DizRotus

Not the same speaker, but does anyone remember a glass plate tweeter, "Barcus-Barry" or something similar, that was written up in Time or Newsweek decades ago as the next big thing in audio? Wouldn't you like a dollar for all of the "breaktrhough" transducers that have come and disappeared while Klipsch heritage just keeps on going?

---------------- On 4/24/2005 5:41:33 PM DRBILL wrote: "Then the lawyers get involved". DR BILL ---------------- Always a bad sign when lawyers get involved, right Dr. Bill?

I confess, I find myself listening to a lot of rap lately.mostly at intersections.*<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> But seriously, I believe it was Duke Ellington who said, "There's only good music and bad music, when asked if he liked certain genres. Whoever said it, I agree, its just that Im still waiting to hear good rap music. *Stolen from some comedian.

---------------- On 4/24/2005 5:23:50 PM tigerwoodKhorns wrote: "... the Khorn has many compound cuts and looks difficult to put together. Chris---------------- No B%** S#+^! IMHO you'd be better off buying a cosmetically compromised but structurally sound set of Khorns, keep the bass bins and sell the rest on eBay. Speakerlab or DIY would be a mistake.

Well which will it be, rap or music?

Like Gil says, you're kidding, right?

In my opinion it would be a mistake; it would likely be a step down. That subjective opinion comes from someone who used four 8 ohm Speakerlab SK-horns (driven in parallel by a Dyna ST-400; 300 watts/channel into a 4 ohm load) in a mobile disco business. In that configuration the bass was tight and sufficient. Understand though, that I never made a direct A-B comparison to real Khorns. Id heard them both often, but never in a direct comparison.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Notwithstanding their suitability in my mobile DJ business, the Speakerlab SK-horns were constantly evolving. Some were particle board; others were plywood. Some had fiberglass squawker horns; others had aluminum. Some were kit built; others were factory built. Mine were plywood, aluminum and factory. You cant be certain what youd get. Furthermore, it's always been my impression that Speakerlab guessed a lot when it copied the Klipschorn. The throat size of the bass horn was different (I believe) than that of a Khorn. While it might have worked well enough with the Speakerlab woofer, theres no guarantee that it will perform correctly with a Klipsch woofer. At the time I purchased mine, the standard SK-Horn was 4 ohm (they were inherently slightly less efficient than true Khorns). Because I planned to run two per side in parallel, I selected the optional 8 ohm version. I wouldnt risk it. The best Speakerlab bass bin was probably inferior to the worst Khorn bass bin.

---------------- On 4/24/2005 10:22:10 AM McKlipsch wrote: I'm interested in trying this cleaner. Could anyone tell me what this surfactant is?---------------- A surfactant is any agent that, when added to a liquid, breaks down the surface tension (the phenomenon that causes a liquid to bead rather than sheet) of that liquid. Mild soap is often added to liquid weed killer as a surfactant to allow the liquid containing the weed killer to coat the leaves of the weeds. RainX is a surfactant. Dont get hung up on the surfactant.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> As Ive stated, its been some time since I last mixed up a batch of this stuff. I do not specifically recall the surfactant that I used, nor do I recall the suggested surfactant options. I can state that obtaining the glycerin from a pharmacist (although a simple enough task) is many times more daunting than selecting and procuring a suitable surfactant. Be daring. Risk $10.00. You wont be disappointed, and you wont lose sleep, time or money in the pursuit of an elusive surfactant.

---------------- On 4/22/2005 9:59:50 AM Parrot wrote: "Let me get this straight.... ---------------- That's often said before the application of the prophylaxis.

In the 70's, when I had a mobile DJ business, I would use this stuff prophylactically on new records. Even then I was practicing safe vinyl. After being treated, the new records then tended to not attract as much dirt.

---------------- On 4/21/2005 10:08:07 PM Randy Taylor wrote: todays my birthday ---------------- Happy Birthday! What were we discussing?

---------------- On 4/21/2005 9:01:30 PM Randy Taylor wrote: I also was wondering what kind of record cleaners you have used in the past that this system is better than. This whole thing looks very interesting. ---------------- The ubiquitous Discwasher, and a more elaborate contraption, whose name escapes me. With this stuff I resurrected a pile of 45s that had been thrown out as useless. LPs sound like new.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> To let them dry I place plastic cups on the labels and stack them several records high.

---------------- On 4/21/2005 9:33:39 PM Parrot wrote: What do you use for a surfactant? ---------------- It's been some time since I last mixed up a batch. I don't specifically recall the surfactant used, but I do recall that it was something that's readily available and inexpensive. I just looked to see if I could locate the supplies and instructions, but I can't. I think they're with my memory pills.

