D-MAN
-
Posts
4413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by D-MAN
-
-
I'm with you on the strength of the soldered splice, but my thinking is that the splice itself would be more inflexible than the rest of the wire, and the wire next to the splice becomes the weak point...seen it before like musicians cables which get rolled up and such alot.
That was my thinking...
DM
-
----------------On 1/30/2004 5:11:33 PM Mr. P wrote:I am totally astounded by this subject!! As a former Klipsch Engineer, and a Materials and Processes Engineer in the aerospace field for the last 24 years, my first response has to be what Paul would have said to me after that question. BULL****!!----------------
I swear, IT'S ALWAYS THE ENGINEERS!
Welcome!
DM
-
even when soldered the splice will be a weak point if you are going to be flexing, rolling up, pulling, etc.
I agree that you would be better off to get a single piece of large diameter stuff the correct length to prevent possible "issues".
DM
-
I actually have no idea as to the level I normally listen to except for the wattage meters on the amp, which are probable wildly inaccurate (McIntosh MC300).
Normally, I listen to 1/3 of a watt on each channel according to the meters. I can handle peaks of 3 watts if they are only peaks. To show off I turn it up to 10 watts, but only for less than 30 seconds or so. I'm not THAT old that I don't rock out, but JET ENGINE volume is downright painful... take it easy dude, or you'll hurt yourself permanently!
DM
-
APPLES vs. ORANGES; speaker differences using price points as an example:
Dollar for dollar they are all about the same, perform about the same and compete with each other in the consumer market at the same "price point". Mass market consumer-level speakers are all alike; some perform worse than others, some have better "gimicks" but even the "best" of breed cannot compare to more expensive speakers; but that is another ball game.
When you up the dollars, you change the market "price point". Then things get different. So you really cannot compare apples to oranges in a meaningful way...
BOSE vs. KLIPSCH? does BOSE make anything like the KLIPSCHORN? negative, but Klipsch makes speakers as BAD as BOSE for the same $$.
-
generally, as I cannot inspect the thing and even then, I can only guess, so here's my guesses:
1) if the tube is shock damaged to the point that it fails, it usually fails for good like a lightbulb. it would not fix itself. That is not to say that it is not damaged, we are only making some estimations here...
2) intermittant failure is probably from another source, such as a connection or even a single pin with a less than effective electrical contact. I would go there first.
3) capacitors would be my next guess as tolerances change due to age ; this can cause an intermittant discharge for who knows what reason and the tube loses bias, and signal goes bye-bye. it then comes back when the cap recharges.
4) tubes can be finicky as we all know, so who knows?!
Good luck!
DM
-
are these bi-wires? Otherwise, I don't understand the question... however, I will proceed on the assumption that they are...
If they bi-wires then the single pair of connectors (+, -) connect at the AMP, and the double pair connects to the speakers.
If the speakers have 4 connects, unlink the "uppers" from the lowers and connect the double pair, typically the "thicker" pair to the woofer (or low frequency) connects, and the "thinner" pair to the upper frequency connects (this labeling depends on the speaker manufacturer). Ensure that you maintain the polarity between the amp and each respective speaker connect (+ to +, - to -). Good luck!
DM
-
Holy underwear, Batman!
Your'e in college and have 4 grand to drop on a stereo rig!??
I lugged around KHORNS when I was in college! sold 'em when I needed money AFTER GRADUATING! ...took me another 20 years before I got another set.
4000 bucks to spend, eh? Here's my recommendations:
1) always a good call- get separates ; preamp and amp
2) buy McIntosh pre and amp of your choice - used is great
3) check out Meridian CD players, they are build like the proverbial BRICK ***T-house and sound EXQUISITE
4) get SILVER INTERCONNECTS to lash it up ; use XLR whenever possible but RCA silvers are better than any non-silvers
That ought to about eat the $4k.
DM
-
----------------On 1/28/2004 9:33:14 AM Colin wrote:Of all of the modern receivers to mate with big ole horns, Yamaha is often said to be the worst match!----------------
Where did you hear that? I would doubt it, however, the same buddy mentioned above wants to test his Yamaha amp on my horns just to make sure how it stacks up... I'll let you know...
DM
-
Your'e right. Sure looks like a Klipsch "Shorthorn" to me...
Not a copyright infringement - you mean a patent infringement...( of course, we know what you meant).
I believe that the SHORTHORN was indeed patented by Klipsch, but don't know if Jensen was ever licensed to produce it, and even if not, whether PWK ever sued anybody over patent infringements or not (please fill me in).
I've heard that SpeakerLab in Seattle was supposedly sued by Klipsch for producing the SpeakerLab "K" - the infamous Klipschorn knockoff, but I can assure everyone that IT NEVER HAPPENED. The original Klipsch patent expired in 1965 long before SpeakerLab ever existed!
Copyrights apply only to published materials, patents are used to protect the manufacturer of commercial products or methods or processes used in the manufacture of commercial products for the usual period of 20 years. Designs and product appearance (known as a "design patent") can also be patented but usually for more limited period (typically from 7 to 14 years).
DM
-
Thanks John,
Didn't know that.
