edwardre
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by edwardre
-
-
Hornhead....congrats on the CW's. My '85's came with B3 nets. They were a little too bright for my personal tastes. I read on this forum that the older, simpler 'B's were preferred among the majority of CW owners. I ran across a nice pair for cheap on e-pay and flogged them in. Also changed out the tweeters and mid-drivers to the same drivers as your pair presumably has (K55V's and the K77's with the round magnet). This was a vast improvement. Sometimes simple is better.
As far as the ALK's, regrettably I cannot comment. However, I think if you 'mine' this topic thoroughly, you will find that the concensus is that they are superb, and that secondary to Al's networks, what you have, the 'B's are preferred next.
My suggestion would be that you listen to the CW's you have for several months to really get a feel for the sound, then entertain 'adjustments' from there if you still deem it necessary.
------------------
Ed
-
With regards to all this 'experimentation', I've got a question or two.....is the tweeter, on it's own through a network....say an AA or really I guess any net, connected up to the tweeter output connection, suppose to sound as crappy as they all seem to?
I put a new diaphragm in a defective Jensen RP-302 supertweeter. The physical part of the operation itself seemed to go fine, but upon hooking just the tweeter up to a network to validate functionality, the result was kind of screeching fuzz noise that vaguely, I mean very vaguely resembled the music that was being played through it. I thought 'oops'! Blew that operation and went and get a good one. Same noises. Thinking hmmm....I tried a T-35, then a 4401, then a different network. Same deal. However, with the rest of the drivers and horns hooked up, it sounded fine except now, I'm more 'tuned in' to this sonic dissonence and find myself trying to pick out these noises.
Should I just 'take it on faith' that since they all sound scratchy and screechy, that's suppose to be that? Or are there actually units out there that just sound like high freq of whatever you put through them? Is this a function of a 'less than perfect' network design?
Mid-range by itself isn't a whole lot better, but at least I can readily identify what's coming through. hard to believe that the components themselves sound so wrong 'a la carte', but together they sound tremendous.
With this in mind, should one strive to achieve the best possible sound through trying different drivers/components as seperates, then put all the 'best of the best' together to form a 'superbest'??
------------------
Ed
-
Moon - I'm at that same point.....seems like all indications are that the rear center (or 2) fills a void that quite honestly I didn't realize was a void until I read so.
Not sure if this question got answered completely but here's my semi-understanding: You get 6 (+ subwoofer) discrete channels with both DD-EX and DTS-ES, provided of course you have the proper receiver. But when listening to standard 5.1 mixes of either DD or DTS, the rear channel is then a 'matrix' of both LR and RR? I seem to recall seeing instructions to the effect that you have to select '6.1/7.1 surround' on my receiver (Denon 3802). Would this then negate the DTS/DD5.1 in favor of just another flavor of analog pro logic? Or do the '5' channels remain in their format as discrete channels and just the rear center is an 'analog' channel?
------------------
Ed
-
NOZ.....great setup. I really like the roll up projector and wish I could afford to do the same thing.
What camera did you use to take the screen capture pics? Seems like everytime I try to get a decent image, it never quite comes out right. Either too fuzzy, like double exposed or 'washed out'.
------------------
Ed
-
So Q....what then DO you load your Imperial (cabinets?) with? University's? Maybe I'm thinking of a different beast, but I thought that the Imperial (Jensen) consisted of a 'boxy' looking cabinet with a single 15" Jensen Triaxial....the highly coveted G610. Do you use another Triax? Or 'separates'?
------------------
Ed
-
Jazman.....here are the AA's (if the upload worked)
Looks like the only real diff is the type of caps.
Hotter than Hades here today.....
------------------
Ed
-
Guy,
I think that Chris will grab up the couple extras that I have. However, if not, I will keep you in mind.
Does anyone within the site of my post have a spare K500-5000 net they would like to 'deal'?
------------------
Ed
-
Hi Chris.....may I ask what net you settled on? I've had no problems using older AA's with the SAHF/511B combo and agree 100%, the SAHF sounds better in a 511B than the K55V.
I have several spare SAHF's (all 16ohms). Ping me with an e-mail, I'm sure we can work something out if you're interested.
