greg928gts

That's a nice looking build. Greg

I wonder if there's an archive of old deleted forum threads somewhere? Greg

The "C" measurement it to a rounded off corner. What you really want to know is what the measurement would be if it went to a point in the corner, cut it that size and then round it off. Greg

Great story, very well told. Greg

Thanks for that link, it was interesting reading. Greg

Well there you go, now I'm sure Khorns will work fine in that small room for you. Much better than mini's. I don't think the bass will overpower you, even in that shoe closet! [] Thank you for the kind words. Greg

I have never said anything bad about Al's products, I think his stuff is terrific, and frankly, he ought to be selling them for more money than he does. I think if he was a nicer person, he would be able to more effectively market himself and charge a little more for his products. You asked about Al's other crossovers, so I'll give you my opinion. I like the simpler networks better. The Universal represents great value, and is a big improvement over the stock AL crossovers in the LS. It costs a lot of money to get into the extreme slope networks that he sells, and I just don't think it's worth the money. The theory of using extreme slopes as an improved crossover filter is not universally accepted as being an improvement. The Universal network design would need to be modified to be crossed-over lower than 6000Hz. If you are going to keep the stock midrange horns, you might realize a small improvement in the highs by switching the crossover point to 4500Hz. Al once helped me design a specific pair of Universal networks that did this and it works well. Greg

I would also recommend the ALK crossover for the La Scala. It's a good first step. [] Greg

Overpowering in the bass? LOL. Some of us wish we had such problems! Of course it's my own fault for trying to use 1.8 wpc on them. But I digress . . . That is a small room for Khorns, but I had mine in a room that size years ago. It can be overpowering, but a lot of it depends on what you listen to for music, and how loud you are going to try and go with the system. It could work just fine. But mini-Khorns is not the answer IMO. There are many speakers that would work in that room, and work better in the corners with no more of a footprint than mini-Khorns. Greg

The guy who built them is Don Gurney, and he lives in Vermont. I drove over there a few years ago and bought them from him, and we talked about how he designed them. He said he figured the percentage difference between a 15" woofer and a 12" woofer cone size, and multiplied all the dimensions from the plans for stock Khorns by that percentage difference to figure out all the cut sizes. As has been pointed out, that doesn't mean that the design will provide a corresponding percentage of performance from the smaller horn. But I played around with them a few times and they sound pretty good. If I had more time I would try different drivers in them, but frankly I would just build the larger Khorn horns. If you've got corners for mini Khorns, you've got corners for regular Khorns, and there's really no comparison. Greg

In addition to the obvious safety features, I've heard they are really good table saws. Greg

I wouldn't be suprised if someone used something like this for terrorist purposes at a POTUS speech or outdoor event. Can you imagine if someone rigged a gun to one of these and controlled it from their pants pocket? Yikes. Greg

I had a naptha other day and I loved it too. Greg

Welcome. You certainly can't go wrong with building the bass cabinet the size and shape of the Cornwall. They have proven themselves to work well, and you can get the dimensions, port size, etc... very easily. Do you have a shop or table saw in the garage? At least a little experience in building things? If so, I'd say get a design drawn up and go for it. One thing to consider is that the standard Cornwall is a fairly shallow in depth cabinet, so it will not physically support larger mid horns as well as a deeper cabinet would. Greg

I'm sure it is, especially when you're able to carry on a meaningful discussion in that realm, unlike myself! When I say techno-gibberish, I don't mean it in a derogatory way. I know with all the mudslinging that's been going on lately it could easily be taken that way. For me it's just a concise way of describing how paragraphs of technical information by an engineer can read like an unknown language to the casual audiophile, and really end up being of little or no use to them. Your last post illustrates my point exactly about the differences we have in our approach to audio. I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong, just that there are different ways of going about analyzing the sound of components. I simply plugged in different tweeters into the top of a Khorn and listened to the results. I then put what I heard into words and presented it to my customers just as though they were a friend, interested in what I've done. It's an artistic and subjective approach. I've made assumptions that the manufacturers of these tweeters have done the basic engineering and testing necessary to bring the product to market, and provide it to us to use. I'm simply taking those products and plugging them into a specific system and analyzing what I hear, just like any casual audiophile would like to do. What the casual audiophile does not want to do is spend a lot of money buying five different pairs of tweeters to figure out which they might like! I think you are correct, that most audiophiles understand basic frequency response plots. I also think that most audiophiles realize that just because one tweeter tests lower in distortion, that doesn't necessarily make it the better sounding tweeter. So I would submit that analyzing tweeters based solely on testing the tweeters for a number of parameters, really doesn't provide good information to the casual audiophile. It might be very interesting and relevant information for a techie, and I'm sure there are people who would in fact, base their decision to buy a particular tweeter on that technical information, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the only way, and I personally don't think it's a very good way to choose a tweeter. Greg

