Chief bonehead

Just out of curiosity why do you guys like the AA?

you know doc, i am beginning to think that you really dont know me all....but thats ok...i still like you.

naw....we dont have nothing to prove. our Customers like them even if we use "not great woofers".

thats funny doc. i know you are impressed with how woofers look but the reality is that we are concerned with sound of a system. just a tid bit for you doc (because i like you so much), we are constantly looking at woofer suppliers. we provide samples and specs and we get sample woofers to test. if they test like we want them to, then we ask for the quote and by golly molly, then turn out to be quite a bit more expensive then what we use. in real world of producing loudspeakers, it about the system and what we are trying to achieve;not about woofers and how shiny they look. so i guess we will continue to use "not great stuff".........

wow Doc!! i would just stick with the Otthorn and wouldnt even mess with the 1802....

Wow. Thanks for the info. I don't understand why you get so worked up over after-market replacement parts that Klipsch no longer offers? Even if they are (and I'm not saying they are) vastly inferior to the original stock parts they're still better than burnt up stock parts that there are no longer replacements for, am I right? Seriously, what's a person to do, "I just blew out a mid diaphragm in my Chorus II's".. wait, what? Klipsch no longer sells those parts? I guess I'll just go spend $4k on a pair of Cornwall III's...?? Necessity is the mother of invention.. Seriously....you don't know what you are talking about and I don't need to explain myself to you. Oh and by the way......we still make that diap kit.... But you can buy the cornwalls if you want.

Wow. Thanks for the info.

So dtel or Kevin if he checks in.... I notice that the Jubs have been pulled out of the corners is this how they are currently setup with the sub? What are the crossover setup/parameters being used currently between the Jubs and KPT-1802. Would also be interested in roughly what the room dimensions are...? Love the setup Kevin miketn hey Miketn. i was playing around with the image and the 1802. thats why they are pulled out. that setup sounded really....ok.

why doc, you dont trust my dirty measurements? and you cant just throw in any ole driver.....sorry.

great! collapsing polars are a fine thing.....

Ah man. I think that I have done almost everything in the book as to CW mod's. Networks, horns, tweeters, drivers, bracing..... The one thing that stands out for me? The K-600 is a nasty little thing at volume. Chews on your pant leg. After running several mid horns both inboard and outboard the small format FASTRAC horn wins. tc then dont call it a cornwall....glad you saved your pant leg.

Welcome to the forum. Glad you are happy with speakers... Wonder if phenolic mid diaphrams need replacing after 25 years of normal use? I doubt very much that 25 years is too long a time but if you are a phenolic fan the diaphragms that Bob sells are simply a better diaphragm probably a superior profile, I don't know what it is exactly but they do sound much nicer compared to stock skins. i see....it must be magic.

that is exactly right. if it is not built by klipsch, then it is not klipsch.

just so you know, on the commercial side, i was taught by pwk that the source to the speakers did not matter. whether a cd player or a live band, the speaker had to do both. when a new product come up, we routinely listen to consumer speakers versus the commercial. in commercial demos, we have been accused of sounding hifi....i think that's good.....

From who Chris??

thanks everyone! i really appreciate it

in some people you will find nothing inside their head......

it has been an interesting read. i experimented with something similar but it had too many drawbacks. i preferred another method. but that doesnt mean that what you are hearing is perfect for your situation and application! and i may take you up on your offer to come listen.......

Note however that I'm not disappointed in the K-69-A at all. In fact, I'm amazed at how well everything sounds relative to when I used the K-69-As in my Jubs. Chris And in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1......here's deano!!!!

I am kinda of smelly deano. dont you have some crossovers to build or something? damn.....oh by the way deano...... HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! YOU OLD MEAN OLD MAN!!!

The way that it is constructed--I agree with you, but for its effective properties related to flare rate expansion vs. off-axis port location (the low-pass acoustic filter), it behaves just like the horns that Danley uses. So for the simplicity of calling it something other than "the straight-sided walls of the modified tractrix horn", I'll just refer to that area as a "conical", even though it doesn't expand on an x^2 profile. Chris to make it even more simple, just call it a megaphone.......

chris. i am impressed with the way you pursue things.....passion, data and being honest with your ears. keep it up!!

