CANT
-
Posts
385 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by CANT
-
-
15 minutes ago, MechEngVic said:
I'd love to be allowed into the rooms where Roy keeps all his projects, failures, and works in progress.
Roy does not, to my current knowledge, endorsed the A55. -
17 hours ago, Alexander said:
Curios CANT, have you actually listened to an a55g driver in anything? I mean with your ears, not looking at numbers or graphs on a screen or on paper?
I’ve listen to a slew of 55 variants... including the SAHF and what was it... the EV 1823? 18something? They do all sound slightly different but I wouldn’t consider any of them an upgrade to a K52 generically...If you are looking to expose some bias I will gladly give it... I think anyone buying these stupid things as an upgrade is an absolute sucker.
I mean if these were cheaper than the Atlas I might change my tune but right now I’m just seeing a lot of people paying good money for very little return, if any?
-
16 hours ago, dtr20 said:
I love Klipsch, but sometimes we can tweak, swap, etc to make a great product even better. I am in the latter part usually and that is what this section of the forum is mostly dedicated to.
This is actually where I think we should be most careful... why exactly do Forum members feel like we can do better than the team of engineers Klipsch has on hand and the resources they have available?!Yes, they’re designing to an end point... likely keeping in mind price point among other things... but this plug and play upgrade mentality is completely glossing over a slew of other aspects of design.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, jjptkd said:
If you look at the Chorus II vs forte II crossovers they use the same mid horn and driver but the forte II mid is dialed back -10db compared to the Chorus II at -6db-- a 4db difference on speakers that are rated 99db & 101db sensitivity.
That’s because the CII is balanced to the output of a 15” (high output) woofer and the FII is balanced to the output of a 12” woofer... in their respective cabinets?!?Again, there is a whole lot of apples to pineapples going on here?!?
-
1
-
-
On 4/1/2020 at 11:07 AM, dtr20 said:
Because this is part of the fun.
I went with the mentality that the forte and chorus shared the same horns, then the forte II and the chorus II shared the same horns. So naturally, the forte III and the chorus III would likely share the same horns.
Yeah but the FIII and the FII don’t use the same horn, driver and have dramatically different balancing networks... there is just a lot of assuming happening here...I mean I get the fun aspect. I love tearing sh!t apart and rebuilding it just to see how it works but I worry about what is being billed as equivalent or as an upgrade because those types of ideas seem to be spreading around recently with little vetting? The A55 itself is somehow billed all over the place as a generic upgrade to the driver of your choosing despite the fact that there is NO way that is realistic. There are numerous old threads that compare the K52 and K55 (of which the A55 is basically a clone)... and most, that I can recall, show the 55 down about 2-3dB and not realistically swappable without making adjustments to the network... but look at where we are?
-
The K604 has never been produced with mumps? It is just a K602 with a threaded driver mount rather than a mounting flange for a K52 driver/motor assy.
-
The horns you are comparing are not necessarily comparable... the stock Chorus II horn is a K60X (600Hz) series horn and the Forte III is a K70X (700Hz) series... technically the comparable current replacement would be the lager K603M found in the Cornwall IV or the KPT310HF. If I remember correctly the horn you are trying to replace is a K602?
Between the A55G and smaller K703M horn all you are effectively doing by swapping out components is EQing the speaker to potentially suite your own taste? Why not just use an EQ? It would be easier?
-
On 3/21/2020 at 3:11 PM, Randyh said:
were you aware if the Celestion midrange driver in the CW4 is 8 OHMS -
I do not recall hearing/seeing anyone confirm it but it would make the most sense for it to be 8ohm...-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, jjptkd said:
I have not tried the A55-g in the klf30 but that driver works very well in the Chorus II and is a far superior driver than the stock k52.
The A55G didn't exist when I owned my KLF20's but I did throw a pair K55's in there just for sh!ts and giggles... it was different but I would not say it sounded or looked better.
The thing to me is that the 55 and 52 excel at completely different things and I would not consider them interchangeable. For a Khorn, La Scala, Belle or maybe older Cornwalls I get it. There is a reason the K55 is used and I could understand the argument that an A55 might be better, though I don't buy it. For models that naturally come with the K52 I think the benefits of either 55 are lost on that model due to their inherent differences.
