Polk LSI15 vs. Klipsch KLF30 (1 Viewer)

[Alex F.]

I already said I would like to hear the Avantgardes. But they're the new kids on the block, heard by very few.

No other horn is as legendary or has been admired by so many for so long as the Klipschorn. It is still in production. Other horns have come and gone, as someday may the Avantgarde. But you can probably count on the Klipschorn to still be there. It has always been the benchmark in horns. That is what I meant by the "holy grail." It earned that distinction.

 

[Michael R Price]

Alex, a 12" driver can start and stop just as fast as a 5" driver, especially given the huge motor strength of a woofer with a 99db or so efficiency. Whether or not it sounds good is another story; the KLF-30 isn't winning any awards for smoothness or midrange detail (at least compared to, say, the Polks). I myself don't know how good a big woofer can sound in upper frequencies, though I have seen many systems which use, say, a 10" woofer up to 2KHz. (Heck, I'm not sure if my own 8" woofers sound good up there, though the sound can start/stop plenty fast.)

The lack of dynamics we are talking about is mainly in the form of BL nonlinearity and thermal compression. In both these areas, horn speakers are better because they move less and require less power.

This discussion seems to have blossomed a bit much in terms of the dynamics argument. The statements about dynamics have nothing to do with the other qualities of a speaker, such as frequency response, smoothness, imaging, etc. Those other qualities may be much more important to some than dynamics.

Alex, Manuel intended to say something like this: If you play a recording of a trumpet at the same volume as if there was a guy playing a trumpet in your room... does it really sound like a trumpet? I know it doesn't with my speakers.

Realism is about more than just dynamics. The Klipsch speakers in question look to be designed around dynamics and sacrifice quality in other areas at their price point. Whether or not you are willing to sacrifice, say, midrange smoothness and imaging precision, to gain dynamics or some other quality is another story and entirely a matter of personal opinion. I don't even know where my own opinion stands, and over time I plan on building different types of speakers (conventional, dipole/array, horn) to find out what qualities are most important to me.

 

[John Royster]

Laugh out loud!!!!

Its like watching a porsche vs viper thread. LOL.

"Go drive a real car like a porsche"

"No you go drive a real car like a viper because its got quasi anechoic super duper dynamic response and is therefore better"

"but I like the porsche and not the viper"

"well you're wrong, the viper is a better car"

"but I like the porsche and don't prefer the viper"

"well your're wrong"

LOL!!!!

-edit- need to throw in my humor here. c'mon guys what ever happened to "I like the feel of a porsche, can't measure it, but I love it" and "I love the feel of a viper, can measure some parts, but I love it"

 

[Alex F.]

Michael:

You really think Polk undersized the relative magnet strength for its very best product? For conventional loudspeakers, small drivers with powerful magnets (vs. large drivers with even more powerful magnets) have long been the design of choice to reproduce the best possible midrange.

If you go back into this thread you'll find I have been saying all along that dynamics are only one important aspect of speaker performance. It's Tom who has been saying dynamics uber alles, not me.

Finally, I understood what Manuel wrote, and I responded accordingly.

I'm finished for tonight. Whew.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Alex---Oh my God, the old "small woofers start and stop faster arguement". It's obvious you know little of how loudspeakers really work. And don't forget that the midrange above 700hz with the KLF is coming from a 2" diameter titanium diaphragm.

As for KlipschHorns, who says they're the horn Holy Grail? I know LOTS of horn enthusiasts Alex and alot more use Altec and JBL than Klipsch, they always have going back to the 1950s even.

Again you put words in my mouth in an attempt to salvage your position. I've not said dynamics over everything, not here, though dynamics and low distortion are certainly very important unless you maybe think low distortion is a bad thing. Besides, good horns are as flat in response as any other types, my rig measures +- 2.5 db, in room, from 25hz to 16khz. That's on my RTA with a calibrated Panisonic mic. You'll seldom see a DR, with it's willy-nilly dispersion and unpredictable room effects, measure as flat in room without EQ. Sorry to disturb you with facts again.

You assert great improvements in driver design but you can't name any, that's because they basically haven't improved. I'm fairly familiar with the technology going back to the 1920s. Ever hear of the Western Electric 555 driver of 1927? Probably not, if you were familiar with it you'd know what I'm talking about.

Many believe that modern loudspeaker designs, with their weak motors, heavy cones and dome tweeters, are actually a regression in terms of good sound. That's why the trend back to horns and single drivers like Lowthers and the concurrent trend back to simple 1930s style SET amplifiers.

