Dave A

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Dave A

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Lapidary, 3D MCAD design, welding, CNC machining and of course music to work by.
  • My System
    1981 Industrial one piece La Scalas
    KP-480 subs
    Onkyo receiver

Recent Profile Visitors

1518 profile views
  1. wvu80, "more punch, a fuller sound, more accurate sound" yes to all. The LSI has K43 woofers where the LS has K33 and yes it makes a difference in the quality of the sound. The LSI was with original crossover components was clearly better than any of the other La Scalas and one of them which also had an AA crossover had been freshly recapped with Crite's supplied caps when I bought it. As far as I know there is no difference in the crossovers. The only difference besides cabinet finish that I know of is the woofer. On the KP 480. I have yet to find a picture like the one I have. It has four 4" round ports cut into the motorboard, one at each corner with tubes fixed to the back side of the ports going back to within 1" of the back side and no passive radiator or slot cut in the bottom face like others I see. I can't find specs for that exact cabinet either but I assume all the KP 480s had to be very close.
  2. John was suggesting all of my industrials which would have been four KP250s, two La Scalas, two KP115s and two KP480s. The subs and KP 250s came from a band/DJ setup. The subs still have original Klipsch dust covers on the speakers but only one of the four KP 250 woofers does and I can't imagine why. I tried the KP 250s with the KP 480s and compared to the KP 480 with the La Scalas the 250s weren't even close. I may try recapping the 250s though since I think they could and should sound better. For all I know everything may need caps especially the La Scalas since they are 37 years old and the crossovers have not been touched on any of these.
  3. I have had a set of AA crossover Industrial La Scalas for a while now. Really liked them but found myself turning the bass all the way down and still not being satisfied. Tried Forte II and Chorus and both were nice but still not what I wanted. Now I picked up a couple sets of KP-250s with their subs one of which was a KP 480 with a ported cabinet and no passive. Tried them out today and found out just how much I have been missing all this time. The industrial La Scalas to me have much better definition than the five sets of LSBRs I have gone through but the low end was muddy such as it was. Toccata and Fugue in D minor never sounded right to me with the three sets of speakers I mentioned above although the Forte II and Chorus were both much better with bass, just not as crisp a sound as the La Scalas. So today I hook the 480s to the La Scalas and get blown away by how much I had been missing. Instead of an attempt at bass or bass but no real clear definition to it I now had superb everything. Discovering that I can leave the bass settings close to neutral and hear all the instruments AND feed my bass desires with complete clarity.This was unexpected and for the first time I find myself completely satisfied with what I hear. I may very well change the caps out later this year as I have been advised this to will make a difference. I feed the 480s and La Scalas with an 80 watt Onkyo and can't begin to get near full output before it becomes painful. It's nice to see things move on the metal table close by. Hard to imagine so much volume from such a little wattage. John Albright stopped in and suggested that with the two 800 watt amps I got with the KP 250s and subs I should set them all up outside and have a yard party I just might drag the La Scalas and 480s to the shop door and have at it one day just to see but I believe I will pass on the rest.
  4. John, while not the same they are 480s and I would think pretty close. May JUN Mar 01 1999 2000 2001 2 captures 1 Jun 2000 - 4 Mar 2001 About this capture KP-480-BX 18" Bass Reflex Woofer With 15" Passive Radiator The Klipsch Professional KP-480-BX is a high-output, bass reflex speaker system that combines an 18-inch (46 cm) woofer with a down-firing 15-inch (38 cm) passive radiator. This unique design produces extended low frequency response and higher output from a smaller and lighter enclosure than can be achieved with more conventional vented designs. Passive Radiator/LF Section The KP-480-BX is so compact because its passive radiator allows the enclosure to be tuned much lower, eliminating the need for long vents that require more room inside the cabinet. At 15 inches, the passive radiator has a much larger radiating area than a typical vent, so at low frequencies, it couples better to the air. The passive radiator even reduces the possibility of woofer over-excursion by limiting the woofer when the system is driven too hard below the tuning frequency. Its specially designed rubberized plastic surround allows up to 1 1/5 inches (3 cm) of peak-to-peak excursion. It can move a lot of air without the noise associated with some vented designs. The KevlarŽ composite passive radiator coupled with the K-49 woofer and its large 96-ounce (2.7 kg) magnet allows the KP-480-BX to produce well-damped and powerful low-frequency output with much less amplifier power. Stackable and Packable The KP-480-BX features a top-mounted stand socket, which can serve as a base for locating the main speakers in the air. By using 1 1/2-inch (3.8 cm) tubing to connect the two systems, the use of a tripod is not necessary. The KP-480-BX compact dimensions