And I can completely understand someone saying the A55 sounds better to them but adjusting the bass/treble might also sound better to that same person... so what does better mean?
-
7kHz is the approximate acoustical crossover point between the original midrange driver and the tweeter... neither came to a dead stop at that frequency? So despite the fact that the A55G doesn't go as high as the K52 there likely isn't a gap in response but there is no way to tell without taking a measurement. The K75/79 is generally spec'd to cross between 5-7kHz with little to no change in the tweeter circuit (i.e. Chorus I vs Chorus II). Also, the K75/79 should be good down to at least 2kHz if you wanted to change the crossover point for some reason? You would need add a low pass to the midrange as well as adjust the high pass for the tweeter though.
If it were me I would just put the K52 back in?
-
On 3/18/2020 at 6:05 AM, Dave A said:
The OEM crossovers I have for this are bright and I have been told this is because they were meant to go through a movie screen and not be sitting out in the open during use. They are bright with the OEM crossovers and annoyingly so. I don't know the lower limits to the 510 horn but Klipsch says 900 hz for HF crossover. I wanted to try to get down to say 650 if possible as what I have been told is that the more you can make the horn do within it's inherent limitations the better off you are.
I have used both the 904 and 942 networks with a 904HF/315LF setup. I'm terrible at describing this type of thing but to me the 904 sounded rounder/fuller and the 942 sounds faster/less bloated? Both 100% require a resistor pad to knock down the HF with my application since they were intended for the 904/940LF. I currently have a 4.5ohm resister on the positive input of the HF circuit... I personally found 5ohm was too much and 3.3ohm was not quite enough... I have thought of going down to 3.9/4ohm but I don't have that value on hand right now. I would think 1-2ohm would be all that is needed to take the edge off of a setup using the 904/940LF?
I have also started playing around with an LCR placed between the HF circuit and the HF driver that is centered at about 1600-1700Hz... There was something going on there that appears to correspond with a small impedance spike found in the 904HF (DE 75-8P). My current values are 3mH - 2.7uF - 10ohmI think both networks have their positives/negatives but I have ultimately kept the 942 networks in place... for now?
-
5 hours ago, Dave A said:
I have been fiddling with making crossovers for these 904's + 510 horns I have here. So I go to places like Erse and DIY and others to look at crossovers and trying a 2nd order HF Butterworth last night was really bad. I followed the recipe and it showed the same components for the HF and LF sides and the only difference was where the capacitor was placed as in before or after the inductor. For a 659hz crossover it shows to use a 2.77mh inductor and a 21.something uf capacitor. Sounded terrible and yet this was the recommendation. The original 904 type bass bin I worked on was from a KP-450 and then a KPT-456 both of which had a 2.75mh inductor and a 50uf poly cap. Nothing at all like the crossover calculators said to use. Where is a good place to go to start learning about this?
Why not just use the actual 904 crossover design?
or if you wanted you could use the KPT942... which replaces the 50uF with 75uF and the 4.7uF with 6uF (inductor values don't change). I don't have a pic of the schematic for the 942 but I do happen to have the physical network. The 942 was obviously intended to be used with a 402 and not a 510 but it crosses high enough (500-600Hz-ish) to potentially be used with the 510? Stock 904 crosses at 800Hz according to the spec sheet I have, always looked more like 900Hz-ish whenever I played around with it?
-
On 3/11/2020 at 7:04 PM, jjptkd said:
Received 2 pairs of these today they are identical in every way to the originals I have on hand
Do they have the little circular date stamp/mold on the top/bottom by the flange?
-
21 hours ago, jjptkd said:
Received 2 pairs of these today they are identical in every way to the originals I have on hand can't beat the price.
Sounds like they are the same as the 510?
Could they be NOS leftover from a previous supplier kind of like the KL series horn tweeters that are on Parts Express???
-
On 3/4/2020 at 10:15 AM, dian83 said:
Good idea, thanks
If I remember correctly, the threaded insert in that assembly fits just about as perfect as can be in the hole left by the stock setup...
I don't remember having to drill or modify anything.
