pzannucci

Do it inexpensively with rope caulk http://www.walmart.com/search/?query=Rope+Caulk&adid=22222222220221815882&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=e&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=83844307573&wl4=kwd-164242903&wl5=9028268&veh=sem or spray as suggested earlier. I doubt it will ever come off after hearing (not hearing) it.

Ah, some additional information: http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=content&id=79 It appears the actual resonant point moves lower but there is also a substantial output loss / efficiency loss from the stuffing. That may be why I thought the systems I've dealt with were less punchy. The funny thing I notice about the charts is that there is no real gain from stuffing, only losses. You are able to push the resonant frequency down but there is no gain to overall system response because of: 1 - lowered efficiency 2.- the response curve likely due to the box size does not extend lower. Reducing the size and attempting to gain the volume back with stuffing appears not to be 1 to 1. As the old adage says, no replacement for displacement.

Have you modeled the woofers with that much volume gone? What is your interior volume after removing about 1 cubic foot or so? It appears you are raising the box frequency dramatically.If you are using a sub for the low bass and/or not using the KLF-30 woofers, you will likely be ok. If not you will have an interesting proposition on your hands. According to my calculations the added interior thickness and bracing removes .9 cubic feet. With the acoustic dampening that I will be using will add roughly .5 cubic feet, for a net loss of .4 cubic feet. Negligible in my opinion. With proper tuning I think it will be fine. How did you come up with that you will get .5 cf back from dampening material? Have you found some type of calculator for that? I believe that typical dampening can add maybe up to 10% in a bass reflex box but that is debatable (more in sealed enclosures). Some say you may raise the tuning a tad. You will need to measure. Typical use of the filling is to stop internal reflections in the box. I find a box of the appropriate size designed correctly to minimize box resonance and using lower amounts of dampening material (not stuffed) will be much more punch, extend lower, and provide cleaner bass. If dampening could solve the volume problem, Klipsch would have dumped more in the Cornwall and definitely in the KLF-30 since the woofers are tuned much lower than the small box they are in allows. Breck, you might like the results but don't look for more low bottom end from your changes. I would like to be wrong on this statement because I would like to build smaller boxes. Please test your system when done. I'd like to see electrically if the resonant point has been moved lower.

If you want spikes, get some 4" or 5" 1/4x20 ( I believe) threaded rods. Grind points on one end and screw them into those nuts extending from the bottom. Works well on carpet. The little rubber caps work better on hard flooring.

Major misconceptions here. What speakers are you going to use? You mention speakers that can't do bass then say you aren't using a subwoofer. What are you going to use? Discussion about bass management but no subwoofer. No subwoofer equals no real bass management as it pertains to using a crossover.between two sets of speakers, one doing bass only the other doing whatever you want. Only EQ or tone controls to boost or lower a particular area of your bass or treble will work with no subwoofer. You can do the tone controls digital or analog but it amounts to the same.

The above link says "HIGH FREQUENCY REPRODUCTION SIMILAR TO THAT OF A BERYLLIUMDIAPHRAGM WITH A SMOOTHER SOUND"Diaphram is Kapton acording to Beyma site. http://www.beyma.com/products/diapharagmtweeters/1TPL15H8 miketn Usually kapton or mylar with foil traces like a pseudo ribbon.

Have you modeled the woofers with that much volume gone? What is your interior volume after removing about 1 cubic foot or so? It appears you are raising the box frequency dramatically. If you are using a sub for the low bass and/or not using the KLF-30 woofers, you will likely be ok. If not you will have an interesting proposition on your hands.

They are around $125-150 for 2 channel Mini DSP. There are some advantages with a parametric EQ. So you can use say a 2x4 ADC/DAC (provided you don't mind converting everything to and from 48khz) and using that as the equalizer. Is that correct? An add on component just as inexpensive EQs are though significantly more flexible.

Nice units but likely expensive for the use in this case. Tons of other options actually depending on the $$ you want to throw at it but as stated originally, not much in a simple stereo receiver. Need to look at a surround receiver with management.