------------------
Ed
-
Q-man....have you had opportunity or experience comparing the very highly regarded vintage Jensen RP-302 supertweeter to the K77 sound? Or the 4401/mid-T sound?
------------------
Ed
-
Jaz....
I'll snap a few shots tonight. You will be able to see a pronounced difference. If I'm not mistaken, your "N"s should be one year earlier than my "P"s as I believe there are no "O"s. I should go check my label to see if 'The Man' tested mine as well.
Although it may sound to the contrary at times, I too am not an 'addicted tweeker'. I will however offer up my take on the whole issue of alterations.
First and foremost, the way I see it is that I have a finite number of minutes left to listen to music/movies/etc. To that end, naturally I want to maximize as many of these minutes as possible. To me, maximize simply means listening to what sounds best to me. I'm not the type who will forsake a 'better' sound just to lay claim to 'leaving it stock or classic'. After all, it's all about the sound.
I can respect the notion to 'leave it as Paul intended'. Have no designs to 'tinker for tinker's sake'. However, given that all Khorns, Belles, CW's, LS's anything for that matter are not created equally, my 'dabbling' is more inline with trying to determine which vintage is more agreeable to my tastes, not inline with 'let's see what I can do to this finely engineered speaker just to do it'. Since I'm not rich enough to purchase a pair each of 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's era speakers in an effort to determine which suits my tastes best, I approach it from a different angle. Generally speaking, the primary difference in these eras are the combinations of drivers and networks. The cabinets are relatively equivelent. Relatively. So if I put '50's era drivers and nets into a 70's era cabinet in an effort to match one or the other and with the proviso to always be able to change back to the 'stock' status as depicted on the cabinet label, I do not consider that to be 'modifying' whatsoever. Simply comparing one 'stock' sound against another 'stock' sound and settling upon whichever one sounds the best to me.
The exception being of course utilyzing an Altec 511B in place of the Klipsch '50s wooden horn with the sectoral baffles. Prior to this swap around 15 - 20 years ago, extensive input was gleaned from tech papers, reviews and pro sound engineers who all agreed that the weakspot of the mighty cornerhorn was the wood to fibreglass interface point. With time, some developed seperation leading to a 'clacking' at certain freq's and volumes. The 511b has the identical footprint and sound properties. Both are 500Hz horns. Same dispertion curve. Only the 511b, a very highly regarded horn, being metal will not seperate and will not clack. Might ring like the bejesus and all suggestions were/are to dampen with as much putty as the horn can support. At the time and as it pertains to '50's era Khorns, this was a widely 'known improvement tweek not far from original equipment'.
I would certainly consider swapping a Klipsch network for an ALK to be a bigger 'tweek' than putting the guts of one era's speaker into the cabinet of another. In fact, I would consider this to be an outright mod!! I have never had the pleasure to hear in person this much talked about 'mod'. Based upon the input here by many people who's opinion I value, I'm 'chomping at the bit' to do so! Regrettably, Mrs 'You've spent waaaay too much already' has taken this option off the table....for now. However, if there are any members out there who would like to loan one out for a week or so to a fellow member......I promise to send it back promptly.....
Until then, I'm with you. I haven't been convinced that it's the route to take and probably will not be convinced until I can preview one for myself.------------------
Ed
-
Yup John. You're correct. 4ohms. Just like the 103LX2's. The other day I was doing my daily e-bay perusal and chanced upon a fresh listing....a Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 with a BIN of $69. It arrived yesterday. And what a beautiful speciman at that. The seller had identified a 2" rip in the cone, but upon receipt and measurement, it was in actuality 3/4". Right where the cone goes under the outer cork ring. With a slight smear of silicone sealer, it will be sonically undetectable. Other than that, absolutely flawless and yes, 4 ohms with a DCR of 3.7 ohms. This will be the lynchpin of my upcoming rear center speaker project.
------------------
Ed
-
Tom - And cheap too!! Would probably make a play for it myself but really wouldn't know what to do with it if I got it, thus depriving someone else with a real need! My (extremely) limited 'tinkering' has been with the few Klipsch's that I've owned. And an old JBL/Jensen pair from the late '50's/early '60's.
