glens

Seems a bit high to me, too, but maybe they're pristine and have already got high-quality replacement capacitors installed, in which case the price would be good.

I've never understood that rationale. Why not make it sound the best it can, as in "right"? Let the end user salt and pepper to taste if necessary. Salt and pepper can't fix what isn't there anymore.

Not to mention the (any) two taps being run in this case will be very largely frequency-range-independent (handling different content) anyway. There's certainly been enough time passed already to have tried this and reported back with an initial impression. I wonder whether it has happened, or was it merely a musing? If I had an amp with output transformers I'd have tried both combinations at the first suggestion just to check my theory that it will tilt the tonal balance of the speaker one way or the other. That's just the kind of information I enjoy gathering... cheap and easily obtained!

Fetch a product PDF from Klipsch's pro part of their site, for a model which uses that horn, and study the polar response graphs...

Yep. It either will or it won't. Actually, the case of voltage vs. power is not terribly difficult (as I'd said, an iteration usually makes it obvious). Have you got a rule of thumb for sound pressure vs. sound power? Would it be safe to consider "power" involves "something squared" in all cases, as a rule of thumb? Too funny! Sounds like something Mark Twain would've said. Who was it?

I wouldn't use magnet-to-magnet as you'd hardly get two half the size in that link apart unless you put something more substantial than grille cloth between them. Rather, do as they did (with three each side, I think [I'll check in a bit and edit the post if different]) on my Forte IIIs, with the magnet set into the grille frame, and a screw head protruding from the baffle. Even so, I emplaced a tab of Scotch Super 33 over each magnet... Them suckers are wicked strong!

Any hardware store ought to have those little "rare earth" magnets on the shelf.

I have a hard time remembering when/whether to use 20x or 10x, but an iteration usually clears it up. Looks right so far from here with the available info (none). Didn't follow the link... Add: would be easier to use the overall gain, in dB, of the amps, wouldn't it?

I also looked at the PDF for the previous version KI-362 which I have on hand. Virtually identical, though one is a K79 horn and the other is K79T, I believe. Neither of which is either the K77 or the MAHL(?) as shown in these speakers... Yet, as stated, the greater dispersion (albeit somewhat marginal) is definitely in the wider-mouth plane as indicated in the various graphs. The reason I looked at those two documents is because Klipsch doesn't provide that data for their "home" speakers, and that model uses the tweeter horn the "home" speakers use. In this case, most obviously, it's a moot point for both reasons...

So you're saying the wider dispersion is across the narrower profile? I realise those aren't factory tweeter horns but it seems quite illogical the factory would orient theirs to spread the sound vertically greater than horizontally. I just now perused a PDF I'd fetched for the current KI-362 and the graphs for -6dB angular coverage, through the tweeter range, show roughly 45 degrees total included angle greater dispersion across the wider axis of the horn mouth than across the narrower axis.

The "sound" of the horns, whether vertical or horizontal should be no different so long as you're hearing them from within their dispersion "window." Which is what (in terms of shape) with those horns? My guess is their developed patterns are shaped much as are their mouths, but I've never seen a plot of their output in that regard... (actually, in any regard)

Wait a minute... I'm confused. Doesn't the flare rate matter?

Yes. At least a couple inches of space behind them.

Totally immaterial how long the leads are (unless excess is coiled, too). The only thing that matters is the wire in the formed coil.

I'd assumed sand is intended to dampen and weight hollow-tube(-like?) bookshelf speaker stands. It's definitely most certainly entirely unnecessary in this case.

I believe he'd asked in another thread about shortening the leads on Litz-wire inductors and it appears an alternate option was used.

I believe he wanted to use fancy coils and caps.

Just tighten your belt a notch or two and get yourself a shiny new pair of IVs shipped in factory boxes on a pallet. You'll only ever have to do it once.

10-4 on that "pretty wild in a hot minute"! It can be like randomly twiddling both knobs on an Etch-a-Sketch for sure. Same thing with zipping out drywall around electrical boxes: the right direction hugs the outline while the wrong way does, well, you know...

Gotta laugh about that and ask, don't you use straightedges in metalworking?

Perhaps were both loads full-range, but in this case I'm sure it's a non-issue.

And were they even to become available digitized they would no doubt have the "mastering" mucked-with. I can't think of one release I've doubled-up on "for the increased content" where the original (also digital) doesn't have much higher sound quality / tonal balance.

Might upset the tonal balance of the speaker as a whole if you do that, but wouldn't be harmful otherwise. Though I'd think if you're going to shake things up that way it would work better the other way around - 4 ohm output to the woofer.

Maybe if you can get the sound wave to anchor itself to the end of the wall on the right and pivot there while the left side swings a 180 through the bends. Even if that were possible to do it looks like the expansion rate through the turn will not be well maintained. Not that I have a better alternative in mind...

So I take it the ~20% is the cost of return shipping thus it was a wash, financially, either way for you?