I don't wish to give anyone the impression that "new physics" is involved -- it isn't. The issue has always been the so called "mid-bass problem". PWK struggled with it in the Khorn design, changing the compression slot in its bass bin to be smaller in order to to improve its well known issue to reach 400 Hz. One of the reasons why I believe that some people prefer the La Scala or perhaps Belle over the Khorns' bass bin (also perhaps using a subwoofer with the La Scalas/Belles) is that the Khorn performance over its decade of usable bandwidth (~32-400 Hz, nominally) is about at the limit that one can achieve with a bass horn--even folded. The Jubilee bass bin has the same issue, albeit with much better on-axis higher frequency performance than the Khorn bass bin (designed as the Khorn II toward the end of PWK's life with Roy D. assisting in the specifics of design and testing). The result was the "Golden Jubilee" of the Khorn, renamed because its performance was that much better than the Khorn's bass bin that it deserved a new designation. The remaining issue with the Jubilee bass bin is its very narrow polars above 220 Hz due to its dual mouths interacting to form, in effect, an array of two emitters (horn mouths), which narrows its HF polar performance significantly, just like in the Khorn bass bin. (This also applies to the Belle at a higher frequency--about an octave, but not so much the La Scala) Also there has always been the issue of vertical separation of the horn mouths in the Khorn and in the Jubilee - more than 1/4 wavelength at the crossover frequency. These vertical separations cause disturbances in horizontal and vertical coverage at the crossover frequencies (also between the tweeter and midrange, too), as well as the psychoacoustic effect of a non-point source loudspeaker over a point source one. The effects of this single design detail was noted in the Altec 604 and later horn-loaded and reflex loudspeaker designs. These really aren't revelations, only design trade-offs that may or may not be well known. All loudspeaker designs have design trade offs and strengths/weaknesses--that isn't really a revelation, either. So the current horn design makes use of a different set of design trade offs than Khorns or even the Jubilee, recognizing the strengths of the K-402 horn design by Roy and the multi-entry horn design (i.e., Unity horn) of Danley. So the subtleties of these two designs are put together into a new design that hopefully makes use of the strengths of those other designs and not their weaknesses. So the current design (New Center) makes use of the ideas of a point source design, multiple entry horn, and conical horn design below its Fc to yield a design with different performance and physical size characteristics that address the design weaknesses of the prior designs. It also introduces it's own design weaknesses, of which I've identified a few in the above postings. The idea is to produce a design that addresses customer needs/wants that aren't currently being addressed by the prior designs. Some of those needs include things such as: better midbass performance in terms of polars, single point source loudspeaker (better imaging/presence), much smaller package, not having to use a room corners if they aren't available, lower cost, and perhaps a couple more customer needs/wants that haven't been addressed by the existing products (Klipsch and Danley, etc.). The current New Center design has the potential to do that, IMO. So the current horn uses the real strength of the K-402's conical horn and tractrix horn properties, but simply extends that performance to its limit, using the same design trade that Danley uses with its full-range multiple entry horn designs. Nothing really new by itself, but the combination IS new. Also note that the current design really doesn't make use of the Khorn, La Scala, Belle, or Cornwall designs because those designs don't have the design characteristics of the K-402 or the Danley Unity horn designs that are needed. Otherwise, it would look like a kit to update those designs. That's really not the case in this instance. It would be nice if it could. So, in a nutshell, the current design combines the strength of the K-402 horn profile with the conical multiple-entry horn into a single aperture full-range horn loudspeaker design. It recognizes some design trades that others might have missed. Hopefully, the weaknesses of this design are minimized to create a significantly better design for a large customer segment whose needs aren't currently being addressed through current products: Jubilee or Danley Unity/Synergy designs. Chris just a small detail....the 402 is not a conical expansion.......

I'm still sorting out, so much of the following are my listening impressions...not yet backed up by data. That data will be forthcoming, however, it's not a data-only decision, as you well know. At frequencies above 175 Hz...yes, hands down. That's the real advantage of this configuration: matched polars, phase, and point source performance that the K-402 + Jubilee bass bin just doesn't have. This is much more audible than I'd originally anticipated. Enough difference alone that I'd consider this configuration on top of a Jubilee bass bin, but crossed lower around 200 Hz or perhaps even a bit lower. It's just too good to not want what it brings to the table, IMO. (I'm planning to gather polar data in this region to verify what my ears are hearing.) Between 135-175 Hz, the New Center actually is still better (IMO) due to its point source performance, but the difference is much less than above. Below 135 Hz down to 60-70 Hz, the Jubilee bass bin in a corner performs better. When you consider the Jubilee bass bin size, corner-location requirements, and resulting HF horn height above the floor, that's a big pill to swallow, however, especially its added cost, (YMMV, obviously.) Below 40-60 Hz, I'd rather cross to a horn-loaded sub for reasons of limiting IMD, but I'd be extremely happy with either bass bin, especially either in a corner, with the Jubilee bass bin performing with lower measured IMD and THD. Both sound very tight and impactful, however. Below 40 Hz, you still have capability (albeit using EQ) in the New Center that the Jubilee bass bin cannot fully follow due to its more limited woofer area: the New Center has double the woofer area alone, among other advantages, such as 6 dB-octave roll-off performance vs. 18-24 dB octave for the Jubilee bin in a corner below 32 Hz. Overall, it's not a toss up. If you wanted to improve the New Center bass performance over what I'm currently using, that would be quite easy to do, either using reflex ports or baffles in a room corner, or both. The Jubilee bass bin is pretty much optimized already with marginally better performance available if you use larger baffles to integrate its horn transition to the corner of the room. ...Not that I'm trying to get anyone upset... Chris so there is nothing that is being compromised? nothing that is being minimized? and dont worry....i am not upset. lol!

One day......maybe.....I will show you guys things I have in the vault........