DM
-
Holy cow! You people even argue about "interconnects" and what to call them! Here is the absolute TRUTH:
Patch cords are what you buy at Radio Shack,
Interconnects are what you buy anywhere else.
Nuff said!
DM
I KID BECAUSE I LOVE...
-
For me, it is an application-specific question, so I have 2 anwers:
1) My opinion is that bi-wiring is a waste of money for non-critical listening as with a movie soundtrack where who really cares if the explosion is reproduced as accurately as possible... how in the hell do they record an explosion anyway? here's a clue: THEY DON'T - it is usually synthesized. So you wouldn't know a good explosion from a bad one no matter what wiring you use - so why spend extra money for better wire in such a case?
2) Now for critical listening such as stereo music only, you may enjoy a noticable benefit that you feel is worth the money by using bi-wiring.
Just another opinion and everyones got one....
DM
-
Good thread, you guys...
Again, you have brought up ample things to think about that I have not run across before...
When I built my DIY horns, I took the approach that every obstruction in the exponential channel(s) was to be avoided. I've even read that some designers/builders even recomend painting the interior of the horn with high-gloss enamel for that reason (which I did NOT do, but again, it SEEMS REASONABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND).
The occurence of a 90 degree "naked" channel corner is unusual from that mindset... seems like an cause of turbulence to me. It may be pointless, but I am afraid that I would want to "fix" it if I were building them...
The question that I am leading to is this:
Is there anything to this point of view or is it just a waste of time?
DM
-
Yeah, I WAS thinking horn...
I was not aware that the K33E was used in other things...
WARNING: THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN AN IDIOT!
DM
-
I've got horns and a 300watt McIntosh that never gets past 3 watts on the meters and thats WAY too loud... Not promoting wattage, just CLARITY. I've never owned a piece of gear that I consider a reference before but now I am absolutely convinced.
But I have never been happier with an amp or have any desire to get anything else (I had tubes, but they are boxed in the closet). They don't do anything the Mc don't do.
The Mc can definately do horns right at any volume.
Bad mouthing McInstosh!! SHEESH!!
DM
-
Gil and all,
I ran across a reference that explained the benefit of bifurcating the horn as having to do with a limit on the location of bends in a folded horn as having to occur before the expansion reaches a certain ratio to the frequency (waveform) being transmitted. More or less (I haven't got it handy) the foldings need to occur close to the throat and should not occur after that (i.e., where the horn dimensions meet or exceed the value). Bifurcating the horn at the throat keeps the ratio from being reached compared to a non-bifurcated horn in that the respective horn dimensions are reduced in physical size in relation to the waveform which, of course, doesn't change.
I've also read somewhere that most designers take the "center of the channel" approach to horn path length calculations. As I stated in my previous post I understand that a straight conduit does not harm the waveform - however the 90 degree turn in the LS has no expansion qualities that I can see but also that no attempt was made to accelerate the waveform around the bend using a triangular outside brace as is the usual practice (like the Khorn) and others, I am wondering why PWK decided that it wasn't worth the effort... perhaps just a manufacturing shortcut?
DM
-
Modern SS receivers recommendations based on a buddy of mine selling this stuff:
Modern Yamaha gear undisputably has the best build quality and best sound for all of the Japanese/Asian consumer-level electronics audio SS gear.
I tend to agree with his assessment in that:
1) Pioneer is probably the worst for the money in quality and performance (I've owned a Pioneer - ONLY ONCE and NEVER AGAIN!)
2) Sony audio products are quite mediocre at best, however video products are excellent
3) Panasonic audio receivers fry when overdriven ; demonstrating a subwoofer on the showroom floor it smoked right out of the box ; not a good sign of effective quality control - so buyers beware!
4) Denon is slightly better at audio than Sony (that's my opinion) but again quite mediocre ; my 6 channel is a Denon. Still going with no problems after 6 years. I MIGHT buy another if I couldn't find an equivelant Yamaha product for the same money.
So if you want the best of the Japanese/Asian crowd of SS receivers, ect, go for a Yamaha. Doesn't cost any more, either... go figure! Also he says that the Yamaha gear doesn't come back for warranty repair.
DM
-
Name some names, dude.
Otherwise, it is a generalization. If a generalization, I would have to say that virtually ALL older or "vintage" or first generation SS amps basically suck when compared in general to most tube gear available at the time, and they certainly suck when compared to the current SS amps (again depending on the BRAND(s) which we have not named).
So I will name some names:
Did my old 1977 Marantz integrated compare to my "modern" McIntosh MC300? NEGATIVE.
Did my Phase Linear 400 compare with my MC300? NEGATIVE.
Did my 1980 Crown IC150 compare with the MC300? NEGATIVE.
Did Mintosh make equivelent quality gear in 1970 that compares with the "modern" gear? Probably, but have no experience with that.
That is the extent of what I have experience with...
DM
-
There aren't any easy answers for this...
I am suggesting the following as a possible solution on the basis of mid-and-upper horn alignment first followed by room treatments (they are inter-related) and have had the most success with it (also, it is the cheaper of all of the routes to go down, I think). At least, this is what I did...
