glens

That problem is, I'd say, rather with the Bluetooth implementation in whatever is controlling the speakers, not the speakers (or sound bar). All they can do is advertise their existence and willingness to do the work. The decision which to use is entirely up to whatever's on the other end of the connection. It sounds like whatever that is in this case simply had its "mind made up" about the sound bar, damn anything else, until that option was removed by powering down the sound bar. Now that you've got the speakers up and running by it, what does it do if also given the option of the sound bar again?

Looks interesting, though I liked what you did before, except I'd shorten the primary run as needed to put in a LaScalaesqe snout which continues the expansion otherwise truncated by the final parallel walls, if stated that way makes sense. In fact I've been mulling it over for myself...

Y'all both got a green R, I thought it was you who started the thread. My point was that Litz wire will work in a crossover but is unnecessary for such low-frequency operation. The purpose of that wire is to counteract the effective loss of conductor size due to "skin effect."

The topic is (loudspeaker) crossover network inductors, right? Litz will work, but is wholly unnecessary. Skin depth is not a factor at (human) audio frequencies. If you use them anyway, and don't want to tediously skin the strands after shortening the leads, fold the excess back and forth and bind it that way, don't coil it up.

Why not? The rising air ought to divert sound waves upward quite nicely, coupled with the heat...

Or maybe convince madisound, et. al. to accept an order for a dozen or so each from you?

Why not simply derive the impedance as seen from the high side of the transformer and use that in your calculations, treating the transformer and driver as a single entity?

I liked the one about a set of LaScalas that had been abandoned (rightly so!) by a previous owner at a frat house, only being good for shouting while they held beers on top.

"Studio Monitor" is a dimensionless attribute, which means "whatever the studio was (is) using at the time." I believe there were some pretty crappy Yamaha speakers that were in vogue for some time, too. Then there's what the mix / mastering engineer uses to produce the end result. Rumor had it back in the day that 6x9 car speakers were used by some, since that was considered the target audience. So back to what I posted earlier, "what makes a studio monitor a 'studio monitor,' and why?"

Did you think to ask what a minimum batch size would be for them to whip some out?

Electronics? Sure, they can/do to a certain extent, but nowhere near even approaching the level of speakers! Really a couple interrelated concepts there. A better question would be "what makes a 'studio monitor' different, and why?" The difference is primarily in how the drivers integrate with each other, or how the overall sonic "pattern" is presented. There are two main factors in that any two adjacent drivers will produce their own differing versions of signal material they share in common and the resultant summation of the two as projected onto space. Coaxial drivers stand the best chance of covering the common ground well but the effects of the crossover mechanism are also a major factor. Low-passing filters and high-passing filters alter the relative timing in opposite directions from each other, so even when the drivers are coaxial there will be side-effects to contend with. In a near-field situation things are more critical in terms of the developed patterns since even minor movement by the listener is the equivalent of major movement relative to "standard" speaker / listener placement. In answer to your question about horizontal vs. vertical orientation it comes down to how tightly one's head is locked into position while listening, and the directions of motion that will lead to acceptable "sweet spot" integration. If your ears will be at primarily the same height regardless other motion, then vertical driver orientation would be best. Conversely, if you expect to primarily move your head up and down rather than side-to-side, then horizontal driver orientation would be best.

Something's amiss which more / different amplification isn't going to fix. If you want to spend more on that anyway it's a separate issue. With your speakers where they are in the photo, pulling them away from the wall and / or raising them will only lessen the bass output - in direct proportion to the distances involved, with the most being produced with their backs flat against the wall, on the floor. But even as they are shown, there should be no way in hell those little speakers on the left are producing more bass. More, perhaps, in relation to the highs being produced by each set, but that, too, is a separate issue. In terms of bass driver size alone it would take 3 or 4 of those little guys to equal just one of the Cornwalls. That's just physics as we know it. As I alluded to earlier, I suspect one of the woofers is wired incorrectly and the two speakers are cancelling each other's bass. At least it's a (perhaps the) simple(st) test to perform: merely invert the polarity to one of the speakers. Even easier yet, play a mono signal and rotate the balance control back and forth. Does the bass increase or decrease with the knob in the middle? I'm confused, didn't you say they were Cornwall IIIs? Don't they have separate inputs (normally tied together) for the lows and highs? If so, then you don't need to do anything when "bi-amping" beyond matching the gains of the amps so as to maintain tonal balance. The internal filters are all used in all cases so long as you're connecting only from the factory inputs in whichever configuration. First things first is to ensure both woofers are wired in phase. The absolute best test of that is to place the speakers right up against each other front-to-front and try both combinations of connections with the same signal driving both speakers together. It'll be obvious which connection scheme is correct. But that'll be a chore with those... When you've ensured the woofers are truly in phase, report back and we can take it from there.

I don't think it's all that complicated. Sure, a transformer coil is going to have some inductance when measured singly for such, but I don't believe it's acting like an inductor (i.e. a filter element) while being used as a transformer.

As an initial foray I'd consider the "1/2 the price" choices. Of the two, they are largely the same but one has a bit better (deeper) bottom end and has its horns pointing more "at you" instead of "up at you" so my recommendation between those two would be the Fortes. There are many other factors to consider as well, such as room size, where you'll be placing them, etc., which might favor just getting the "big boys" but spending twice the money just to stick your toes in the water is something to heavily consider, I'd think.

Just get the Forte IIIs and sort it out later if you need to. I'm running mine with a lowly NAD C338 (Hypex class D), streaming my ripped-to-flacs to it, and it's just luscious.

Just for kicks, have you tried wiring one of them "reverse" polarity?

That's what I was wondering. If the resistor + driver was factored in to the Cs and L or whether it was just thrown in as part of an (separated) L pad after the fact. Would be wildly incorrect if the latter.

I'm a bit intrigued by the 10 ohms in parallel with the driver. It doesn't "wash" in my book. From where was it derived?

Just a guess, but Bluetooth probably trumps other inputs and it's maybe pairing up with something only to discover there's no program material (when it then switches back to optical?). I'm guessing Klipsch isn't designing this electronic stuff but instead buying a turn-key package to stuff into the cabinets, and that they'd best stick with "passive" speakers...

Well, okay. Because they have a 12" woofer, a 15" passive, horns up above, and at least somewhat controlled directivity. But only those general specs. If Cornwall's would've fit the available space (and they weren't saddled with the Heresy mids) I might've gone that route. My first choice would've been LaScalas. I've always liked at least the idea of them (well, not always, but at least since the later '70s). So I guess cabinet dimensions figured in a tad, too, but only very generally. Oh, and the price tag specs were factors, too, I guess. Generally.

To the board...

How did you fasten them?

I can only guess at what the rest of the room, and its size, looks like. Based on that, it's similar to what I've got to work with (the cheap bastards didn't even spring for another course of block so my ceiling is barely more than 7'). But momma's happy with the house, so I am. Though there are many very basic design/construction considerations I'd addressed differently, which is why, I'd guess, I never got all that much construction work...

You're more than welcome.