I know. I think it's because you are not thinking about the question of 'what tweeter will sound good with my Khorns' in the same way that most people do. You are an engineer and you look at these things in a completely different way. Most people who own Khorns and listen to music on them every once in a while don't care about the engineering or technical aspects that go into making the speakers the way they are. It's not something they want to spend time trying to understand. If someone wants to upgrade the drivers in their Khorns, they simply want the type of information that a friend would give them when making a recommendation on what computer to buy. The techno-gibberish just confuses people, and when that's all they are exposed to, many are likely to just give up and say the heck with it - my speakers sound fine the way they are. What is more helpful to people like that, is to have a friend say that they tried several different tweeters in their Khorns and this is the one I liked the best, and here's why. That type of information is of much more use to them, and they feel good about the process, it is not confusing, it's good communication on a personal level. This is my business model. I know there are some tech-heads out there who just can't wrap their brains around the idea that choosing anything audio doesn't always involve a techical analysis of every tiny detail, but the fact is, that's how most audio decisions are made. I'm in touch with my customer base, and I know what kind of experience they would like to have when buying audio equipment, and I'm providing that service to them. So the goal of my five-tweeter test is simple. To "bump shoulders" with my customers, and in a very personal way, tell them about my experience with my own Khorns and what I've heard, and then let them decide which way they'd like to go. For the people out there who want to over-analyze the way I'm doing my work, and put me down because of it, I won't be deterred by your mean-spiritedness. The personal attacks on me don't phase me a bit, and they certainly don't hurt my business. If anything, people see right through it and it only serves to reinforce my way of doing business. Greg

I worked for fifteen years mixing live sound and I regularly listen to live music of all types. Have you ever owned Khorns? It's a simple question. I'm thinking of developing an upgraded fuel-injection system for the Ford Mustang that I can sell to the general public, but I don't ever intend to own or drive a Ford Mustang. Greg

Klap, You should try listening to music sometime, it IS really what this hobby is about after all. Have you ever even owned a pair of Khorns? Greg

Klap If you want me to remove ALK from my website, return the royalties paid on the unsold units that remain in my stock, and I will. Otherwise, I'm entitled to continue to sell them as we originally agreed. Roberts

Lol. I know this line is directed at me, so I'll respond. The ALK Universal networks that I have for sale are great networks and they'll sell in due time, and for their intended purpose. I'm not going to change the ones I have into something that someone can use for Cornscalas. Your implication that I would consider doing that is just another lame attempt on your part to try and discredit me. Bounces right off with no harm done! Regarding the gentle slopes and "huge" driver interference window. Once again, all that might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that I really like the sound of the Universal network with my Cornscalas, after changing the inductor slightly. Your point about there being so many Cornscala variations is true. What Cornscala owners need is someone to build custom crossovers for them. Greg

I understand what you're saying, but I still think the information from a subjective listening test, even by one person can produce some very good information for the end-user to use in determining what might work for them. Of course the best thing is for the end-user to be able to listen before deciding to purchase. Greg

It's no different for the person using information based only on technical evaluation, it's still just the end-users ears, still their room, still the other equipment they are using, the music they are listening to, and it's just as likely that something will sound good or not as good. They still will have to taste it first to know if they will like it. I agree that I am one person,with one opinion about the sound of the speakers that I'm upgrading, but for many people out there that's enough. Don't underestimate the impact that the work that I do to evaluate and describe these things has on my customers. The way my business is structured, I am looking for customers who have gone through the same types of experiences I've had with Klipsch speakers, and I'm able to communicate with them on a very personal level what I have done with my own system to make it sound better to me. More people than you realize appreciate that level of evaluation much more than the technical side. My approach to this hobby, and to my business is mostly artistic. I'm able to communicate with my customers on a level that they can relate to much better than the techno-gibberish that tends to be confusing. I've never said that the technical evaluation of speakers is not necessary or valuable, my argument has been that it's not the only way to evaluate good sound. In fact, I believe that listening to music on speakers is still the best way to determine how something sounds, so I place much more importance on the subjective and artistic approach than I do the technical. This is especially true when the technical evaluation is a redundant evaluation being done by one person, with no engineering degree, second-guessing what each of the companies who manufactured a product have done in their own testing. I believe that to draw a conclusion that one tweeter must be the best sounding because it has lower measured distortion, is of much less value to the end-user than a detailed subjective evaluation. I'm basing my business model on this, and it's working quite well so far. Greg

This is why I haven't spent much time on the Cornwalls. There's a demand for upgrading them, but most Cornwall owners don't want to spend a lot of money on them. I did have to attenuate the tweeters in my Super-Cornwalls, but had to attenuate the mid even more. The woofer just isn't keeping up. There's a lot more strain on the woofer than the mid in my speakers with a 400Hz crossover point. It seems to me that if the mid/woofer crossover point is lowered, that sends more energy to the mid and less to the woofer, and I think this would be very favorable in my speakers. I know in comparison to the energy used in the very lowest frequencies it's not nearly as much in the mid-bass, but something is something, and based on my experience, the lower crossover point sounds better anyway. To me, it doesn't matter that the woofer is capable of playing as high as 1K, it just sounds better to let the mid handle as much as it can (2" format). Greg

I agree. I hope to learn more about the technical side of this hobby as the years go on, even though it bores me to death. I don't know Al, I think you should maybe stick to the more technical descriptions, I don't think the artistic side is your cup of tea. Greg

Yes, and Al, all you do is try to convince us that the techno-gibberish that you spew out all the time is the one and only way to tell if a speaker is going to sound good, and it just isn't true! BTW, I don't know if you've noticed, but your insults and mean-spiritedness just bounce right off me. Greg