One of my gripes with the classic Khorn is the top cabinet having the horns being hard-mounted to a baffle board.
When the top cabinet is aligned to the bottom, which is aesthetically pleasing of course, the horns probably are not pointing directly at the listening position (at least in my place as it ain't that big of a room). This caused me endless grief as all of the upper-end horns were off-axis and sounded pretty "peaky" and/or shrill at some times. So I fixed this by replacing the top cabinet so that the "new" cabinet remains aligned with the bottom but I can adjust the horns' orientation independently within it.
I feel that they sound better on-axis, others may prefer off-axis. Could the upper horn axis alignment be the issue rather than a network problem? In the right space, this issue may not come up, but so far, I haven't had the right space...
I would not recommend modifying the original Khorn top cabinet - I would say make a replacement cabinet to play with. That way no harm is done.
DM
-
Marvel,
I have read that a waveform suffers virtually no ill effects when going through a column or a pipe of unchanging geometry and especially of short lengths compared to the wavelengths envolved, such as that occuring at the 90 degree corners between the two expanding channels in the La Scala. As far as I can figure, it's use is to keep the outside (and back chamber) dimensions within the desired values. It has no additive effect on the length of the exponential horn(s) themselves.
Anybody check me on this?
DM
-
Gil brought up another great thought-provoker concerning corner loaded mouth size:
I figure that the apparent mouth to be 1/8 the calculated size of a straight horn mouth when corner loaded. This is a kluge, but seems to work. Normal straight horn rules-of-thumb get kind of "seriously modified" when it comes to folded corner horns...
However, I have read that corner loading produces EIGEN-TONES which are supposedly not good.
What the heck is THAT? Khorns sound great to me... am I missing something?
DM
-
Hi, again.
Gil was right: As far as placing the 2-driver throat openings further "up" the horn as compared to the single driver version, as long as the cavity opening effectively doubles the orig. single opening at the appropriate expansion point in the horn, the geometry and expected performance of the horn is retained. So this does not alter the horn's fc. I was wrong on that point.
2 drivers doubles the efficiency which is reported in the single driver version to be approaching 30% if I remember correctly. So effectively, you have to double the midrange and tweeter horns and drivers to keep up with the bass output. Maybe that's the reason PWK didn't manufacture these!
The back chamber volume is up in the air for me... since we are not enlarging the throat area or the horn geometry then I assume that no changes are required for the back chamber since its effect is to match the resistance of the air in the exponential horn itself to provide equal motion of the cone front and back. So perhaps no changes are needed here, too.
The doubling of efficiency would have an apparent effect on the rolled off bass freqs, but the overall response curve of the horn would not change. It would just be louder at the same given wattage, and by being louder, the "rolled off" low freqs below the fc would also be twice as loud. But they still get rolled off below fc proportionally. Altering the horn geometry to lower the fc is the only way around that.
I would also estimate the 2-driver version to have far more PUNCH (twice as much) compared to the single diver unit and with a double set of upper horns, the transients could kill. Perhaps that is what you want as there is not much lower bass available on most music source material that is not single-note bass (for cars) or "noise" and/or "sound effect" on a movie soundtrack. I'm sure that the 2 driver version would definately kick some serious tail from here to next week.
BUILD THEM and THEY WILL COME...
DM
-
Well, dudes, take this all with a grain of salt.
GIL:
You are usually right about things (and might be, after all), but I feel the need to explain and clarify my point and in this case, (GASP!) refute yours.
I have read numerous times that the LF waveform is propagated most efficiently by a slow (for a low fc) and mathematically steady expansion rate from a given throat size (which is integral in determining the expansion rate and efficiency for a particular fc) and the subsequent length of the horn to the mouth and one cannot shorten the horn by simply moving the throat opening around and get the same result; if it worked that way, the Khorn itself would be quite a bit smaller in size as would all horns. Of course, the size of the throat would have to be increased at the point that we are considering for the 2-driver version, but the cone size in question would be the controlling limit on that. I think that the horn area cross-section at that point is larger than the available cone area. I am assuming an unaltered Khorn dimensioned horn, as dimensions are not specified in the diagram. None-the-less, I will stay with what I said in the previous post. But as always, you bring up a good point, so I will have to chew on it awhile and do some research.
MUNGKIMAN:
Agin, just a guess, but if you go with dual 15" drivers, you should theoretically be able to just power your way past the low freq cutoff point to a certain extent at least more than a normal Khorn does. PWK published an article about horn low fc as not being an absolute limit.
But I don't think that you can find a good pair of 12"s that could for as little investment.
My final bit of reasoning: If it out performed or even came close to the performance of the Khorn,
and it is certainly easier to build, then why did PWK continue to manufacture the more difficult design.
I rest my case.
DM
Does this mean Klipsch is bad?
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
Perhaps I was a bit harsh.
It's just that I remember Klipsch in the old days when you could not find any of their products in any department store, or the GOOD GUYS, etc.
They used to be "high-end" with the what is now the Heritage series. Now they are low-end (are they in WALMART yet?).
I suppose that its a lament, not a rant.
Nuff said...
DM