Jazman - Antioch, eh? I was born and raised in Pinole. Spent alot of time with friends in and around the Antioch/Pittsburg area. Now I'm up in the foothills around the Auburn/Grass Valley area. Anyway, WRT my Belle center speaker, I'm afraid that my 'mods' are a little more extensive than I've outlined in this thread. Though 100% reversible back to stock with less than an hour's work. As far as the AA is concerned, initially my Belle (it's a "P".....'74?) did have an AA, though it doesn't look like any other AA I've ever seen and it sounded like crap. Perhaps that more than anything else accounted for why I didn't like the sound of the Belle...mabye it's defective? In any event, I replaced with the oil filled one, one of a pair of that I had. Didn't get it on e-pay...haven't seen too many there. Didn't get it from Klipsch, never thought of trying as I always assumed you couldn't. Got the pair from my dad. He had a pair of like '76 or '77's that someone at Klipsch convinced him should be 'upgraded'. So he bought a pair of AK's, a pair of K55M's and the latest iteration of tweeters, the ones with the square magnets rather than the older ones with the round magnets. Put them all in and was going to toss the old stuff but for some reason just kept it in the garage. A year or so ago he was cleaning the garage out, (re)ran across the parts and asked me if I wanted any of it otherwise it was going in the dumpster. I responded...."yeah....I guess I'll stow the stuff" and he sent it.
So now I was 'stuck' with a pair each of mid-70's K-horn guts minus the woofers and the mid-horns. I ended up swapping the K55V's and older K77's into my '85 CW's - really warmed them up as I also swapped out the B-3 nets with older oil filled B's (which by the way I DID score on e-bay through scouring). One of the AA's went to the center Belle, the other will find home in the center rear which will be my next project.
As far as suggestions for your specific situation....I'm really not sure what to tell you. What 'vintage' are your Belles? What are you hoping to improve upon, bass depth? Warmth? IMO - generally speaking, the oil filled caps seem to impart a 'warmer' sound. Not as sibilant, while retaining clarity.
WRT the Stephens bass driver, I was initially hoping to better match the tonal qualities of my '54 cornerhorns that have the Stephens drivers. The increase in solid, low end bass was just a byproduct of that experiment.
Further to that and in order to again, tonally match the flanking cornerhorns, I replaced the mid-driver with a University SAHF, the mid-horn with an Altec Lansing 511B sectoral horn, and the tweeter with a University 4401. Now, all the components align with my cornerhorns and the result is a seemless soundstage across the front. All original pieces are carefully stowed and can be re-installed in no time to return the Belle to it's stock status. The two biggest positive changes were the bass driver swap and the mid-horn swap. I cannot stress enough how the 511B opened up the soundstage. No more tightly focused 'beams' of sound. It was a squeeze to fit the horn within the confines of the existing upper section as not to 'pollute' the Belle's fine lines. If anyone is interested, I will gladly post pictures detailing the procedure I used to get around this obstacle!
------------------
Ed
-
Tom - You mean one of these......?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1370517760
------------------
Ed
-
The owner and proprieter of this site, Kerry, is a real nice person too. A wealth of information that he freely shares.
Cool thing was that a few weeks ago, he had a 'garage sale' in SF offloading a lot of great vintage stuff. Wish I could have made it. Drool, drool. Maybe HornEd stopped by?
------------------
Ed
-
Yup Tom....I definitly agree that in my case subjectivity most frequently dominates over objectivity! This is suppose to sound better than that, on paper this should or shouldn't work, and other techno-babble goes straight out the window.....it's all about 'me ears'.
To be honest, the change from K33 to Stephens made the soundstage so fluid that I'm having trouble determining sound origin. It all sounds like one big 'speaker area' rather than the sound being identifiable as to which speaker contributed most to say.....a loud explosion.
I'm not one of those that am willing to state that the Trusonic is 'the finest (sounding) speaker ever produced' as I haven't listened to countless others to compare. But I will go as far as to state that to me, it is so far superior to the K33's (alnicos, muds, squares, rounds) that I've heard as to not even be in the same league. A classic, deep, extremely large magnet speaker that flat moves the air. I can further attest that having 6 Trusonics in a 20x20 HT room, all pointing at the listener (and all set to 'large'.....
), has the ability to literally knock the wind out of you or change your heartbeat. Use at your own risk!!!!! Should not be used by people with heart conditions or by pregnant women......
