KLH Model 5 vs. AR-3a

[Rich W]

I've had a pair of KLH Model 5's that I acquired at a yard sale a few years back. My impression was that they are somewhat dull and boxy sounding, especially when compared to my AR's (specifically, AR-3A, AR-7 and AR-18). I know from viewing the KLH pages that they are very highly regarded, and in fact, they certainly have low bass in spades and a very neutral midrange (incidentally, all drivers are operational). Although I haven't measured cap values as of yet, I think I can safely assume that these KLH's would benefit from a recap.

Question to my fellow Classic Speaker enthusiasts (AR or KLH!): Given my preference for vintage AR speakers over every other speaker I've tried (Large Advents, Legacy II's, ADS, to name a few), can I expect a significant improvement in the performance of my KLH 5's by recapping them, especially in the upper frequencies? What are some of your subjective opinions as to the sound of a properly operating KLH Model 5 vs. an AR-3a?

I'd rather sell them than spend the time and money to recap if they will still not be to my liking.

Opinions?

Happy New Year to All,

Rich W

[Guest pbda]

Question to my fellow Classic Speaker enthusiasts (AR or KLH!): Given my preference for vintage AR speakers over every other speaker I've tried (Large Advents, Legacy II's, ADS, to name a few), can I expect a significant improvement in the performance of my KLH 5's by recapping them, especially in the upper frequencies? What are some of your subjective opinions as to the sound of a properly operating KLH Model 5 vs. an AR-3a?

I had Carl Richard recap (and refurbish) my Model Fives earlier this year. The difference, particularly in the higher frequencies, is astonishing. I strongly recommend that you go this route; you'll never know how good these speakers can sound unless you do.

My primary speakers at the moment are my AR 3a's. I've never tested the 3a's and the Model Fives against each other, so I cannot comment on how they compare. Fortunately, I've got room for both!

[tysontom]

I've had a pair of KLH Model 5's that I acquired at a yard sale a few years back. My impression was that they are somewhat dull and boxy sounding, especially when compared to my AR's (specifically, AR-3A, AR-7 and AR-18). I know from viewing the KLH pages that they are very highly regarded, and in fact, they certainly have low bass in spades and a very neutral midrange (incidentally, all drivers are operational). Although I haven't measured cap values as of yet, I think I can safely assume that these KLH's would benefit from a recap.

Question to my fellow Classic Speaker enthusiasts (AR or KLH!): Given my preference for vintage AR speakers over every other speaker I've tried (Large Advents, Legacy II's, ADS, to name a few), can I expect a significant improvement in the performance of my KLH 5's by recapping them, especially in the upper frequencies? What are some of your subjective opinions as to the sound of a properly operating KLH Model 5 vs. an AR-3a?

Rich,

The KLH Five is an excellent speaker by any measure. It has excellent, deep bass and a strong midrange and treble with good dispersion. These speakers are definitely worth updating, and probably represent one of KLH's best efforts in speaker design.

Compared to the AR-3a, properly functioning Fives will sound "brighter," not duller than the AR-3a when compared up close and on-axis. Most people contend that the AR-3a is a bit more natural-sounding and perhaps smoother, but more reticent or "laid-back" in character. There has always been intense, and sometime bitter, discussion about the virtues of on-axis brightness and focus (also relating to the "imaging" factor) vs. off-axis performance and acoustic power into a listening room. In essence, the AR-3a has superior off-axis dispersion, and therefore superior acoustic power into most listening environments (more sound at all frequencies is dispersed into the listening environment). Up close, the KLH Five sounds crisper and brighter with an almost over-bearing midrange to someone used to the "AR sound;" back in the far field of a listening environment where the AR-3a sounds more spacious and "encompassing," the Five begins to sound less "three-dimensional." Still not bad by most standards, but not as good as the AR-3a. So therefore, the integrated frequency response (acoustic power into an area) of the AR-3a is superior to that of the KLH Five, whereas the on-axis frequency response of the KLH Five is a few dB less tilted than the AR-3a.

As for bass response, there is not a lot of subjective difference between the AR-3a and the KLH Five. The AR-3a woofer is significantly more potent and has a lower resonance than the Five woofer, but on most music the differences are barely noticeable. The 12-inch AR woofer has a more massive moving system with a larger magnet and voice coil (with more overhang in the gap), lower harmonic distortion etc., but these details mean little for most music. However, once organ music or electronic music with lots of subsonic frequencies are involved, the power of the AR woofer becomes more apparent.

So overall, both of these speakers perform very well -- "one man's meat is another man's poison." For less money the KLH Five nearly equals the more-expensive, all-out AR-3a. But the final result, in my opinion, is that the AR-3a is a superior loudspeaker when objective measurements are taken into account.

--Tom Tyson

[joelongwood]

I couldn't agree with you more, Tom. I have both the AR3a (1974) and the KLH 5. I find the KLH 5 puts out a bit too much upper midrange energy for my ears. As a result, they sound a bit too bright for my taste. Hence I have become quite addicted to the vintage AR sound. Slowly but surely, ARs (2, 2a, 2ax (both pre and post 1970), 4, 4x, 5, and 3a are all hooked up and running) have begun to replace all other speakers in the house, except for my Rectilinears. My KLH collection, for the most part, sits silent.

[dynaco_dan]

I couldn't agree with you more, Tom. I have both the AR3a (1974) and the KLH 5. I find the KLH 5 puts out a bit too much upper midrange energy for my ears. As a result, they sound a bit too bright for my taste. Hence I have become quite addicted to the vintage AR sound. Slowly but surely, ARs (2, 2a, 2ax (both pre and post 1970), 4, 4x, 5, and 3a are all hooked up and running) have begun to replace all other speakers in the house, except for my Rectilinears. My KLH collection, for the most part, sits silent.

