John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the Klipschorn:
Both Richard Heyser and I owned a single K-horn in the late '60's. We were both good friends with Paul Klipsch, but both Richard and I wanted more. Klipsch was always saying that the ear is essentially 'phase deaf'
and he always thought that the k-horn did enough for everybody.
When Richard gave his first paper at the AES implying that time delays of 2ms or so between drivers might be heard, Paul Klipsch got up and protested. I was there!
Still, I got another K-horn and used the pair, off and on for another 10 years.
If Richard Heyser had presented his material to many here, at the time, you would have attacked the implications of Richard's paper, just like Paul Klipsch did.
For certain kinds of music, like large orchestras, a single K-horn is exceptional.
BUT single human voice can be compromised, especially if you actually know what the singer sounds like live.
Both Richard and I finally gave up K-horns for a more 'accurate' product in the time domain.

John, in my view Mr Heyser was spot on right off the bat. Mr Klipsh is, by the same token, quite wrong. Mess up a speaker's phase response and you lose everything, you might as well not have bothered. No matter how it might appear to be on first listening, after a while you start to notice that much is missing.
 
I know some low-order advocates who moreover believe that they can hear high-order crossovers.
Interesting question. I tend to prefer high order, for obvious reasons.
The first one is less ways, better it is. Impossible, in a two way system, to get drivers working in piston on a large enough bandwidth to can cross on two or more octaves. The second one is that two different drivers playing the same frequencies from a different point in the space, in medium and high frequencies, will create spaces pasterns (in phase and opposition of phase). As we cannot avoid this, let's try to minimize the frequencies area where they are produced. The total energy produced in a room (even out of the listener position) is important.
Time adjustment is very critical, on my point of view, and, yes, can change a lot the sound, specially about transients, like percussions or drums.
I usually go for acoustic 24dB/oct (including and using the slopes of the drivers).

The most important thing, for me, is that, at the cossover frequency, the two drivers have closest directional patterns as possible That i can only achieve with horns. I mean when the emitting surfaces of the two drivers are very close.

(sorry for my poor English, i feel stupid)
 
Last edited:
Mess up a speaker's phase response and you lose everything, you might as well not have bothered.
No matter how it might appear to be on first listening, after a while you start to notice that much is missing.

This has always seemed odd to me. If an amplifier did to the waveform what many speakers do (if it were possible, which is very doubtful),
no one would take it seriously. Why do speakers get a pass when they perform like that?
 
Brad,
I generally lump those who push for 1st order network are the same people who want to use SE amplifiers and love that sort of colored sound. Allowing a 15" speaker to just rise up as high as it can with a simple 1st order filter is going to create a mess above the overlap of the above device. Simplicity is not always the best choice, generally that may be true but in speaker design that doesn't often hold true with a simple network.

I've made some serious mistakes with networks in the past, once even got an amplifier to oscillate at high levels and took out all the output devices. A Parasound, but not a JC signature model. Didn't help that the amp was hooked up in bridged mode, my mistake, just needed to change the order of the elements, but a learning experience for sure. This was the bandpass section of a three way network, duh!

(Bold by DVV)

Hallelujah to that, Kindhornman, and amen! This simplicity crap has become a brain disease by now. Sure, one shouldn't complicate more than is necessary, but oversimplifying demands a heavy price be paid in general performance, one way or another. Usually in open loop bandwidth and current capability. Yet, people are so intoxicated with the idea that they become junkies breaking up for a fix.
 
Interesting question. I tend to prefer high order, for obvious reasons.
The first one is less ways, better it is. Impossible, in a two way system, to get drivers working in piston on a large enough bandwidth to can cross on two or more octaves. The second one is that two different drivers playing the same frequencies from a different point in the space, in medium and high frequencies, will create spaces pasterns (in phase and opposition of phase). As we cannot avoid this, let's try to minimize the frequencies area where they are produced. The total energy produced in a room (even out of the listener position) is important.
Time adjustment is very critical, on my point of view, and, yes, can change a lot the sound, specially about transients, like percussions or drums.
I usually go for acoustic 24dB/oct (including and using the slopes of the drivers).

The most important thing, for me, is that, at the cossover frequency, the two drivers have closest directional patterns as possible That i can only achieve with horns. I mean when the emitting surfaces of the two drivers are very close.

(sorry for my poor English, i feel stupid)

You are stupid for feeling stupid. You make yourself perfectly clear, Christophe. It would be hilaroius to see the rest of us trying to express ourselves in French.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Klipschorn:
Both Richard Heyser and I owned a single K-horn in the late '60's. We were both good friends with Paul Klipsch, but both Richard and I wanted more. Klipsch was always saying that the ear is essentially 'phase deaf'
and he always thought that the k-horn did enough for everybody.
When Richard gave his first paper at the AES implying that time delays of 2ms or so between drivers might be heard, Paul Klipsch got up and protested. I was there!
Still, I got another K-horn and used the pair, off and on for another 10 years.
If Richard Heyser had presented his material to many here, at the time, you would have attacked the implications of Richard's paper, just like Paul Klipsch did.
For certain kinds of music, like large orchestras, a single K-horn is exceptional.
BUT single human voice can be compromised, especially if you actually know what the singer sounds like live.
Both Richard and I finally gave up K-horns for a more 'accurate' product in the time domain.