------------------
Ed
-
HDBR.....fascinating ruminations as always. I'm sure many others feel as I do.....great to have an 'insider's' POV.
Reading Paul's missive about drivers peaked curiosity. WRT the bass drivers, maybe I am not reading correctly because there seems to be some timeline issues that have me scratching.
"...We went through a succession of different bass drivers over the years. An early driver was a Magnavox. Then we went to Jensen and then to Stephens."...."Then we went with Electro-voice. That driver was the 15WK and the original was 16 ohm."....I am NOT in anyway on the dispute here, it's just that these statements meant to clarify have to me actually muddied.
I've never seen a Magnavox or Jensen speaker in a production K-Horn. All the early '50's ones have Stephens and a few of the mid-50's have EV15WK's. All the Klipsch produced product brochures of that era specifically state with pride that bass drivers are either 15" Stephens, 12" or 15" EV's and that it is the consumers CHOICE as to which one he/she want's in their unit. This would more than indicate a concurrent production availability of both drivers, not a sequential availability. The product pamphlets, of which there are several of on Hifilit.com, also suggest that the lion's share of the 50's had both drivers concurrently available. Product reviews of that timeframe espouse the virtues of the Stephens Trusonic, many going as far as to say that the Stephens Trusonic may be one of the finest speakers ever made. I believe that is the reason that virtually all the Khorns of that era contain these drivers over the EV15WK.
The next thing I found contradictory to my understanding was this statement: "That driver was the 15WK and the original was 16 ohm." It has been my understanding....perhaps incorrect?......that the EV15WK was the 8ohm version of the EV15W made specifically for utilization in a Klipsch or Klipsch style folded horn just as the Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 was the 8ohm version of the 103LX again, specifically for utilization in a Klipsch folded horn.
WRT the statement "Before the Electro-Voice, we used the University 4401, a sad tweeter, but there wasn't anything significantly better." In fact, the 4401 was University's low end tweeter. There were significantly better models available for about twice the price. The University UXT-5 supertweeter or if you want to go really high price ($27 in 1957), the HF-206.
You know, I love my Klipsch speakers. Have nothing but the fondest admiration and greatest respect for PWK. I pay tribute to the man every night whether I'm thrilling to a new DVD or chilling alone in the dark just listening to music. People will always cite technical reasons why this speaker should sound better than that speaker. Here we have evidence of the legend himself speaking to why technically and historically the newer units should be better for your listening experience than the archaic. However, before buying into one or the other, I would suggest you seek out or experience for yourself.
Rarely do you hear of someone who has listened to both current 'Heritage' vs vintage say that they like the sound of the newer over the old. I can scarcely recall EVER hearing anyone deride a 50's era Khorn. Typically it is just the opposite. "On a different level" is the term generally associated with these comparisons. To me, the difference can be compared to the difference between tube and SS. "But the SS is the latest and greatest technology" "Certainly you cannot disagree with the specs". These were common phrases stated as absolutes ever since the inception of the modern SS amp. It is only recently that what a handful of 'dinosaurs' have always maintained has gained widespread acceptance. Say what you will, (generally speaking) tubes sounds better than SS. Vintage drivers sound better in Khorns.
------------------
Ed
-
I think another consideration is that all Belles are NOT created equally. An early 70's Belle does not sound the same as a mid-eighties Belle. Therefore, it is difficult to assess your specific sonic desires as they relate to your particular set of Belles. I wholeheartedly agree that you need to spend many hours aquainting yourself with the sound your Belles provide then go from there in whichever direction that suits your curiousity.
Personally, I have had the opportunity to appreciate 2 Belles in my setup. Both were used as center channels. The first, my dad's, an '85 vintage, spent 6 months at my house before he could come grab it up. This unit had the B2 net and a K55m mid-driver. I really liked the sound that it lended to my HT setup. Brighter than the flanking '54 Khorns, but in the center channel role, it worked out well. Then he came and got it and I had to revert back to my KSC-C1 center. After the grandeur of the Belle, I simply could not handle this 'downgrade'. You just can't go back from Belles. Or Belle. So I went out and scored one, a '74. This had a totally different sound which sounded to me to be 'muffled' in comparison to the other Belle. The only diff was the network - an AA and the mid-driver - a K55v. The AA was one of the newer ones, the ones with the non-oil filled caps.
