Posted by Wayne Parham on November 23, 2001 at 23:02:14

In Reply to: Klipschorn vs. Seven Pi with JBL drivers posted by Super_BQ on November 23, 2001 at 16:54:11:

Remember to consider the source. If you ask for an opinion on the Klipsch forum, I wouldn't be surprised to hear responses favorable to Klipsch. Same is true here.

That said, I've always liked the Klipschorn and in fact, it was what really inspired the π cornerhorn. What I've done is to re-evaluate the conditions, changing design parameters where I thought they were justified. I've also used much better drivers and concentrated on generating a uniform reverberent field. This makes even better use of the 90^o radiating angle the corner, ensuring all sounds have this radiation pattern. Those are some of the things I have done that, I think, set the π cornerhorn above the Klipschorn.

When I started working on the π cornerhorn design, my first thought was to use a folded basshorn. But even an eighth-space basshorn is pretty large, and folding it makes it complex to build. It has path length that causes a delay, so even when crossed over very low, there is no way to get summing right in the midrange. That was my biggest dillema - the 400Hz crossover of the Klipschorn is clearly too high, making vocals sound throaty because they pass through the labyrinthene passageways of the bass bin. Even if the crossover is shifted down an octave or two, there is still a considerable path length delay.

I began to consider the fact that corner lift is 9dB, all by itself. Even without the horn, the bass bin becomes louder when placed in the corner. It's radiation angle is confined much the same way a horn does. There is no path length to delay the sound, so midbass/midrange integration is much better. And cabinet construction is simple. After considering all these things, I decided on the bass bin configuration that became the π cornerhorn.