They get a lot deeper if you remove the feet and put the cabinet directly on the floor. You have to be careful here, it depends on the floor and how much is room induced resonances. It may work well for you depending though. Also those resonances take time to dissipate so you will typically lose definition unless you are on a 6" slab. Now if you can make the speakers weigh as much as a truck then that would sure tighten things up My home builts using 2 KLF20 woofers a side weigh in at about 250 lbs each. They are fine sitting on the carpet and that works well. The KLF30s sitting next to them, not so much on the carpet. If these updated KLFs are double thickness and braced well, tuned correctly (a nice trough in the impedance where the resonant frequency of the woofers is - ports appropriate size to supplement the bass), they will likely sound very tight with excellent extension. No nasty's from the cabinet.

Well you don't use a crossover if you don't use some type of sub / mid-high frequency speakers (frequencies are forced to the required speakers). It is not a crossover point, just a point at which the filtering kicks in to modify the frequency response. What you are looking for is an Equalizer or a integrated amp / receiver that has multiple bass turn overs (frequencies where you can modify the response) for the bass control knobs. These are rare now-a-days. Basically what I had on my 1976 Yamaha CA-800 http://sportsbil.com/yamaha/ca-800-sm.pdf The other possibility is that you can use a surround receiver and use the built in EQ that most have now. A digital EQ though those are usually at particular defined points also, but there are multiples. Lastly, there are a few EQ units in the Garage Sale section. Go look there otherwise grab a cheap surround receiver and use it as a stereo receiver that has a built in EQ. No law against that otherwise I'd be in Jail with a bunch of other folks around here You would also have the flexibility of growing the system.

Shrinking the cabinet will raise the cabinet tuning. Those 2 x 12" need a fair amount of volume air otherwise you will trade bass extension for a bump higher up. You can lower the tuning with smaller/longer ports but then you are getting into a trade off of likely having noisy ports. The (considered) minor trade offs of the slightly smaller cabinet volume for the ports being internal with the current volume might not sound like much but every little bit you take off the volume that is already in my thoughts too small, will raise the tuning and affect the bump you will create in the lower/midbass. Adding a lot of dampening in the cabinet seemed to make the bass (to me) less punchy and more woolly. May have been the tube amp at the time but that's when I realized the woofers need air volume. If you are using several subs that can match those multi 12" in output down low and you aren't asking for low bass from the KLFs, then it won't hurt to tighten it down.

Good luck on the design. I would be considering adding some volume to a KLF 30 vs removing. Since the ports are to the rear, you wouldn't notice the mid-range bleed through unless you specifically tested for it with everything else turned off. The fact that they are in the back and minimal enclosure stuffing will tell you right there though sometimes that bleed through can make the speaker more appealing. If you are dropping the size, you will be dropping the port size or making them longer. If the ports are facing the floor then that will be helpful in removing any unwanted wind noise or mid output. You must be going to use these with a sub, correct? The 30s don't get super deep as it is with their small enclosure. I would be looking at larger enclosure with somewhat lowered tuning, and if you are doing a crossover, adding an 8" mid bass or possibly 2 6" to clean up the discontinuity between the mid horn and the woofers. That would address the KLF 30's weak points.

If you are close to a wall, the port mod similar to the La Scala would be helpful, ported to the rear. Made out of the same color veneer as the Belles, it should look nice and raise the Belles up where they would likely sound better. If you have to port to the front, do the veneer but use a slotted port all the way across the bottom (probably about an inch in height). It won't look bad like a round black holes. You could then as wdecho says by dropping everything else down (if you have enough power - look up baffle step compensation for an idea) or eq electronically to load the lower port output response up. For the ultimate, do all the above and take John's suggestion of a more powerful woofer. That would make a significant change with the eq and port(s).

Remember, when they are inside the speaker, the ports use up cabinet volume so the sound will not match if they are outside of the cabinet now. Purchase one of the Parts Express analyzers for impedance and you will be able to see how the tuning affects the woofers based on port size, length and cabinet volume.

Hmmm, I'm probably clueless but who is Norm Cerveny and why would his crossovers be better than others? BTW, the ports aren't useless though you might not like them, they are for specific tuning and angling out the back to likely avoid mid-range bleed through. What size internal enclosure volume are you intending on using and what cabinet tuning frequency along with size of port(s)?

It would be interesting with the large inductors if you can get a large enough size in the resistance range of a ferrite cored inductor. If you end up increasing the resistance, the values on the other components should change, just as the esr issues and other nuances occur with caps. Air core should sound better but likely not until close to saturation or in a poor design. It would be something for an A/B test I did have some large chokes on the floor for by bass sections and when I would here a hum. Didn't know what had happened to my amp so I shut it off. Still had the hum. Definitely picking up external waves. Had to reroute a bunch of wires to get rid of the hum.