I just couldn't get 'on-board' with this sound and thought to replace out these components with the '85 vintage ones. But not before I tinkered......(sorry all you 'leave it aloners, this is probably migrating or degrading to an odds and mods-type post). I had collected several other x-overs. A few AA's with the oil filled caps and a B-1. So I tried the B1. Results were worse. Tried the other style of AA and really liked the results. Lent a 'warmth' that was lacking and improved the clarity as well. I had also collected several 15" Stephens Trusonic 103LX2's, the type Klipsch initially utilyzed in their K-Horns. With the rational of attempting to match tonally the '54's, I swapped the K33 for a Trusonic. Man-o-man, this made a tremendous difference in the amount and quality of bass. Good solid chest thumping bass ensued that was clean and articulate. No muddiness here whatsoever. Even at low volumes. This bass driver remains in my Belle to this day and never ceases to amaze me. The Belle does not want for additional 'supplemental' bass. It is curious that the Belle has a 3 inch (bass)slot for which sound initially passes (throat?) yet Klipsch's intention for the Stephen's woofer was a 6 inch slot. I do not believe that I suffer ill effects because of this difference.
So, since I used different combos of Klipsch endorsed drivers and networks, would I be lumped in with other 'odds and mods' fellows?
------------------
Ed
-
HDBR...or anybody in the know.....
I'm considering putting together a rear center and was thinking of a basic CW-type unit. Part of the consideration is to forsake the current mid style 'straight horn' in favor of something a bit more 'spacious', say a 511B or equivilent. This would be a bigger horn and would not fit within the confines of the CW cabinet proper and thus, would in all likelyhood have to sit atop in it's own upper cab.
So the question is, should I reduce the cabinet size to account for the lack of mass that the mid-horn would normally occupy? Or is the difference really a nit in the overall scheme of things?
Thanks!
------------------
Ed
-
tblasing - I too bought this DVD-A and had the same abysmal failure. I had gone the cheap route and purchased a DVD-Audio player off of e-pay for $100. Unbeknownst to me, the DVD-A part of this rather fine LOOKING unit was a no-op. I tried for about 2 weeks to get it to PCM mode. Fortunatly, a buddy had the exact same DVD player but his worked. Also fortunate was that the e-pay seller gave me a full refund, shipping included (phew-ee). Then I went and bought the Panny RA-60 (new) for $169 based upon reviews on Audioreview. Now everything worked so primo, words can hardly describe.
Just for giggles, I tossed the DVD-A disk into my non-DVD-A unit. Yup, sure enough, it gave a completely DIFFERENT menu, one that you could choose 'DD5.1 or DTS playlist' only (or something to that effect). Slapped it back into the DVD-A player and the menu had 'Surround Sound or Stereo Playlist'.
------------------
Ed
-
Yeah, could be like K58 surmised.....back to the factory for refurb/upgrade hence the stickers. Or could be the old fakeroo. The seller offered the following edit today:
quote:Prior to 1960 there are NO ZIP CODES and since the labels on the speakers and the boxes shows the ZIP CODES - here is the mystery solved: Fortunately I was able to come into contact with the owner after many hours of tracking...He owned ONE Klipschorn from the 50's. Serial #379. Then he got another Klipschorn serial #507 later when money situation improved. Still in the 50's era. Soon after, he was told the earlier Klipschorn #379 has a different inside set up. Sometime in the 60's he drove to the factory himself with the pair and have the earlier #379 upgraded to whatever was inside the #507. And both Klipschorns were packed in Klipschorn boxes after the job was done. Exact year done unknown but in the 60's is all he can remember. No documentation was kept. Whatever upgrade done was not officially recorded. Just by word of mouth, a gentleman's agreement and handshake, upgrade was done. Boxes have matching serial numbers 379 and 507. These numbers were also etched on the speakers themselves. Fast forward to today, I removed the screws from the obvious plywood panel where the bass woofer was mounted. The plywood panel did not come off - possibly glued from inside. I left it at that. I will leave it to you the new owner to break open the seal should you decide to. So please bid accordingly.
I can personally attest to these types of 'gentleman's handshake' deal happening at least in the early '60's as this is almost exactly the story with my '54's. Can't say that this particular set underwent said treatment.