Hi Joe;

The list might be easier for us to read, which AR speakers you do not own. LOL LOL

You and Tom must be single or really have very, very understanding partners. LOL LOL

I have not heard a pair of KLH Fives, I would imagine the the KLH Five and AR-5's might have a more of a common sound, than with the AR-3A's.

Just a thought.

[JKent]

I've had a pair of KLH Model 5's that I acquired at a yard sale a few years back. My impression was that they are somewhat dull and boxy sounding, especially when compared to my AR's (specifically, AR-3A, AR-7 and AR-18). I know from viewing the KLH pages that they are very highly regarded, and in fact, they certainly have low bass in spades and a very neutral midrange (incidentally, all drivers are operational). Although I haven't measured cap values as of yet, I think I can safely assume that these KLH's would benefit from a recap.

Question to my fellow Classic Speaker enthusiasts (AR or KLH!): Given my preference for vintage AR speakers over every other speaker I've tried (Large Advents, Legacy II's, ADS, to name a few), can I expect a significant improvement in the performance of my KLH 5's by recapping them, especially in the upper frequencies? What are some of your subjective opinions as to the sound of a properly operating KLH Model 5 vs. an AR-3a?

I'd rather sell them than spend the time and money to recap if they will still not be to my liking.

Opinions?

Happy New Year to All,

Rich W

To get back to your original question: Yes! Recap the Fives! You will find schematics in the Library here, and an article by Bob Van der Veen (mrdb)

on rebuilding the Fives. I just finished recapping some KLH Twelves (see thread in the KLH section: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...showtopic=4111). They are the "big brothers" to the Fives--same drivers, bigger boxes. They sounded awful when I bought them but now sound wonderful, even with cheap electrolytic replacements. KLH was apparently notoroius for using crappy capacitors. I have refurbed lots of KLH Twenty-One radios and ALWAYS replace the big Tennessee power supply cap. I have recapped some KLH Seventeens in which the original caps exploded! (photo in this thread: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=3972 ) If you are hesitant to spend a lot of money on the Fives, either use NPEs or--as the very helpful RoyC suggested--use inexpensive mylars for the higher frequencies and polypros for the woofers. Looks like the Fives take one 3uF, three 4uF, one 16uF and one 25uF per speaker (if I'm reading this right). You can use the same mylars from Madisound that I used and--since there is physical room in the speaker cabinet--you can use polyprop 25uF's for the woofers. Even if you opt to use all polys--the most expensive option-- the cost for TWO speakers will probably be under $60.

The Fives are really good speakers. Recap them them and listen! (as Carl says, it's all about the music)

Kent

[RoyC]

Vern, there are no similarities at all between the KLH 5 and the AR-5.

I do love that KLH 5 cabinet!

Roy

[soundminded]

It's been a very long time since I've heard either of these speakers however, KLH Model 5 always struck me as a disappointment. It's tonal balance was not typical of other KLH speakers, certainly easily distinguishable from Models 6 and 17. I had a next door neighbor who had a pair. As I recall, the speaker shared the same tweeter with 6, 12, and 17, had two of KLH's 5 inch full range drivers as midranges, and a beefed up 12" acoustic suspension woofer comared to 6. It had all of the right stuff but somehow it didn't work. It always seemed to me to have a bass heavy sound which overpowered the rest of the range. It lacked the clarity and accuracy of the Model 6 IMO. AR3a was IMO a more neutral sounding speaker. In 1968 all you could do was live with it. In 2008 it's another story, with a simple 10 band graphic equalizer and sufficient patience, either speaker should be able to be made to sound very much like the other. With a 1/3 octave equalizer, they could be made to sound much closer. However, KLH Model 5 did not have the low end reach of AR3a and its tweeter and midrange did not have nearly as good dispersion. This cannot be compensated for with equalization, AR3a was simply capable of deeper lower distortion bass which would only be evident on some music. Also, because they have different driver dispersion characteristics and different crossover frequencies and filters, their FR/phase shift peculiarities in the crossover ranges will be different. How noticable that would be I can't tell. KLH Model 5's ultimate bass capabilility may be closer to that of AR5. Both were about $175 compared to $250 for AR3a. I think KLH model 5 may have been more efficient and an easier load for most amplifiers.

[Rich W]

Thanks for all your respective opinions. The general concensus on the KLH 5's mirrors my experience with the Larger Advent Speaker, which is not surprising considering they were both designed by the same person. Like Roy wanting to like the KLH 5 more, I felt the exactly same about the Advents. What I would term a harsh upper midrange and a somewhat beamy dispersion pattern seem to be the common denominator. I was always wondering years back why my buddy's AR-18's sounded so much better on orchestral music, especially massed strings, than my Advents.

In any case, the KLH 5's are in superb condition (those cabinets are really nice!), so I'll probably proceed with the recap anyway, but without spending as much on caps as I did for my AR-3a's. Since I'm beginning to have the beginnings of what can only be called a speaker museum, I might as well have Henry Kloss's flagship contribution represented (I can always sell them). And yes, if I come upon a pair of Large Advents for next to nothing, I probably fix them as well.

By the way, during the holidays, my sister dumped her needing-to-be refoamed pair of AR-18's (circa 1986 with the beveled edges) on my doorstep. She doesn't want them back. Oh well, I'd better order everything from PartsExpress at once to keep the shipping costs down . . . welcome to the museum.

Best Regards,

Rich W