CANT
-
Posts
385 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by CANT
-
-
FYI, I've edited my prior post since finding out that the driver I used to initially audition/test this horn was not up to spec... my current comments are based of subsequent audition/test with a fully functioning driver. Please excuse the original misinformation.
-
Mundorf Mcap 250V are good if you wish the KG's were a bit sharper/brighter and Clarity Cap PX 250V are good if you wish they were a bit more mellow/darker. Both companies have better lines but you will run into fitment issues as the caps can get pretty big.... especially if you replace the inductor like I mentioned... I also like the Dayton 1% 250V caps as a good standard replacement
I wouldn't bother with the electrolytic cap in the woofer circuit unless you think it is out of spec... I replaced mine with a newer electrolytic and then later a large poly cap and didn't really notice a difference with either...
You don't have to use the same brand for both caps either. I'm actually using a Clarity Cap SA 630V for the 3uF (3.3uF) and a Mundorf Mcap 400V for the 8uF (8.2uF).
-
For the tweeter circuit, Mundorf Mcap 250V are good if you wish the KG's were a bit sharper/brighter and Clarity Cap PX 250V are good if you wish they were a bit more mellow/darker. Both companies have better lines but these are the only ones that will come close to fitting on the stock board.... I also like the Dayton 1% caps as a good standard replacement
I wouldn't bother with the electrolytic caps in the woofer circuit unless you think they are out of spec...
-
All of the K107Ti and K53Ti motor assemblies I have seen do physically appear different from other comparable models (K79K, K792KP, K53K, etc.) so they may have switched to a different vendor for those models? That's a pretty drastic Rev change though?
-
Actually this is a mono app but it's sounding pretty good... I have learned that the K107 horn sounds better than the K79 and that the Ti diaphragm is considerably better than the Ph... but that the K53K seems pretty close to the K53Ti for my usage... also the CW1526 is a great K33 replacement.
Now these are assessments made with my CWIII crossover so I wouldn't expect them to be universal but...
-
I'm not looking for a replacement... I was just curious...?
Comparing the frequency responses of both entire systems isn't entirely fair either... the woofers could be similar but respond differently in different cabs/orientations...
-
Replacing the tweeter diaphragm with titanium makes the biggest difference by far but after that replacing the tweeter inductor with a larger gauge would come in a close second... lastly replacing the tweeter circuit caps.
-
PS - This sludge killed the output and response in these drivers...
-
Has any one seen this used?
I'm thinking someone added the fluid I found but I was curious if anyone else has found ferrofluid in thier K55's?
It took hours to clean this crap out. It actually smelled like burnt motor oil?
=S
-
Generally this would seem cut and dry but one was in the 1985-92 KG4 and is in the current KI-102...
The previous heritage suffix changes seemed minor but these two woofers don't seem to share much in common? Could you really use the K-8-E as a replacement for the K-8-K? If not why did Klipsch choose to re-use the K-8 item tag?
-
In case anyone is curious... I ended up playing around with the crossover a little more this last weekend and at least on the woofer circuit, the LCR seems to just be a slope adjustment?
Also, looking over the Rev A schematic I posted, it appears my woofer circuit L values were keyed in or written down wrong...
2.7mH should be 2.8mH
1.9MH should be 1.2mH
-
I remember seeing something about this series a while back that now seems interesting…
You see, I recently acquired another set of THSR’s. My last pair were THSR-2’s… so I had to build a set of crossovers more-or-less from scratch but adding the tweeter was easy (the THSR-2 uses the HII cabinet/motor board with only a small piece of ply covering the tweeter cut out). My new pair are the original THSR which came with a nice fully built E crossover but do not contain the cut out for the K77 tweeter in their HI cabinet/motor board. Because of this I’ve been going back and forth on what exactly I want to do with these… I could try to route out the opening myself but I’m not all that confident in my routing abilities? I’m also not a huge K77 fan and that is really the only thing that could possibly fit in that space. I also thought about just setting a tweeter of my choice on top but I would really prefer to keep the system self contained. Which is where the Beta comes in… I know I wouldn't exactly be using it for its intended purpose but it would allow me to add a tweeter without modifying the cabinet and the woofer doesn't spec out to be a bad K22 replacement?
I guess I’m just looking to see if anybody thinks this coaxial woofer idea is crazy or not?
-
I'm kind of surprised no one has had anything to add yet?
In an case, I did a few response tests and didn't notice anything too squirrely as-is...
-
I just acquired an empty CWIII cabinet and crossover...I have a few tweeters sitting around, an extra K53K and a couple Crites CW1526 so I figured I could through something together? My question is about the woofer and squawker filter circuits and whether they seem to be driver specific or if the LCR at the tail end of both is more an eq-ing endeavor?
I have attached a schematic of the physical crossover I am using... I have transcribed it to the best of my ability... I am also attaching a schematic of what another member supposedly transcribed... it is quite a bit different so it may be another Rev or just wrong?
I am really just looking for opinions on whether I should remove the LCR's to use the components I have or not? My initial test run sounded a bit thin but that may have been from the modest components used in the stock CWIII crossover?
-
1
-
-
-
-
The original THSR's used either a stock E or E-2 network but the THSR-2 had this...
-
-
T2A
-
1
-
-
Well I never ended up receiving the adapter but I did happen upon an older pair of K55V's that I figured would be similar enough... Ideally the adapter would have provided a better A-B comparison of the horn but sometimes you work with what you've got...
On first impression this horn seems to roll the HF and LF off quite a bit faster than the K701 and it also doesn't have quite the projected output. Moving the tap up one put the output at about where it needed to be but there was a small null between where the squawker and tweeter were supposed to cross? If I had the adapter I think the slightly extended range of the K53K or even the K53Ti might help with this issue but I also speculate that the slightly reduced low end output of both of those motors might create an issue with the woofer/squawker crossover point? Over all it's not a bad sounding horn but to use it you would definitely have to adjust the crossover one way or the other....
After the Holidays, when I have more funds, I will revisit this.
-
Yes, a Crites or Stock Klipsch Ti diaphragm should make a K107 out of a K792.
-
I've used duct seal (very cheap) and dynamat extreme (not so cheap) to damp various horns and woofer baskets. I personally believe a difference can be heard but it is by no means ground breaking. It's more of a mod you do when you already have everything taken apart to replace or repair something else. Kind of a why not thing.
I would discourage covering the magnet/motor assy though as it does radiate excess heat when pushed. Limiting it's ability to do so could result in premature vc failure.
-
1
-
-
I was curious... what metal aftermarket adapter are you referring to? When I looked I only encountered the stock pieces and yours?
-
Thanks. A forum member is sending me an adapter to test out one of the horns with.
K-107 / Heresy III
in Technical/Restorations
Posted
I would like to note and this seems as good a place as any, that I definitively did not prefer the "tractix" horn of the K792/K107 over the stock exponential K76 in my Heresy's with ALKjr crossovers. I mentioned my crossover because I believe my preference is directly tied to the design I am currently using. I came to this conclusion after playing around with my mono CWIII, in which, I definitely prefer the K792/K107 horn. Since both networks use only slightly different 3rd order high pass circuits I am wondering if the issue I notice has something to do with how the squawker is terminated? When I have more time I would like to try switching out my 1st order mid low pass for a 2nd order mid low pass to see if that helps...?
For now I would not suggest using the K792/K107 unless you have a III series, KP series or appropriately comparable crossover.