 

[Troy LaMont]

Many believe that modern loudspeaker designs, with their weak motors, heavy cones and dome tweeters, are actually a regression in terms of good sound. That's why the trend back to horns and single drivers like Lowthers and the concurrent trend back to simple 1930s style SET amplifiers.

Interesting, can you show me where these 'many' people are? Of all the audio and theater forums I visit, horn speakers are rarely a major topic of discussion, especially outside of Klipsch. I also know of no one in my group of friends and HT enthusiast clubs that are interested in horns, although many have heard them.
Why is it that horns only represent about 10-20% of total speaker purchases? Why is it that when I worked for retailers that sold horn vs. cone speakers, the cone speakers always sell better? Are that many people wrong or ignorant to the facts? Why have the top recording studios I've been in use cone driven speakers to monitor and mix sound?
I'm not sure what trend you're referring to, but I see nothing that suggest that any major group of people are rapidly embracing horn drivers. Knowing that a majority doesn't always represent the best or what's right.
I understand why YOU embrace horns based on your likes and that's all well and good, but don't make it seem like horns are the best drivers since sliced bread and that everyone out there who thinks otherwise is incorrect! Millions of audio enthusiast and the engineers, physicists and designers can't all be that naive to develop such a lackluster technology according to you. If my cones represent a regression in sound then thank goodness for regression.
This thread is way off course and all the name calling, assumptions, accusations and one-sidedness needs to be put to an end.
Troy

 

[Michael R Price]

I'm just curious but why do so few companies sell horn speakers any more? Is it the size, or the bad taste in people's mouths when they think of a bad PA system?

Another question I have: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a wide dispersion (like direct radiators) vs. small dispersion (horns)?

This thread might be a bit over the top but I'm learning a few interesting things from it.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Troy---The trend to horns and SETs is a small one but very real. Most of the horn enthusiasts I know were formerly using direct-radiators, very few used horns from the get-go. There are a number of new companies making home horn speakers. And JBL plans on introducing quality home horns back into the American market, they've always sold such horns in the Japanese market. In Japan horns are popular and there are a number of makes we never even see over here.

These horn enthusiasts are out there, note that they often have very little interaction with enthusiasts of normal "high-end" type hi-fi but run with their own crowd. Many are DIYers and build their own speakers and amplifiers, a totally different aspect of the hobby than buying boutique gear.

There is no doubt that most people prefer the sound of direct-radiators or at least that combined with their small size. Nowhere have I stated that those who use DRs are incorrect and wrong, it's been my position all along that audio is a purely subjective hobby and as such one man's taste is as good as another's.

DR technology is cheap and available, one can get good sound from it far cheaper and easier than with horns and in a much smaller package too, the technology certainly has some virtues and is very attractive to those interested in commercial speaker building.

Many studios use horn speakers such as Ureis, Genelecs, Westlakes and TADs. Often several speakers are available in a studio for monitoring including Auratones and Yamaha NS-10s but I don't think anyone would argue those are good speakers but they're useful tools.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Michael--- Note that horns are available in any number of dispersion patterns, I own horn flares in several dispersion patterns, the narrowest being 45 degrees and the widest 130.
Using the 130 degree horns splashes alot of sound off the side walls and results in a very wide image that runs down the walls to "wrap-around" the listener. This is a neat effect but I never care for it for long. Using 90 degree horns the image still extends past the speakers but is tighter and more focused.
My Edgar "saladbowl" horns have a narrower pattern yet and provide very stable imaging with a wide sweet-spot, in this they are superior to any horn I've heard.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Alex F.]

To sum up, Tom, your posts have taught us two things: (1) low mass is inherently better than high mass for superior dynamics (horns in general); and (2) high mass can be just as good as low mass and also provide superior dynamics (the Klipsch KLF-30's 12" woofers in the heart of the vocal area [below 700 Hz], for example). Now I understand.

 

[Phil Mays]

Mark,

I tried to post this yesterday but the system was "too busy" and would not allow me too.

In general, I think you made a wise choice. I think the Klipsch Reference series is much more detailed and dynamic than the Legend series.

As posted before I have the KLF-20's for mains and will be replacing them with RF-7's within the next few weeks.
However my ultimate setup, for me, is the B & W Nautilus series of speaker. However that is a move for down the road as Timbre matching will dictate a complete turnkey system as horns do not make for a good match to slowly convert.

Good luck and let us all know how you like your system.