-
I sold the pair ages ago but I replaced the feet on mine with...
https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-drfs1-1-3-8-x-1-heavy-duty-rubber-feet-4-pcs--240-712
-
7 hours ago, risingjay said:
Any Idea why the bass bins run a little hotter with the KPT-904M-B?
My first guess would be the inductor value in the LF circuit -
The KPT-904-M-B looks correct for the schematic I’ve seen... the KPT-904-M is some what confusing due to its use of the T10A autoformer? That’ll knock the HF down -9dB which seem crazy overkill for std 904 setup. I’ve also never seen a 904 use an autoformer???
-
Ok, so over time I have ended up with schematics for the 310, 942 & 904. I would still like info on the KPT325 if any one has one? I'm pretty sure it is identical to the 904 but has an additional resistor to pad the HF output a bit (2 or 3 ohms).
-
1 hour ago, mustang_flht said:
I bought PHT-409 / Monacor MHD-190 to mount a B&C DE120 and replace the K107Ti of my CWIII, because the horn is the same
MHD-190 with B&C DE120 on my CWIII, after removal of the diffraction piece
I saw your thread about that! I've been wanting to design an adapter that could be 3D printed to more-or-less to the same thing! I have had ZERO time to try and tackle that idea though...
-
1
-
-
On 1/8/2020 at 11:57 AM, Vincent Latini said:
I have a Klipsch K-48 Woofer from a 1990 KP-301 that is not working. I would either like to get it repaired or find a replacement.
Also as a interim fix, could I use a K-34 K from a 1986-1990 Cornwall or LaScala.
Have you tried contacting Klipsch directly? An off the shelf comparable woofer would likely be cheaper but Klipsch does sell replacement parts for their speakers and the K48EP (121534) is used in current KPT models.
And the K34 (a dressed up version of the K33 used in the CWII) would work in a pinch though if i remember correctly it is like 2dB less sensitive. The K48(4ohm)/K45(8ohm) are basically pro versions of the original K33(4ohm)... fundamentally I would consider them very similar, though being designed for pro lines, they are more sensitive and built to handle more power. Their wattage handling is not a function of their bass output however? In fact the K33, by design, actually has better low end response but that ability is of no use in the pro market where the 301 would likely never see signal below like 50Hz?
I've attached an old scan of the spec sheet for the K1545/K1548 which might be of some help if you want to source a replacement from an aftermarket supplier? They early versions of the 45 & 48.
-
On 1/28/2020 at 1:42 AM, glens said:
I'm sure they'd interchange just fine if need be, but the taper/profile of the narrow sides sure looks a bit different.
Not in person?
In some photos of the older molds you can actually see where they filled in the notch/cutout for the woofer...
P.Audio also makes the horn lense for the K107Ti/K100Ti/K771
They also supply several drivers such as the K68A/K701G/K71G used in the Reference & KP/KPT lines, the K70G used in the FIII & various KI/KPT models and the K69A used in various KPT models...
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Randyh said:
are you sure the new K702 is a 16ohms driver , or could it be an 8 ohms driver
My guess is it is not. The K70G used in the Forte III is 8ohms. If they didn’t bother messing with the FIII I’m not sure why they would mess with the CWIV? -
40 minutes ago, glens said:
The threaded insert appears to be molded in on one, pressed in on the other; look closely at the narrow-side profiles; and the screw head interfaces. Apart from the flange cutout...
The thread insert is molded into both but the insert itself is slightly different... you have to remember these were likely made years apart, with the K704 being older, things change over time. I’ve personally seen 3 variants of the K703 ranging from the KLF/CF days to the more current applications. The mounting screw holes on the 2510 are slightly larger and tapered but I do not consider that much of a difference?
.jpg.a85577a1941019d79ac89d1afb511f13.jpg)
.jpg.53d14bb8722bd0b514fac84849104bf3.jpg)
Chorus III Experiment
in Technical/Restorations
Posted
Same thing realistically... nomenclature gets a bit funny at a point but the K52 motor was used with a threaded snout and with the the K701/K53, K601/K57, K602/K61/K62... it’s late, I forget how it all lines out completely but there are horn part #’s that mate to that motor and assy #’s that utilize the motor in one form or another?