In the final analysis, unless you are a historical collector, IMHO, the true mark of a classic era K-horn is what's inside. Clearly, the sound from a modern and a vintage are vastly different. As aesthetics do not give or take from sonic quality (for the mostpart), one must ask oneself what one really wants. Key in this arguement is what woofer is inside. The older (and #379 & #507 denote '54 or earlier) bass bins have the 6 inch bass slot. These have predominately one of 2 woofers, the Stephens Trusonic 103LX2 or the EV15WK. Later Atlas (K33x's) require the bass bin with the 3" slot. This is where the lion's share of sonic difference is 'felt'. Since the seller's update surrounds the 'misalignment' of woofers and the set was brought back to Hope for 'upgrade', it's anybody's guess as to what ended up inside. Naturally I would ASSUME that they (Hope) didn't put an Atlas woofer into a bass bin with a 6" slot, but if I were serious about trying to buy, I would most certainly 'reping' the seller and get him to crack the hatch and take a peeksee inside before I peeled muchos dineros.
------------------
Ed
-
Card....
IMHO, the answers to your 3 questions are yes, yes, yes, respectively.
Generally speaking rather than citing exception, IMHO, DD5.1 cannot hold a candle to DVD-A. DTS can come close when properly mixed.
I have found that much of the 'quality' of these new formats is sound engineer dependent. Additionally, I have also found that even though the mix is 'technically sound', the interpretation can be all wrong resulting in well....weirdness. Sounds coming at you from all the wrong places.
Another requirement appears to be the need for all 5 (or 6 or 7) speakers to match both tonally and efficiency wise. This is very critical due to the extensive use of center and surrounds.
All detractants aside, when these things are all done properly, the result is pure magic. The DVD-A Hotel CA is the finest example of this I have run across to date. On my setup, this has the effect of transcending mere 'listening' to 'sensation'. It is very thrilling and stays true to the original interpretation (as my ears hear it).
Finally, prices of DVD-A capable players have dropped dramatically. Only 6 months ago you'd have to pay at least $399 where nowadays you can score one for $150. I bought mine for the novelty. However, now to me every other format PALES in comparison especially in the department of musical immersion. Even if no new titles come out ever, to me it's worth twice what I paid just to be able to listen to the scant few titles I have over and over.
------------------
Ed
-
As far as prices? I recently bought the Panasonic AU-60. Has every bell and whistle under the sun EXCEPT for progressive scan out (wich I can't use anyways). Price was $169.
DVD-Audio is fantastic. Stunning. Toggling back and forth between DTS and DVD-Audio has been an eye opener. Or an ear opener.
Title track of Hotel CA is my new reference point. This is the one I use to show off my system. I have heard none better. Can't wait for DSOM.
Anybody else heard that DVD-Audio has been agreed upon by several major labels as the format to utilize going forward? I think I heard that about a month ago.
------------------
Ed
-
NOZ - Phew-ee. Glad to hear that you are satisfied with the LP350. You never know how one person's taste will differ from another's when you make a recommendation. I truly enjoy mine. Finally a picture large and clear enough to do my Klipschs justice!
I've recently 'masked' around the lens output. Reducing the light splash in this manner really increased the subtleties of dark scene contrast. Congrats and ENJOY!
------------------
Ed
-
There is a hatch on the bottom that accesses the woofer.
------------------
Ed
Until then, I'm with you. I haven't been convinced that it's the route to take and probably will not be convinced until I can preview one for myself.
DTS -ES Discrete 6.1 and DVDs
in Technical/Restorations
Posted
Thanks Boa....what you say makes sense. So....if I hear you correctly, standard DD5.1 as well as standard DTS, will yield a 'blend' of discreet and matrixed....in other words, are you saying that the digital discreet signals will not be degraded to a 'pro logic' type signal in order to create the matrixed center rear, but rather will stay digitally intact and then a 6th channel created 'artificially' from both rears is added? If so, it would appear that in some cases, done right, this would probably be a positive. But on the other hand, wouldn't this potentially 'pollute' the accuracy of the discrete rears....leaving it up to one's individual decoder to decide what should be routes through the rear center?
In your experience, has this 'interpretation' via the receiver's decoder logic been relatively accurate? Or have you heard anomalous sounds emanating from the rear center?
------------------
Ed