D-MAN

The general consensus from a conversation on AA with Fitzmaurice is that for frequencies above 300Hz, the full channel reflector should be used. Below that, a radius (partial) reflector is fine. Below 100, no reflectors are needed. It depends on the upper bandpass that you want and the mass rolloff of the driver in question. With that in mind, my personal opinion is that the full-channel reflector should be used in most cases, except subwoofers where it has no effect except to add weight to the enclosure. DM

Bob, me too. But we'll fix that. He'll be up and running with a full-dress pair soon. But remember, he has the patience of a Saint! I think he did an extremely nice job. Bruce, by all means, send them! DM

Bruce, I thought of you, too - YOU could draw this, too, couldn't you? In 3-D, even! I'm sure of the dimensions... On another note, Fleming Scov in Denmark is going to give the S-LS a whack, too. He already has a pair of the V2's. I'm feeling good about that being a vote of confidence! Thanks, Fleming! He also designed and built a fine looking 500 Hz Fc Smith horn. I think we need to build a set of those for ourselves, too, so I'll see if I can get the plans from him. I've added Chris' pictures to the S-LS plans. I'll send you a "fresh" set, too. Dana

Here's where I want to go... DM

Where I'd like to go with it is this, but I can't draw it very well. Where's Armando when I need him?! !

Also, being that its a 90 degree wedge, you could just butt-joint them instead of the miter I showed above. Even easier! DM

Chris, I thought about that on the throat splitting wedges. I make them out of 4x4 solid fir which is how the plans describe them, but they could be made from 3/4" ply, open back, open bottom, with a top (or bottom, respectively) to seal them. Well glued in, they should be sealed completely. These would be the 4" wide x 6-1/8 45 degree "front pieces" with a single triangular top or bottom piece inset flush to seal of the "interior". When glued and screwed in place, no soundwaves can get in behind. 3 parts per wedge, 6 required total. I also will email you an alternative full-height solid wood version of the wedges, but I figure that will take a bandsaw to make. Easily, that is. Dana

Another cabinet will certainly clarify the LF output in that it will be twice as much of what you are getting out of one, with no muddling, mixing or blending, and no covering up. Any response abberations will also be twice as loud and will easily stick out. I wouldn't bother playing with the ports. WIth the ports plugged the back chamber is going to be far too large to be anything but floppy-sounding for that driver. That would be what I'd expect. The Vb is sized to allow the ports to resonate at the appropriate frequency. Chris cut the ports at 8" length, they could go as short as 7" which is where most djk-modded LS owners seem to prefer, which is somewhere in the high 30's. I would say that 8" is probably fine. I'd have to hear them to be sure. No, I wouldn't mess around too much until I had the second cabinet. One is just giving him a bad taste. Messing with it won't make it taste any sweeter, because I don't think that there is anything wrong, technically speaking. I don't think that they are going to sound like a La Scala in any event because the horn is configured differently, enough to make it its own thing. The mouth size is the same, but the horn length is longer. There are hard reflectors in it that the LS doesn't have, and it also goes higher in response because of the throat channel configuration as well as a different back chamber size (and ports). That alone should be an indicator of the difference in horn configuration and related performance. ABOUT THE LA SCALA - And speaking of a La Scala, I heard them twice in two different placements, same cabs, same equip, same room. One placement I thought they sounded IMPRESSIVE and one placement they made my ears bleed. I know that if properly setup mine will NOT make your ears bleed regardless of placement, but that is all network and mid/high renage horn/drivers, seems to me. That is easily overcome, I already have the network and drivers. Remember, the S-LS are based on my corner horns, they just also happen to use the folding pattern of the LS (and have the same nominal Fc). But then, the EV Eliminator uses the same fold pattern and many others (vertical instead). Instead of thinking that the S-LS as just a fancy La Scala, think of it more as a folded Altec A7. Couldn't use the same Altec driver because it needs more internal volume but I might try one just to play around with one, they are great mid-bass drivers. But the difference is that the S-LS can make use of the great mid-bass capability of a driver like that, which would literally be a waste in a real La Scala. No, I don't think it will ever sound like a La Scala. Bass-wise, it goes lower, it goes higher, and takes up less floor space. The idea is to outperform the La Scala, not sound like one. Maybe a ported "Little Bast@ard"? Nah... DM

Dang, that thing looks sexy! I want a pair BAD. DM

Chris, my advice is build the second cabinet. You need to cut me the parts anyway (!), and a pair is much easier to "get rid off" (if you want to go that route) than a single (take it from me, I know whereof I speak). Otherwise, stopping with one, you are going to make me look bad. However, you could send me the flat kit for a pair, and all is forgiven! But seriously, yes, a single bass bin is literally listening to a woofer, and nobody can evaluate that very well by ear. They sound pretty HORRIBLE like a subwoofer without any high end. Man, I wish I was there to help. Well, it's a learning experience for both of us. But really, a pair, build a pair. I think you'll be suprized. I have a pair of ALK ES at 600 Hz specifically for that driver which I can loan you, (now there's a possible deal) if you have the horns/drivers for it. I've got those, too (another possible deal). But you'll need to build a PAIR first. That reminds me, RICK (3dzapper) you have PM. Dana

