BEC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Not tricky at all. One 6 ohm resistor in the woofer section, AK-5. Two 6 ohm resistors in parallel (effectively 3 ohms), AK-4. If you had an AK-4 and cut one of the 6 ohm resistor leads, either one on either resistor, you would turn it into an AK-5. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 For the genius challenged...me...what effect on sound does that have...going from the AK-5 to AK-4 or vise versa... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmusic Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 The AL-5 is almost the same as the AL-4, just like the AK-5 is almost the same as the AK-4. The AL-5 has one less resistor in the tweeter circuit which means that the tweeter output is decreased somewhat compared to the AL-4. Just a guess, but perhaps that had to do with response from the new K-77F horn shown below. I would echo what someone else has already said about the difference between the ALK crossovers in comparison to the newest crossovers from Klipsch. ALK attempts to have his outputs to drivers "sum flat" assuming that the drivers produce a flat audio response. The Klipsch designs use measured acoustic output from the speaker as a whole and use passive EQ "tweaks" to achieve a "flatter" acoustic output. Beyond that, I think actual listening tests may have influenced the final network designs. Bob So Bob would it be fair to say that because of the enviorment or room that Klipsch conducts it's listening test in, the results may vary greatly in my room or someone else's room? Jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Bill, Just looking at the circuit, I think the difference in the sound between the AK-4 and AK-5 would be very small. Now the difference between the AL-4 and AL-5 looks greater to me. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The AL-5 is almost the same as the AL-4, just like the AK-5 is almost the same as the AK-4. The AL-5 has one less resistor in the tweeter circuit which means that the tweeter output is decreased somewhat compared to the AL-4. Just a guess, but perhaps that had to do with response from the new K-77F horn shown below. I would echo what someone else has already said about the difference between the ALK crossovers in comparison to the newest crossovers from Klipsch. ALK attempts to have his outputs to drivers "sum flat" assuming that the drivers produce a flat audio response. The Klipsch designs use measured acoustic output from the speaker as a whole and use passive EQ "tweaks" to achieve a "flatter" acoustic output. Beyond that, I think actual listening tests may have influenced the final network designs. Bob So Bob would it be fair to say that because of the enviorment or room that Klipsch conducts it's listening test in, the results may very greatly in my room or someone else's room? Jay Jay, Sure, rooms make a difference. Of course, Klispch has to design and voice speakers to some standard. They certainly don't have examples of all different rooms. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I can never tell when you're serious...[] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmusic Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Jay, Sure, rooms make a difference. Of course, Klispch has to design and voice speakers to some standard. They certainly don't have examples of all different rooms. Bob Bob if that is true then would it also be fair to say that, the designs that AL makes is a better overall design for keeping the sound to a standard?Jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Although I guess some will question this, I think that Klipsch's xover designs sound good almost anywhere. I sense that our ear-brain system establishes the "sound" of a familiar speaker and then adjusts our perception of its sound to most rooms we hear it in. IOW, I don't think room acoustics change our PERCEPTIONS that much of how a familiar speaker sounds. MHO, of course. Given that radical view, when I made the AK-5 change to my AK-4's and then heard a sort of withdrawn character to the middle middle range, I would have expected to perceive this same audible shift in almost any room I put it in. That's not to say I wouldn't change my mind over time, naturally, and maybe it would sound better in some rooms than in others -- but I didn't think so. With that confusing statement, let me suggest that, rather than asking numerous speculative questions in search of speculative opinions, that a curious owner of an AK-4 or AL-4 can simply make the change in the room he or she listens in, live with it for a few days, and then change it back and see what is preferred. It took me no time at all to decide that mine should stay in the AK-4 configuration. Why would it follow that a more standardized sound would result from AlK's xovers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmusic Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 [quote user="Larry my question is derived from this statement. I would echo what someone else has already said about the difference between the ALK crossovers in comparison to the newest crossovers from Klipsch. ALK attempts to have his outputs to drivers "sum flat" assuming that the drivers produce a flat audio response. The Klipsch designs use measured acoustic output from the speaker as a whole and use passive EQ "tweaks" to achieve a "flatter" acoustic output. Beyond that, I think actual listening tests may have influenced the final network designs. Bob Jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IB Slammin Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Larry, Would you please email me at: terry_cruse@foundationspecialties.com I have an OT question for you. Regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Jay, Sure, rooms make a difference. Of course, Klispch has to design and voice speakers to some standard. They certainly don't have examples of all different rooms. Bob Bob if that is true then would it also be fair to say that, the designs that AL makes is a better overall design for keeping the sound to a standard?Jay Jay, Let me state what I said before a bit differently. Al can only work with electronic signals into and out of the crossovers. Klipsch starts out with electronic signals and takes the network design one more step that Al (or I for that matter) cannot do. That is the step to acoustic output in an anechoic chamber to see if they got it right. They may tweak the design some based on that testing. Then, I understand they go to some selected "ears" in a real listening environment and may tweak further based on feedback from those listeners. Which sound you might prefer in your room has little to do with any of this. I haven't been happy with any of the AL-4 or AK-4s or ALK crossovers I have heard so far and I have a pair of each of those on my crossover storage shelf. I lean toward simpler than any of those crossovers. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PYRO Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Comparison between the LaScala II's and 60th Anv Khorns....... The best way I can say it is the LaScala II's are in your face. While the 60th Khorns are smooth and more refined. I like both for different reasons. If I would have kept the LaScala's I would have added a sub but I don't think it is completely necessary. I would ask these questions as we all know. What type of music do you like? What is your room dimensions? Do you have two good corners? As for the crossovers in each. I think you guys beat that to death. Call tech support if you are not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Would you please email me at: Terry, you've got mail.Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 The best way I can say it is the LaScala II's are in your face Spoken from a true Dance Floor Funkmiester[] You cracked me up with that one JC! Can't tell you how many clubs I danced in during the 80's that had LSI's hanging in the 4 corners of the dance floors[Y] Shake your groove thang[<)] The K-Horns were meant to engulf the listening room and Las originating from PA speakers still stand true to that in your face claim to this very day, they have bass it just never gets to you before that high end[] LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Last month I dropped by JC's house to listen to tunes and hang it. The La Scala II's just sounded beautiful and full. It could have been the combo of McIntosh amps and room but it was a great demo. The new La Scala's are a home run. They are a big improvement over the original. It just feels like they are going lower. Good stuff not sure I would describe it as in your face to me that has negative connotations that I didn't perceive. That being said I've only heard the II's a half dozen times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 They are a big improvement over the original. It just feels like they are going lower. Good stuff not sure I would describe it as in your face to me that has negative connotations that I didn't perceive. I think PYRO was just trying to answer an earlier question about comparing today's LaS and today's K-horn, and I don't think he was trying to be critical. I was the one who suggested that he post a comment since he was in a good position to make the requested comparison.I do think the K-horn has a slightly larger sound that can put the treble horns into a little different perspective. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 They are a big improvement over the original. It just feels like they are going lower. Good stuff not sure I would describe it as in your face to me that has negative connotations that I didn't perceive. I think PYRO was just trying to answer an earlier question about comparing today's LaS and today's K-horn, and I don't think he was trying to be critical. I was the one who suggested that he post a comment since he was in a good position to make the requested comparison.I do think the K-horn has a slightly larger sound that can put the treble horns into a little different perspective. Larry Haven't thought of it that way. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tag 1.7 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Hi Guys , I can add my 0.2c to this debate as I own a pair of 2007 LaScala II's paired with a McIntosh MC352 amp and MDA1000 dac. I may be the only guy thus far who has bought a pair of ALK extreme slope networks as well as a pair of trachorns and compared them directly to the stock LS II's. To my ears, the klipsch networks are better sounding. I found the ALK's to be dark and electronic sounding compared to the more musical and natural sounding Klipsch networks. My advice is to stick with the stock LS II networks - they can't be bettered. I recently sold my ALK's on Audiogon without any regrets. It may be a different story with older speakers but I've never heard an old pair of LaScala's so my opinion only relates to the LS II's. The trachorns are another story. They are a great improvement over the K401 horn and I highly recommend them. I remade the front baffle and grille to accomodate them and my speakers sound absolutely awesome. But an even better improvement has been adding the two best subwoofers I have ever heard, the Whatmough-Whise Impulse. Whise merged with Whatmough a few years ago now and they may not be that well known in the States (they are local to me in Melbourne Australia) but they use patented technology (PAM) which results in an enclosure radically different to your standard driver in a box design. They produce no audible distortion, just tight, deep, musical and extremely easy to integrate bass. Just plug and play and if you point them towards a wall, the bass response goes through the roof. If you read the specs you wouldn't look twice at these but the sound is truly unbelievable and my previous subs included a Velodyne DD-18 and a JL Audio Fathom F112, which are not in the same class in my opinion. And to think they only cost me the equivalent of US$800 each - unbelievable. Google Whatmough-Whise to get the lowdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PYRO Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Thank you LarryC. Both the 60th khorn and LSII's are nice speakers. My in your face comment was mainly directed towards the LSII's voice range. When listening to groups like Iron Maiden Bruce Dickinson (Lead Singer) is in your face with the rest of the band behind him. Guess thats why he is the frontman. [] As LarryC stated the Khorns do have a slighty larger sound. In the end you can't go wrong with either one of these speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I got a pair of some of the last La Scalas I's made in Feb of 2005. They have the new drivers and came with the AL-4 networks. They sounded fine. I put in type A's and they sounded far better to me. I play records only, use 2A3 amps, no subs, have yet to push more than one watt through them. Totally amazed every time I sit down to listen to music! There was nothing really "wrong" with the AL-4's, I can see why many would like them, especially loud listeners. But to my SET loving ear, they sounded a little too "Hi-Fi" with maybe a slightly exaggerated upper and lower frequency extension, a tiny bit artificial or synthetic - just not dead absolute real compared to the A's. The A's sound much more real to me. I know their gentle low order slopes are a potential problem for very loud listening, but I don't do that. They work the best for the listening level I prefer. They are more open, clear, transparent, invisible, all those things that match well with the SETs and vinyl approach. As far as all the other network possibilities, I don't know if there is a network that sounds as good at loud volumes as the A's do at moderate volume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.