make for an easy "truck pack." In fact, 16 units take up less than 2 1/4 feet of truck space. Passive Crossover The passive crossover is a factory-installed option on the KP-480-BX. The KP-480-BX passive crossover is set at 150 Hz with a slope of 12 dB per octave for the woofer and 6 dB per octave for any full-range speaker system connected to the HF output section. Entirely self-contained on the back of a standard KP series input panel, the passive crossover is easily installed by removing the old input panel, unplugging the leads to the woofer, connecting the leads from the passive crossover panel to the woofer and using the old screws to attach the new panel to the back of the box. To use the crossover, plug the full range input into either of the bottom connectors (1/4-inch phone plug or five-way binding posts). Use a jumper cable to connect either of the top two connectors (HF out) to the input of any full-range system (4 or 8 ohms) or a paralleled pair of 8 ohm speakers. The KP-480-BX passive crossover will even operate with woofers alone, without any load on the HF output section. The KP-480-BX passive crossover allows you to add a subwoofer to just about any system without the complications and expense of bi-amping. The design of the crossover allows maximum coupling of the subwoofer and full range enclosure. The slower roll-off of the HF output ensures you get the most from the woofer in the full-range enclosure before it crosses over to the subwoofer. It also prevents signals below the box tuning frequency from reaching the full-range system, increasing power handling and reducing distortion in the mid-bass region. Architect's and Engineer's Specifications The loudspeaker system shall be a subwoofer consisting of an 18-inch (46 cm) K-49-K woofer and a KD-17 passive radiator. The woofer shall have a cast aluminum frame and the voice coil shall be three inches (7.6 cm) in diameter with a KaptonŽ form. The passive radiator shall be 15 inches (38 cm) in diameter and have a Kevlar composite cone with a rubberized surround. System sensitivity shall be 104 dB SPL, with 2.83 V input, measured at a distance of one meter in a half space anechoic environment. Maximum continuous output shall be 129 dB SPL at a distance of one meter with maximum continuous power input of 400 watts (40.5 V). Frequency response shall be 44 Hz to 200 Hzą4 dB, -10 dB at 34 Hz. Nominal impedance shall be 8 ohms. The cabinet sides shall be constructed of 3/4 inch, furniture grade, void-free plywood with textured water resistant black paint. The baffle board shall be one-inch, void-free plywood. All edges will be internally braced. Dimensions shall not exceed 26 29/32 inches (68.3 cm) high, 23 7/8 inches (60.6 cm) wide and 24 1/16 inches (61.1 cm) deep. Net weight shall not exceed 85 pounds (38.6 kg). The loudspeaker shall be a Klipsch KP-480-BX, manufactured by Klipsch, L.L.C. Specifications: Frequency Response (3 Meters, 1/2 Space Anechoic): 44 to 200 Hz, ą 4 dB Usable Response to 2,500 (-10 dB @ 34 Hz) Power Handling: 400 Watts* (40.5 V) Maximum Continuous Output @ 1 Meter with 400 Watt Input: 129 dB Sensitivity @ 1 Watt/1 Meter (2.83 V): 104 dB SPL Nominal Impedance: 8 Ohms (4.2 Minimum @ 43 Hz) Maximum Long-Term Calculated Acoustic Output Power: 11.5 Acoustic Watts Woofer 1/2 Space Reference Efficiency: 2.77% Enclosure Tuning: 41 Hz Crossover Frequency: 150 Hz via (Optional) Internal Passive Crossover, 12 dB/Octave Roll-off for Woofer, 6 dB/Octave Roll-off for HF Output. Enclosure: One-inch (2.54 cm) Baffle Board. All Sides 3/4-inch (19 mm) Plywood, Internally Braced, Lined with Acoustical Foam. Black Metal Grille. Woofer Attached with Woofer Clamps. Input Connections: 1/4-inch Phone Jacks and Red/Black Five-way Binding Posts. Input is Fused (4-A Recommended). Height: 26 29/32" (68.3 cm) Width: 23 7/8" (60.6 cm) Depth: 24 1/16" (61.1 cm) Weight: 85 lbs. (38.6 kg) Net, 99 lbs. (45 kg) Shipping *AES standard, continuous pink noise 40-400 Hz, with 6 dB peaks above the continuous level.
  5. CECAA850 your suggestion of loosening and tightening has improved the problem considerably. I went in there and tightened all screws and wiggled connections and the muddy sound is almost gone. The mid range horn drivers were almost finger loose and I think the contact on the spade connectors from sitting idle for some time had a poor connection on top of it. John was kind enough to stop by and suggested replacing the caps in the crossover to which I will probably try. I like the sound but it is not quite there yet for my tastes.
  6. John, I am 67 miles due south of downtown Nashville. Depending on when you come through I may be gone next week. Will you be coming back this way on your way home? Send me an email please I would like to talk to you. CECAA850 I did what you suggested but the midrange still just does not sound right. It is kind of crackly if that makes any sense and since I have played with the connections a bit the cut out problem is gone. The other set sounds pretty darned good so I think there is an issue. jjpktd I also got a rack with some amplifiers and a fancy crossover. I have not really looked at them yet but they sure do weigh a ton and it took two of us to lift it up into the van. There must be some huge heat sinks in there. One of those when I have time endeavors will be to hook them all up and see what I have. All the gear is from the early 2000's. I hesitated to buy the rack full of stuff since I wanted the speakers only but for 250.00 I figured I would take a chance.