Don't ask me! Chris has the only one in existance! And I've never even heard a CW... I was only trying to beat the La Scala (which I have heard - I wanted to buy them, even) by increasing the bandwidth and reducing the footprint. Dana

My original intention was to cover up the top with a high-frequency cabinet in the standard manner. DM

I probably shouldn't pre-emp Chris, but this is killing me. I haven't heard from him recently, but I did talk him into hooking it up for a test run last week before he has finished it completely. Unfortunately, he only built one cabinet, so that makes it sort of difficult to discern its qualities. On my advice, he took the woofer output from the network of one of his Cornwalls (disconnected woofer) and ran that through a port tube on the S-LS to the Crites CW1526C woofer on the narrow 3" wide slot (like the La Scala) motor board. The Cornwall in question was sitting on the top of the S-LS. And then he fired it up! I think he expected a big change compared to a Cornwall. So did I, but I should say at this point that I have never actually heard a CW ... I was telling him that the S-LS should be twice as loud as a CW. I figured the CW's at 99db or there abouts, figuring the driver's 96 db + 3 db for the port-loading. So the fault is mine. He was somewhat disappointed in that he said he couldn't really hear a difference between the single S-LS bass bin and the Cornwall(s). That is depressing considering all of the work that goes into building one, isn't it? His report initially suprised me too, until I looked up the published sensitivity of the CW III. I'm presuming the low-end of his 1986 (?) CW's to be about the same. CW = 102 db +/- 2db 34-20K (Holy Cow! how is that possible?!) S-LS = 104 (Klipsch says 105 db for the La Scala +/- 5db, so I am conservatively estimating 104 db) [this also assumes a 96 db Klipsch or compatible driver, narrow slot, hence the CW1526C] That would be a net change of +2 db in SPL, which is not actually discernable by the human ear by everything I've read... Bottom line is that there is nothing shabby about the CW response specs. Literally, a Khorn bass bin would have trouble topping that, seems to me, in the case of ONE and not a pair, but that is a matter of conjecture. Most of this is a matter of conjecture, come to think of it. However, the S-LS seems to work fine using the CW crossover (6db slope at 800 Hz), and that is what I expected due to the throat configuration. Also, if the low octave is indeed comparable to a Cornwall, the reflex ports are also doing what they are supposed to. The lowest octave between the two, in fact, should be exactly the same, there should be no difference there. The difference would be in the 60Hz and above range. In actuality, I'm pretty happy with the reported results after I found out what was going on, although I feel bad for Chris feeling disappointed. But what the heck, he should have built 2 and AVOIDED POSSIBLE DISAPPOINTMENT! Just kidding, Chris. I should have done my homework when you asked about CW's and not set you up further for disappointment. I appologize for being an idiot. I am willing to bet that he would likely be able to hear a discernable difference (i.e., the benefits of horn loading) if he could listen to a pair at the same time instead of a single. I don't imagine that you could hear much of a difference with only one unless some very careful listening is done. But, like I said before on other threads, my rule is NEVER test-listen with one of anything! Done it myself and got burned. This episode has given me new respect for the output of a Klipsch Cornwall, though. That is a suprisingly efficient bass-reflex enclosure if I can't beat one hands-down on the FIRST LISTEN with a well-designed (if I do say so myself) horn! Remember, this is only ONE bass bin by itself, and, in Chris' case, it's using Klipsch parts (or compatible) so it is, in essence, entirely compatible in every sense of the word. The listening results of a single S-LS bass bin compared to a Cornwall? Inconclusive at present. Wish it were conclusive, but I'm not there and I'm not the one doing the listening. I recommended to Chris that the next listening test should be using the wider 6" slot motor board and see if the efficiency goes over the +3db point, which SHOULD be discernable even with a single cabinet. Also I would expect the upper frequency range to increase with the wider slot. Then perhaps, a stronger woofer might be in order, but then the CW network and the tweeters would "go out the window", so to speak. It depends on what Chris wants to do. Sounds to me like he wants to go industrial strength, and that certainly means a using a more efficient driver. I have one in mind, 99 db. I certainly want happy, satisfied DIYers, and don't want anyone to ever be disappointed for any reason, even the ones I can't do anything about. However, it seems that the design is doing everything its supposed to, so I'm actually pleased (now). DM

Shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) are less effected by overall horn mouth size than longer wavelengths, so it makes sense that the K400 could be shortened (decreasing mouth size) while keeping the flare rate for a lower Fc (400 Hz) without causing too great of variances in reactance that would effect the output response. It also helps that the operational bandwidth for the horn is moved "upwards" by the crossover network in such a case, in essense, the horn has a mouth size appropriate for the "new" higher frequency but a lower flare rate. This foreshortening would be bad in a bass horn, but as the wavelength shortens with higher frequencies such as midrange and above, the debilitating effects on frequency response in the case of a midrange horn are not as great, and the higher one goes in frequency, the less the variance amplitude. The first publishing of this was (to my knowlege) by Olsen in "Acoustic Engineering". DM