P.S. That LSi system is a great looking setup and I can't wait to hear it.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Alex---I never claimed low mass was what was needed for superior dynamics, I was turning your arguement on it's head but you weren't clever enough to catch it. The ability to move large amounts of air with low distortion is the key; something which both low-mass compression drivers and large-area cones are good at. Really, if you can't argue with what I've said desist from inventing things.

I wonder what your point is in keeping this arguement going. As far as dynamics go (the only claim I've made is that the KLF has superior dynamics) your claims are dead wrong and it's been explained why. If you choose to disregard the facts fine, have a field day.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Another thought comes to mind. Call up John Dunlavy (719-592-0859) and tell him his loudspeakers--conventional cones and domes--have poor dynamics. He's a personable fellow and would enjoy talking about it. Get as technical as you'd like--he is both a theoretical and applied-science physicist.

Widescreen Review had some people from the AVS forum(or perhapst the HTF over to try their holosonic theater with 4 Dunlavy SC IV mains and surrounds someone did notice the woofers bottoming out on a scene or 2.

 

[Alex F.]

Bhagi:


Oh, yes, Widescreen Review. The magazine that chose Dunlavy speakers for their ultimate reference system. Or would you prefer I rephrase: The magazine that did not choose horns for their ultimate reference system. Your choice.

 

[Phil Mays]

I will have to say that the horn on my car sounds MUCH better than say a dome type tweeter or other driver for a horn.
Now....if.....I put an Aragon mono block amp to it I bet that would get some attention at traffic lights

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Alex,
Your point is easy. You are right and everyone using a Horn system is wrong.
Are you happy now??

 

[Alex F.]

Manuel:

I didn't say that. Would I have spent over a decade listening to Klipschorns if that was so? Would I have expressed interest in auditioning and possibly purchasing Avantgarde horns then?

If you recall, you are the one who said that those who don't utilize horns are listening to "TV like" and "muddy" sound. I have been defending the moving-coil, planar, and electrostatic designs that you and Tom feel are inferior to horns for accurate reproduction.

You must think that non-horn users are wrong. Does that make you happy?

Must go now. I have to call it a night. I may even go listen to some muddy Mozart later if I find a little time.

 

[Phil Mays]

I wonder how Muddy Waters would sound?

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Alex,

You are right, my mistake. I didn't read your post about the Avantgarde's. They seem to be really amazing speakers.

On the other hand, yes, to my ears "normal driven" speakers sound a bit "muddy". Now, this word is not transmitting what I want to say.

In several occasions I have proved to all the guys that have listened to my system (Klipsch Heresy) that they can draw details that are not present in other systems. We spend a lot of time listening to minimal clues and texture details, and most of them realize what I want to say.

For example, every time I go to a live presentation (I have to say that I attend only classical music concerts, piano, violin, strings, horns, trumpets, big orchestras etc) I note how crisp and alive sounds are. In some recitals, say of a quartet, if you sit close to the instruments they can really sound strident and harsh.

I have only witnessed that kind of dynamics on Horn speakers like mine, Electrostats and Plannars have "a lot of air" and they indeed sound very well, but not as crisp or violent as Horn speakers.

Now, dome tweeters (talking about highs), can sound very well, but will always (and I have listened to several) fail to grasp the ultimate detail, the ultimate texture of some instruments like trumpets, French horns or violins.

Let me put you another example. I auditioned some Sony (SS-X70ED which are comparable to the B&W CDM 7NT, almost a copycat) for about a month in my home (a friend was selling them). They go deeper than my Heresy and I liked very much their sound. For a month I didn't plug my Heresy's and only listened to the Sony's.

I was very happy with their sound. When I plugged again my Heresy's I felt they where harsh! How come? Because I was accustomed to the sound of their Kevlar mid and dome tweeter. This time I spent sometime hearing both of them in a side to side comparo.

No contest, the Heresy's are able to draw an incredible amount of details and textures that are simply not present on the Sony's.

This is just a little anecdote, but I have many more. Im just trying to illustrate a bit why I prefer horns.

By the way, those Sony I tested are not the regular ones that are sold in USA, they belong to a new line of speakers that are really high quality. Those speakers can go to 70Khz and are ready to SACD.

 

[Michael R Price]

A quick question: What causes music to have "impact" with horn speakers? Rock music especially on the Klipsches has an impactful quality to it in the mid/treble, like the crash of a cymbal or a snare drum. You could probably call it "body," like there's a physical presence behind the instruments. I haven't noticed such a quality with conventional speakers. What causes this?

Is there some sort of measurement or specification for "smoothness" and "detail"? These areas especially seem to be where low-priced horns are lacking, and I haven't yet come across a technical reason for a speaker to have such qualities.