If you are looking for a solid amp and less harshness, and warmer than the Adcom, the XPA-2 is an excellent choice. The XPA-2 is a little warmer than the Adcom with lots of umph and control for the KLFs dual woofers (which need current to sound best). Adcoms of that vintage seem to have a reputation of being somewhat harsh, which with Klipsch can be a double whammy. Many times it is a matching problem. If you don't think the Adcom needs to be toned down some with more liquid mids and tight bass, stay with that you have.

From what it appeared, PWK didn't mind him doing his speaker business, seemed as long as he kept the operation as a family thing. The bass horn was a copy of PWK's I looked into these and his others about 10/15 years back after moving to TX. Interesting designs though many deviated from Klipsch as they used sealed enclosures on the larger speakers, vs. bass reflex. Even had a very nice Belle copy. Very well made, can't remember the prices though. Believe Selenium drivers and such around the time frame that Klipsch k-horns were 6-7K. Good luck on your sale to whoever owns them since there appears to be about 3 folks twisting in this thread. I'm not sure which person would be the one to get the PM.

I agree. No reason at all to be trigger happy like that. Request some editing to responses maybe, but not delete. Bill Agreed. A little help from a stain pen from Michael's or Home Depot and oil on the finish, a forum member could have a nice pair of Cornwalls. The clean up would help greatly to go toward getting close to their asking price by showing what that finish could look like. Good luck with the sale.

natural damping Natural dampening if you don't harden it as it needs to be in a compression driver. In a dome tweeter I would agree.

First of all - Wikepedia rarely make errors as they research the subject in a historical perspective - compiling a lot of data they extrapolate to make a summary - silk has been used in making diaphragms for a long time and may be still used today - re-inforced of course - we all seem to forget that the EARLY diaphragms were either made by University or later on by Atlas and eventually EV -so Klipsch per say never made their own diaphragms -but University and EV did use silk in their diaphragms - -PE has these University silk diaphragms for the 1828T - http://www.parts-express.com/ev-genuine-replacement-diaphragm-591235001-for-electro-voice---university-id30ct--300-132 Here is an article that is conclusive -for the use of silk - http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/loudspeaker-drivers/diaphragm-material We need to be careful stating that there is extensive research for all wikipedia entries.. Wikipedia should ALWAYS suspect. Yes silk is used today in dome tweeters like my Morel MDT-33 or the Dynaudio D-28 and up. The typical goo doped silk or cloth dome. Any current compression drivers using silk would need to be stiffened to the point they might as well be phenolic / plastic coated, at least in midrange applications which would be more demanding. Not much like most think about a silk dome tweeter. Even the manufacturer (when googled) refers to diaphragms as for tweeters, not calling out compression driver usage. If early manufacturers used silk, it was simply a substrate easily formed and hardened with resins. Most cloths could be used similarly.

I have a funny feeling that silk domes as we know them didn't exist back in the early 40s,, at least not soft but maybe similar to coated phenolic. Here is Hecht's patent on soft domes http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3328537.pdf

PWK believed in compression drivers. Silk doesn't hold up good under compression unless it is hardened. If you harden it you take away silk's unique qualities. Silk without a horn can sound great as I have Morel MDT-33 tweeters in some speakers I built though they are in the 92-93 db efficiency range. Doping up the silk, you might as we use phenolic which has some of the properties of a cloth doped dome but holds it's shape better under pressure. Excellent for midrange use. Tweeters, Klipsch finally looked elsewhere with metals and polymide type domes.

Another thing that can cause this type of problem on crossovers is that the components don't match. If they were not tested before they were put in (all have variance, caps and resistors many times the most) which can cause shifting. Also when soldering, or just plain failing once installed and testing. It would be interesting if you had something like a Parts Express woofer tester to hook resistors, instead of drivers up on the network and see if they measure the same. Not 100% because the tester isn't putting out quite the same power as an amp but may show something. Phasing issues are due to mismatches between the right and left responses and also due to phase mismatches in each single speaker. You might want to try switching both mids + and - or tweeters, not just one. The stage may be presented mostly where there is a notch in the response. Not as much so on the later. The closer the two speakers match, the better the central image will be when playing a mono audio stream. Many expensive manufacturers pre-break in drivers and components, measure them, then match them up to try and insure significant increases in imaging.