Khorn bass channel splay angles and the height of the high frequency units makes for requiring a complicated measuring methodology. The distance is required for the LF waveform to propagate to the optimum mouth size within the 1/8th space environment outside the enclosure, for one thing. Measuring at the "apparent" mouth/channel terminus would not work either, of course, and would also lack the top-end propagation paths. The 3 meter measurement result is then calculated for an approximation of what it would/should be at 1 meter. DM

There is no fixed mathematical ratio, if that's what is implied, however, there is ABSOLUTELY a GENERAL inverse relationship between distortion (IM distortion, in particular) and efficiency, which everyone can easily experience. However, no mathematical formula will provide this, but that doesn't mean that the PRINCIPLE is not true. The written account of this is one of PWK's legacies, mentioned in professional papers, patents, and also by different respected authors. DM

no i think about my response alot; then i get bored. if you make a clone khorn lf horn, i don't care what driver you put in it. if you buy a khorn lf cabinet and change the driver, i could care less. but i always thought (and maybe silly me for thinking this) if you are going to build a clone of something, it may be cause you are trying to get what you can't afford and that maybe, just maybe, you may want to put the driver that the company used to try to get the sound of the original you just cloned. i don't know; just call me crazy. roy delgado Crazy like a fox... I think that the enclosure is only half of what matters, the network/driver setup is the other 50%. Ample rope to hang oneself! DM

Chris evidently has the patience of a saint! You're KILLIN' me, man! Dana

The thing to be noted is a valiant attempt to rescue the family was made after a litany of mistakes. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. The issue of whether to stay put or whether to attempt to walk out is always a very tough decision. It is unlikely that anyone would search such a remote road in the mountains in a snow storm. What makes this unusual (somewhat) is that USUALLY the weather out here won't generally kill you. That was a particularily nasty storm, out-of-season, even. DM

That's why its called a KLONE, and not a Klipsch. A little too fast on the trigger, Roy! I do have my facts straight. That's why I am questioning your post: Are we not in agreement?! DM

Nice to see that Roy is still with us! JC, you are absolutely correct - there is NO good way to A/B them. But when both speakers are matched with the same components, etc., the sound changes quite a bit. The particular strengths and weaknesses show up with greater clarity. For instance, the weakness(es) or strength(s) of one component may interfere with the overall sound, masking the deficiencies, and while it may sound acceptable, when the components are matched, it may not be. I always do my serious "check out" with matched components - I've learned the hard way: "if it's convienient, it's not right!" heh, heh... For example, when I checked out the tractix midrange horn as a single only, it sounded astonishingly wonderful. The blend was terrific. I couldn't wait to get the other one setup too. But when I went for two at the same time, it sounded quite horrific. The deficiencies were compounded and revealed with two, where one's deficiencies were evidently "covered" by the non-different setup. This applies across the board. That's my experience. This is what I mean, never "test" with a single, do the pair or you'll likely be sorry in the end. DM

SPL? 12" drivers. 'nuff said. But the dbb's is an unfair comparison, too. Now imagine the dbb's with a bass horn on them - well, maybe later... But seriously, the real point I want to make is this: I've found that you can't really make a comparison with only one speaker at a time, you need to do both of the speakers the same and listen to them at the same time. That's my advice, anyway. DM

That's news to me, and I would guess for everybody else here.... since NONE of the HERITAGE HORNS come from the factory complete with stuffing! However, that looks like open-cell foam to me. Foam doesn't have as much absoption capability as fibrous material(s), I presume that is for suppressing reflections rather than gaining any viable increase in available Vb. Personally, I wouldn't use foam, but that's just me. I've seen people use all sorts of things, and all tend to have somewhat of an effect, however, loose long stands of wool fiber is considered to have the greatest apsorption ability. It's the strands that slow down the waveforms, and cause them to stretch out and cancel due to phase differences and losses due to viscocity (the tendency of air to "stick" to a surface). There is an AES paper that tests various fibrous absorptive materials, worth a look. DM

Tell me about it! The house I bought came complete with its own resident rats underneith - that cost alot of money to fix. I was unwillingly forced to become quite an expert on rodents.

Whose panicking? I happen to like cats and recommend owning them! BTW, if there was already a cat in the house, you wouldn't have had a rodent "problem". But here's the rub: a mouse in the house means that 1) they can get in 2) they will get in, practically nothing is more motivated to exploit a niche, except maybe a rat 3) there are always more where that one came from. You won't win by being passive about it, nature is relentless. So I recommend using nature to fight nature. Considering that the gestation period is a couple of weeks, it's not like they only have one batch every spring! Think "rodent"... DM