Yes $20 tops. As to Paul's questions: I've never needed to use a double boiler to create the slurry. Once mixed, it keeps in a recycled dishwasing liquid bottle for quite some time. You squirt the mixture from the bottle directly onto the record. Yes, it must dry over night. For that night you must play your other record. Once treated, records tend to stay clean for a long time. Like Klipsch Heritage, this stuff has been around for decades, because people like it; because it works.

It really works well. But it will cost somewhat more than $10.00. You must supply pure Isopropyl Alcohol (not rubbing alcohol; it has lanolin) and glycerin, both of which are available at the local drugstore.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Not only does it clean records better than anything else that I ever used, but the optional anti-static agent tends to keep them from attracting more dirt. Its fun to do also.

I don't have them on mine, but that won't stop me from offering an opinion. It's an aestheic thing mostly. I doubt it affects the bass, but if it did it would probably reduce the bass. As a practical matter, it would protect the speakes somewhat from vacuum cleaners.

Be kind. Einstein was a weak speller, and he couldn't build a tube amp to save his life.

Ive got no financial stake in or connection to this company, but their record cleaning system works wonders. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/kits/km-9.htm I first used this stuff when it was just Audio Amateur and Old Colony Sound Labs. You mix the white powder supplied into a slurry (oh so British). You then pour it on the record allowing it to form a thin film on one side of the record. When the film dries, you peel it off, giving the record a facial. It pulls the dirt from the grooves. You can also add an anti-static agent. Records that had been unplayable were rendered like new. It wont help if someone has autographed the record with a Boy Scout knife, but it will revive many records that look and sound beyond reclamation. It takes some work, but this is supposed to be a hobby. Have any other Forum members have ever tried this stuff, and, if so, what were your results?

They look great Paul and Craig. I'm sure they sound phenomenal and that each amp is a Very Reliable Device.

---------------- On 4/21/2005 1:10:01 PM fini wrote: "...Does it smell like cigarettes?" ---------------- If they contain VRDs from Burton, MI, the answer is yes.

I've not heard of this specific KEF model, but KEF, a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK company, built and sold fine speakers under its own name and supplied drivers to many other fine speaker makers, e.g., IMF, Fried, Rogers BBC LS3/5a, etc. for many years. I believe the company went through a bankruptcy and reorganization a few years ago.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> My HT system employs LS3/5as as the primary speakers with KEF B-139 transmission line subs. They sound great (and cost more than my Cornwalls), but when I listen to music, its on the Cornwalls. On an absolute basis I suspect that Id prefer the Cornwalls to the KEF KM1 speakers. On a value basis Im certain that the KEF KM1 could not cause me to abandon my Cornwalls. Is it just me or does the KEF KM1 suggest Bose 901s on steroids?

At first, I thought this thread addressed adultery. Instead of Desperate Housewives, it's disparate housevalves. Imagine my disappointment.

My restored and mildly massaged Dynaco SCA 35 produces excellent sound from my '84 Cornwalls. It also produces plenty of volume from my less efficient '82 Heresies. I assume that you want something more esoteric than a pedestrian vintage Dynaco, but this information might assist you with any concerns about minimum power requirements for Cornwalls. The bottom line is you do not need lots of watts to enjoy Cornwalls, but you might miss some of the bottom end.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The Dyna SCA 35 is nominally rated at 17.5 watts per side. After replacing all of the resistors and capacitors with modern counterparts of superior quality, and after canning the electrolytic capacitors in favor of modern counterparts of superior quality, the unit tests out at 11 watts per side. The sound is very good and the bass seems to be improved over the bone stock pre restoration performance. Nevertheless, the bass performance of the Cornwalls is noticeably tighter and improved when using my SS H/K 430 receiver with 25 watts per side. Many Forum members elect tube power for the mids and highs of their Klipsch Heritage speakers, with SS power to the bass. Your budget allows you to select from many excellent tube amps. If provided with a choice between better sound and more power at the same price, my recommendation would be to spend your money for quality rather than power.

This interesting speaker does not appear to be a true horn in the traditional sense. Instead it appears to be a TQWP http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYTQ2.html or a transmission line http://www.t-linespeakers.org/ While it's possible to get large amounts of bass from smaller speakers by applying mega watts and/or equalization. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has figured a way to cheat the laws of physics. To get lots of low bass from a true horn loaded speaker, a horn has to be large enough to move large amounts of air with small excursions and with modest power requirements. But I leave it to others with more epxertise than I to determine whether this is a "horn" subwoofer.

These aren't often available on eBay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=61378&item=5768207255&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW