consistent

...ok, here goes...

...Chops by the way how do you get you pictures up???

Chops...looks very similar in configuration, one difference is that I do allow the copper core some room inside the teflon. I try for 12 to 14 AWG (mil spec) TFE tubing. I have used a number of methods and materials for the dielectric, even had bare wire of different sizes, but this seems to be the best 'package' to date! I still poke around with R & D when I have time and I do sell these little wonders of mine. I also do XLR IC'S and these are superior (IMHO) than anything else I have ever heard.

...well the picture didn't seem to work...nor does anything I try??? Send me your email if you like and I'll send in the normal way...I always have trouble with the Forum way of posting???

It's simple. I find some high quality copper (usually expensive IT strands/core cable) strip it out of its plastic dielectric, go to great lenghts to clean (proprietory process) the strand then feed it through good quality teflon tubing and solder the ends with Cardas quad solder, making sure the ends are sealed with heat shrink and not open to air contact. That's my cable pictured. I find the less strands of copper (using single core) the better and more 'free' the sound becomes. The sound of the 'room' in alot of recordings becomes very noticeable as do some of the minute details that tend to get lost with multistranded cable and cable that is 'over shielded'. As you notice this cable is not shielded and I believe that is one of its strengths. I have done lots more experiments but I won't bore you any more. Hope this helps.

Hi Canyonman, I've been making interconnect and speaker cables for over 5 years using various materials for many systems and I always come back to copper. Easier to work work with and the sound to me is more 'natural' (better lows and highs) than silver. I have developed a single core (1mm thick) cable in a teflon coating with Eichman or DH Labs RCA's. Gives a new definition to the mid range, silver could never do.Turning out to be well excepted by some critics. Cheers

I did some tesing across the motor board (top off) in the vertical and horizontal planes and found (for me) that the inside vertical sounded better as it appeared that the 'top end' had greater focus and seemed to be better positioned along the sound stage. It will depend on your room characteristics and listening position. Just a humble opinion Cheers

In a word 'HOT'! we still have summer. How are things with you? Good to know I have some value in the Khorns and thank God I negotiated. When you transfer the $US into $AUS and take into account freight someone still makes a buck.

Hi All,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I thought I would relay my thoughts on the substitution of the Crites Tweeter over the K-77-F tweeter in the AK-4 network with Khorns. Notes on set-up: There are no modifications to this network or the drivers. The Klipschorns are the original AK-4. The top cover of the Khorns was removed for easy access to the K-77-F driver. The K-77-F driver was unscrewed from the motor board and made to rest on top of the motor board either in a vertical or horizontal position. Sand bags set on top of the mid horn were used to help rest both the K-77-F and the Crites during listening tests. Different types of music were used in the tests including rock, jazz (trad and contemp), orchestral, male and female artists. The Crites Tweeter connects were not removed but connected to the Khorn tweeter cable to avoid A/B listening delays. It should be noted that in the AK-4 the Crites cable is too short and a substitute cable must be used to connect to the tweeter connection at the network input panel. Nothing else was changed in my room and all equipment was what I have been use to hearing in the past. Listening tests were for 3 hours and speakers have not been operating for longer than 10 hours. I am not sure what an appropriate break-in period is for this tweeter. No testing equipment was used just my old ears (which have tested out to 19,000 cycles)! Listening Observations: Let me say from the start that I believe the K-77-F is a good tweeter for the purpose it is used and I believe that the AK-4 network has been tweaked to better accommodate for it. The K-77-F is bold and forward in the AK-4 and does blend with the overall feel and sensation of the mighty Khorn. From memory I would say in the AK-4 it would perform better than any other K-77 simply because it seems to have a better extension and is less fatiguing. When I substitute the Crites tweeter I note that it is not as forward as the K-77 nor has what can only be described as harshness in the upper octaves. When symbols crash or triangles tapped there is greater detail and more of these subtle sounds with better decay. Both male and female voices have greater clarity and there is more of the room sound in which the song was recorded. The ssss in female and certain male voices are not as brittle but more natural. Even brass has a different flavor, not as punchy or in your face first up but when dbs increase there seems to be no wavering or breakup, as the sound becomes stronger and clearer, the attack gets better. This leads me to conclude that the Crites tweeter is better able to cope with dynamics than the K-77 however the Crites tweeter does not seem as reactive or as quick as the K-77 but this may be because the K-77 does play louder with a more enhanced pitch particularly at certain frequencies (certain male voices, symbol/snare crashes). Using both tweeters in the vertical position over the mid horn, to the left and right of the horn centre does some interesting things. Firstly the vertical does seem to better define certain frequencies in a couple of octaves and it seems to affect anything that could possibly fall below 8,000 cycles but beyond I dont notice much of a difference. Putting the speaker more to the right (inwards) of centre seems to add front-to-back weight of brass, snare & symbols-drummers seem to be in a better space but violins appear to loose out and not as wide. The K-77 seemed to fair a little better maybe because of having a better use of its horn configuration. I think it is a personal thing and I would have to do more testing to know if it is for me. Guess I am use to the horizontal-at least thats what my wife tells me! Overall Bob is right; it is definitely a drop-in replacement for the K-77. It is my assessment that the Crites Tweeter does have a better extension than the K-77-F and better at handling dynamics without break-up. It does not play as loud as the K-77-F, which in some respects I do miss as I have gotten use to hearing certain frequencies at certain levels but I think the ability of the Crites tweeter to handle subtleties and recording nuances pays out. The change is not an on my God revelation but enough for you to sit up and say wow I didnt hear that before or even where has that gone as certain frequencies are not as pronounced but are better blended and balanced. It is a more relaxed sound and you can wind it up without the break-up that the K-77 produces. I can also say that the K-77-F is not as bad as one may think and still compares favorably. Well done Bob! Klipsch should take note as it is a simple change, parts easily accessible and while making the change why not consider re-designing the top box to fit the tweeter in a vertical position, may even save on materials. Klipsch could even try Al Ks Trachorn! You never know until you try how simple changes can make for better sound and that dont break the bank! Cheers

Hi, I have been making my own interconnects for a number of years and now sell them. It's great fun and really makes all those 'exotics' look and sound very ordinary. Try this site http://www.venhaus1.com/diysilverinterconnects.html Cheers

'mazing when you're low and haven't listened for a while. Things just sound and flow a whole lot better!

Go for the Atlona 'z' cut version. I have been using this type of plug for years, they are a good tight fit and usually all copper. Get rid of the outer casing and go with a teflon wrap. Cheers

Hi, Try www.cardas.com there is some interesting information on the 'golden cube' set up. And yes it does work if you have the speakers that can best utilize the math as explained. It gives you ideal room dimensions. Even PWK spoke of similar measurments as the theory and practice has been around for hundreds of year. The most important thing you can do is room acoustics. The better the room the better your sight and sound will be. You can buy the best of the best but it may still sound awful if your room does not work. Cheers

and of course the other half.. By the way Happy New-year to you all, hope 2006 is YOUR year.

not only but also...

Hi Gil, I'll attempt another load of pictures (thanks Gil) of my rather messy experimental room set-up. My room is 16'1" L x 13'3" W x 8'7 " H. I use the smaller wall to get depth for the movies and have experimented on using a number of materials and treatments to 'open up' the room and at the moment it is working very well. I have done some measurements but generally have walked around listening for slapback, boom, ring and the usual nasties. I still think my ears do a better job than what the calculations say. Bass traps do work wonders in a small room. Anyhow cheers for now

I'm hanging there Bob!

Hi Gil, My digital is on the fritz (at the moment being repaired) should be back after Christmas. I'll send some shots through. I did follow what Artto tried to achieve. I think he used absorbtion behind those big boards of his. I used sound proofing (very think felt/poly with reflector) to stop 'slap back' and egg cartons to re-direct reflection. I have also built bass traps with some left over sound proffing and they certainly made a difference. When I send the pictures don't die of shock, it gets pretty ugly but boy does it sound good. Be back soon Cheers Steve Gil

Many thanks for these articles. I have been trying out a number of curved panels (with absorbive material behind) and they work extremely well in my room. The imagery front to back and side to side increased substantially. I have covered about 30% of my room. Amazing what these guys knew 60 odd years ago. Cheers

Hi Coytee. As I understand balanced inputs either from pre to power or indeed source to pre to power have a better signal to noise ratio as the earthing and signal transference is better. You can buy XLR (balanced) and RCA adaptors see www.cardas.com For what it's worth I find an XLR connection is superior to most RCA'S cheers

Looking good Bob-keep us informed on your progress-very interesting!

Hi All, Years ago I was spending lots on cables until I taught myself how to make 'em. Wow was I shocked, de-bunked the myth about expensive cable. I have a system (A: test set up that I use and blind test the cables I make for friends and those interested in spending a few bucks rather than hundereds or even thousands. Yes there can be subtle differences to the trained ear and measurement also proves differences but if you can't hear it why bother. As Al says just make sure your ends are solid as is the connection and the cable doesn't erode prematurely. Cheers

Milton, check out this site http://home.zonnet.nl/geenius/Cap.html this guy tested a whole bunch of caps. I started using Hovland and Sonicaps in my pre-amp-what a difference! cheers

Thanks Al, You have obviously gotten hold of an AK-4 network and I guess you are saying once you start fiddling with the top end you are gonna need to look at the rest of the network integration with the drivers?

Thanks Guys, Is there a huge price difference from what Atlas want for the 55 compared with Klipsch? I heard Klipsch just demand quality. Thanks again