  7. This week I bought a pair of KP-250-A and a pair of KP-250-R mains along with a pair KP-115-A subs and a pair of KP-480-SW subs. If there is someone who is around the middle Tennessee area who knows these I think there are some problems but I need guidance on how to diagnose whatever is wrong with them. They sound a bit muddy to me and the one KP-250 seems to have an intermittent cutout in the midrange horn.
  8. I am interested in buying these if anyone around middle Tennessee area has some they wish to part with. I would prefer older versions and if they need work that is OK to. Thanks, Dave
  9. Finally got the woofer repaired. All I can say is that the sound is amazingly better with these AA Industrial La Scalas over the really pristine AA LS-BR's with replaced caps which were the go to set before. Separation of instruments is so defined now and bass may not be as low but I can't tell for sure. Even with the old original AA crossovers in the Industrial's it sounds so superior that I am not touching a thing from here on out. Same recordings and amplifier and two different audio worlds. As I sit here typing this I still have a hard time believing how much better they sound. Good thing they are in my shop for listening pleasure so I don't have to argue about klunky ugly industrial things ruining the inside of the house.
  10. I do understand this but have not yet had a answer as to whether sound waves can be directed just like an air flow could be. Direction of sound waves is what I am considering and air is just an analogy. Now if this never increased bass levels but improved sound quality over all this would still be worthwhile to me to try.
  11. OK that makes some sense but considering the huge variables in the various construction methods you referred me to this is not a finished science and what I proposed could make a difference. I will get in touch with Greg and thanks for the lead. What really started me wondering about all this were the kind of crude angular mods people have done where there was not much if any thought given to, once again thinking here that flow of sound can be in some ways similar to flow of gas, the aerodynamics of things. For instance a flat faced triangular corner piece would I figure bounce sound back at a 45 degree angle which would throw it right into the side of the doghouse where as a radiused corner would tend to direct to the front of the cabinet. Does anyone know how the size of the cutout for the motor board was arrived at?
  12. Me to. This is one of the things that had me thinking about why things were done and leaning towards good enough was good enough. An inside corner round of pretty generous size can be put in there like I have and not reduce the narrowest point at all. If sound does to some degree behave like the flow of most everything else I would think getting the sound out with the least amount of feeding back upon itself through induced swirls and eddies would have to help improve the definition of the sound and make it less muddy so to speak.
  13. I was asking the same question today, but about the Belle. Of course the lascala would fall under the same category. I could see why, you think of a couple of guys in a small work shop with out the tools and technology we have, how could they do some of this. Anyways, I guess this is why we have seen the curved Lascala. Have you seen the work that goes into one of those, there is no way they could keep the cost down. Then there is the question, does it sound that much better? Does it make that much of a difference for the need to spend so much? Only time will tell. I would like to build a curved Lascala or Belle, but only if there is some sort of evidence that it would be an improvement. My thought was "if it was curved on the back side would it be more efficient?" Quite hollow is probably correct with the fact its not flowing water, but rather the way it bounces around back there. I like the drawings along with the thought process. Now you are talking. I can accept that the angular surfaces could improve things. All I am asking is for definitive information based upon research done and not just opinions. With all the talk here about reinforcing making a noticeable difference in sound quality it seems as though the general consensus is things could be improved. Reading things here is a bit tedious at times because it's like there is a contest between money spent equating to bragging rights over solid real definable improvements and best bang for the buck real life analysis. I want the real answers because cost is not a problem since I can do this myself on machinery I already own. I don't however want to just waste time. Like the hole size in the dog house for the woofer. Rectangular and pretty small to me all things considered so does restricting the sound create a deeper bass utilizing the vibration of deliberately restricted and angular square cornered refinements made of plywood? Now throw in 1" plywood is supposed to sound better and there goes in part the vibration thing. See my problem here is that you can go round and round in circles trying to find the best answer.
  14. Went to the two sites you reference and I see nothing there like what I posted. Now are you suggesting that klipsch made analytical decisions here based upon various configurations to get the very best or was a certain level satisfactory and he went with that? In so far as vibration goes this is a one piece milled from solid thing and if glued and fastened to the back of the motor board is far more ridging than existing and far less prone to vibration is my opinion. What do you base your vibration comment on?
  15. I was told about how Paul penny pinched to a ridiculous degree on simple pennies per item at times recently. Considering the cost of La Scalas and what was saved it was silly at times. I have no design software for audio but my thought was to build upon sizes from the existing La Scala and for the corners to not become a choke point where the volume of the opening would be lesser than the narrowest existing in the current design.