When I time aligned my K horn klones with a dcx 2496 they sounded more realistic, especially the string, percussion and piano.

Triodethom K horn to me have real holes in the freq. response as well as the time domain problem . They are LOUD though . Not my cup of tea so to speak.
Later, I stuffed the mid horn with reticulated foam and this improved the sound two ways: vocals and choral music, (which is, I think the toughest test for midrange), sounded more like the real thing; And I could play them MUCH LOUDER.

The reason: the foam filtered (diminished) the linear artifacts, (HOMs, diffractions and other reflections), created by my very bad mid exponential horn; This worked because our hearing becomes more sensitive to time domain artifacts with increasing SPL. (BTW, that's what causes "horn sound").

That's why the "LOUD" Klipsh sound was not your "cup of tea."

No matter how great the SPLs a good speaker does not sound "loud" (which is a subjective term) until or unless our hearing's self distortion kicks in. Such a speaker will sound neutral and, if a person is used to coloured sound, will sound boring to them at first.

Klipsh's mid horn was perhaps not quite as bad as my home made one but it was still terrible and his mid driver was no prize either.
 
This has always seemed odd to me. If an amplifier did to the waveform what many speakers do (if it were possible, which is very doubtful),
no one would take it seriously. Why do speakers get a pass when they perform like that?

I think it's bexcause they are the least understood parts of the system, Ray. They are deceptively simple looking and oh so easy to trip over. I am amazed at how simple people believe them to be, you know, just slap two drivers together, cut the tweeter off with just one capacitor and that's it. On the other side of the spectrum, there's the myth, magic and voodoo crowd who believe that if somebody breathed on their speaker, it has thereby acquired magical capabilities. Operating range, crossover slopes, efficiencies and all that is just pulling wool over people's eyes. Quite amazing.

Have you noticed how sound is expressed among the hard core as "JBL type of sound", "AR type of sound", etc. Locally as the "British kind of sound", which is somehow an all encompassing seal of approval and complement and commands a higher price by default.
 
Last edited:
I think it's because they are the least understood parts of the system, Ray. They are deceptively simple looking and oh so easy to trip over.
I am amazed at how simple people believe them to be, you know, just slap two drivers together, cut the tweeter off with just one capacitor and that's it.

Sounds like my old Dyna A25s, still working well in my video system. This is the exception to the rule, though.
 
Last edited:
So only the great Oz has the real answer. Engineering is just a wank? Well if you really like randomly fiddling until you expectation bias is sated guess that works for you. I like to know what the root cause is as often its quite easy to discover, especially with the test tools you can build the cost of a couple of quantum purifiers.
The "real" answer has been stated many times - be aware when a system has audible defects that can be fixed, and do what's appropriate - it's the approach that's key, not blindly applying "science and engineering" in the hope that a good result will plop out.

Just carrying on with engineering jargon can be a wank - engineering approaches to the job at hand are most certainly not.

The root cause of any audio system not reaching its full potential are small weaknesses, which can be any and everywhere. Experience, persistence, an enquiring mind are vital ingredients - not, say, reading endless books about electronics, etc.
 
When I time aligned my K horn klones with a dcx 2496 they sounded more realistic, especially the string, percussion and piano.

Later, I stuffed the mid horn with reticulated foam and this improved the sound two ways: vocals and choral music, (which is, I think the toughest test for midrange), sounded more like the real thing; And I could play them MUCH LOUDER.

The reason: the foam filtered (diminished) the linear artifacts, (HOMs, diffractions and other reflections), created by my very bad mid exponential horn; This worked because our hearing becomes more sensitive to time domain artifacts with increasing SPL. (BTW, that's what causes "horn sound").

That's why the "LOUD" Klipsh sound was not your "cup of tea."

No matter how great the SPLs a good speaker does not sound "loud" (which is a subjective term) until or unless our hearing's self distortion kicks in. Such a speaker will sound neutral and, if a person is used to coloured sound, will sound boring to them at first.

Klipsh's mid horn was perhaps not quite as bad as my home made one but it was still terrible and his mid driver was no prize either.
True the loud part was from the ease that they could be a bit forward there is a large hole if you will where the woofer horn and mid range meet . Given a 101db rating they do play loud . Flying up to see friends tomorrow the one horn system goes 120 easy and does not sound bad in the same way that the k horns do to me at lower levels . I did in joy the wamm system at big volume several times . My use of LOUD was a comment about it sound not the volume level . I have hear several horn systems that where quite good . Regards
 
The "real" answer has been stated many times - be aware when a system has audible defects that can be fixed, and do what's appropriate - it's the approach that's key, not blindly applying "science and engineering" in the hope that a good result will plop out.

Just carrying on with engineering jargon can be a wank - engineering approaches to the job at hand are most certainly not.

The root cause of any audio system not reaching its full potential are small weaknesses, which can be any and everywhere. Experience, persistence, an enquiring mind are vital ingredients - not, say, reading endless books about electronics, etc.
I agree with that method.
 
Rather interesting that everyone is talking about what the speakers sound like - rather than how good the speakers are at getting out of the way, ;).

This is like someone spending the whole time while driving listening to every tiny noise that his engine is making, wondering whether the tappets need adjusting ... I'm boring, I just want the vehicle to carry me in comfort, and relax while soaking up the landscape outside, :).

Ahhh, no vote taken I see ... I'm still safe! :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.