in-depth than either Stereo Review or Hi-Fidelity. Unlike those, Audio printed more technical articles, and DIY features. Two names that come to mind are Richard Greiner and Marshall Leach, both teachers at electrical engineering schools. I still have a MC step-up based on Marshall Leach's battery powered design, first published in the pages of Audio. Richard Heyser was probably the first audio 'journalist' to seriously consider how to measure loudspeakers. Then, you had Bascom King, who was technically knowledgeable, but at the same time appealed to the 'underground' crowd because he'd give his opinion about how he thought gear sounded, subjectively.
Before the Internet, where information is overload, the 'back pages' of Audio were where you could spend hours browsing for whatever gear you were looking for. Is was sort of an audio version of Computer Shopper, on a small scale of course. PS Audio, for one, started out by advertising their little phono preamp in the Audio classifieds. Selling direct from the 'factory'. Nowadays, we've gone full circle in that sense.
The October issue was always welcome--where they'd list all the components your could buy from all the manufacturers.
Audiogram, StereOpus, Sensible Sound, Audio Critic, Absolute Sound were allowed to advertise. Editors didn't mind selling space to the 'competition'.
The only thing I didn't get at Audio, the only thing that kept me scratching my head, was Tatnall Canby. I never had any idea what he was writing about. LOL
Tell what??? Only if you like them or not. Which under sighted conditions may be largely influenced by their looks, manufacturers reputation, cost, much more.
The measurements pretty much already told you all you needed to know.
I think he was getting a bit senile in the later years.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,744
- Likes
- 6,475
If you can afford the rent there, you can afford to hire a string quartet to play for you whenever you want to listen to music.
Mine is no doubt an heretical opinion to the measurement uber alles group, but my experience is that different loudspeakers are often more adapted to certain types of music.
The original Quad was perfect for small scale acoustic recordings, played at no more than moderate SPL. If you wanted rock n roll, you had to look elsewhere. Did that fact make the Quad a bad loudspeaker?
Likewise, pure Klipsch speakers (K-horn and LaScala) sound amazing on percussion, bells, gongs, and such (for instance, Chinese traditional music); certain jazz combo recordings. But for other types of music? Possibly not. In any case, YMMV.
I recently came across a designer who wrote about the mid '70s. His trip to JBL's LA factory, and listening to their large monitors. Saying it was the worst sonic experience he could ever recall. At the same time, those same refrigerator-sized JBL monitors sell for more money than Godzilla charges to destroy Tokyo, in Tokyo. Many non-Japanese audiophiles, the ones who laugh at them for their JBL love, go gaga over Japanese 'price is no object' moving coil cartridges. So it's not like Japanese audiophiles don't have an idea of what sound good. Right?
However it is, it used to be that you could spend a week or two driving around and auditioning almost any kind of loudspeaker you wanted, or could afford. For the most part, those days are over. So maybe buyers have to more rely on reviews and measurements, since it is what is readily available to them.
Perhaps it's nostalgia for you folks. I've only heard a few Klipsch speakers in the last decade - Heresy, Lascala, Forte so that nostalgia is absent for me. They've all been simply bad to listen to. Lack of low bass. What bass is there was overaccentuated and so so muddy. The treble had a glare, though I will admit things did have that "immediacy" that the reviewer talked about. The first time I heard them, the muddiness immediately reminded me of the sound of my old CRT TV. - that's how bad it was! What was good about it was that the cabinetry looked fabulous (in a big bulky furniture kind of way). But soundwise, eek! Don't get me started on the their PC model the Promedias. Hehe...
He struck me as the sort who was born at the age of 70. His writing was almost at Christopher Kimball levels of florid.I think he was getting a bit senile in the later years.