Jump to content

Heresy upgrade with great imaging, smooth midrange and low-end SLAM!!


Antone

Recommended Posts

Always a joy to go through 8 pages of dickering between people who have never designed and manufactured a successful loudspeaker trying to "improve" one of the most successful products of a speaker designer who is considered an icon of the industry. Go figger.

Wow, and merry Christmas to you too! May I suggest more coffee?

Some people learn about things by screwing around with them and asking questions. I guarantee that Antone has learned a bunch from what he did and what he was told here and other places.

PWK isn't God, although pretty close in my mind, and there are various areas where improvements can be made when not constrained by manufacturing costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Chuck

I, indeed, have learned a great deal from you and folkdeath, Mr. Crites,Speakerfritz, et al. If I were trying to sell my mods and claimed that my crossovers were electronically superior, then I could understand T.H.E. Droid's ire. I tried some things, described truthfully and in detail their sonic effects, and gave my rationale (sometimes mistaken) for those effects. I am satisfied with the sound my Heresy's now produce. If I want better speakers I'll go to a store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right sir, when I'll open it up, I'll take measurements and start a new thread (oops, saw you had them somewhere in a different thread). My father is supposed to make me a subwoofer enclosure and then another pair of enclosure to put the Tangent parts in. Then I'll be done for a while for my HT set... [^o)]

I just find the bass all right since I'll be using a subwoofer. There is no stereo imaging but I havent had the time to fiddle with speaker placement. Its my first set of front loaded horn. We both like sound of the horn and sqwaker considering I didnt pay too much for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always a joy to go through 8 pages of dickering between people who have never designed and manufactured a successful loudspeaker trying to "improve" one of the most successful products of a speaker designer who is considered an icon of the industry. Go figger.

Droid,

Thank you for defending the honour and achievements of the late great Paul W. Klipsch! I agree with that, and my speaker inventory and activity in the Klipsch forums reflect that.

However...

The H2 and h3's are examples of improvements to the original Heresey. Should Apple refrain from releasing the iPhone 5+ since Steve Jobs passed away? No. Neither should Klipsch and the people here in the forums who are true Heritage line fans stop imagining and experimenting with ways to improve the Heresey line. I would not have a problem with buying a Heresey 5 some day if I live long enough.

Personally, I think you are a little harsh in your defense of PWK, by offending and hurting the people here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple problem with the bass is really due to the enclosure being too small. Stuffing the box truly and noticeably improves this situation, as well as using a much more efficient (lower loss) woofer inductor. This is a compromise, however. The ideal solution would be to use a larger sealed enclosure. Famed loudspeaker designer, John Dunlavy, stated his belief that the best route to phase-coherent, flat bass response all the way down to 20 Hz is a large, airtight enclosure of correct volume.

I would not oversimplify the need to match the woofer and enclosure. Maybe you did not mean to imply that just increasing the enclosure volume results in deeper bass but that’s how it reads. Increasing the volume of the otherwise stock Heresy will alter the damping of the bass response but have little effect in delivering a perceived lower bass response.

Ported designs are a compromise, but perhaps a better one than a too-small sealed enclosure. Ported designs I have heard usually had lumpy, sloppy-sounding bass, but it was louder. My sealed, stuffed Heresy's now have more and deeper (about an octave) bass, but they still need to be placed in the corners-a sign that they are still Klipsch speakers. The way to go from here does seem to be rethinking the enclosure. That's a big step. .

There is a popular perception that sealed enclosures are better than vented designs in all cases. I don’t agree as a general rule. All woofer-enclosure systems involve compromises. In my experience well damped vented systems have worked better. I have not had a sealed design that will pressurize the room the same way as a good vented design. Just my experience and I grant you that your experience and preference will differ, of course.

One thing I have never come across though, is a high-sensitivity woofer in a small enclosure (ported or sealed) that has bass response down to the 30hz threshold. The give for lower bass is lower sensitivity for the same enclosure. Replacing the stock Heresy woofer with a different driver with the same sensitivity, or better, in a 1.7 cu in box and getting response down to 30 or even 40 hz makes this driver seem to be rather extraordinary. I would like to try them myself except for the many other unfinished projects I have around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a popular perception that sealed enclosures are better than vented designs in all cases. I don’t agree as a general rule. All woofer-enclosure systems involve compromises. In my experience well damped vented systems have worked better. I have not had a sealed design that will pressurize the room the same way as a good vented design. Just my experience and I grant you that your experience and preference will differ, of course.

One thing I have never come across though, is a high-sensitivity woofer in a small enclosure (ported or sealed) that has bass response down to the 30hz threshold. The give for lower bass is lower sensitivity for the same enclosure. Replacing the stock Heresy woofer with a different driver with the same sensitivity, or better, in a 1.7 cu in box and getting response down to 30 or even 40 hz makes this driver seem to be rather extraordinary. I would like to try them myself except for the many other unfinished projects I have around.

DavidF,

I think you have a point. I don't know it all; if I thought that, then there would be no hope for me The bass with the Dayton woofers, stuffed enclosures and low-loss low-pass coil may not go to 30 Hz, but it is definitely and easily perceptibly lower, louder and more dynamic. Before the Dayton 12" I always needed to increase bass with a graphic EQ or bass knob to balance the horns at any volume; now at moderate, low, or concert levels the bass keeps pace with the treble and midrange with all controls set flat.

The Dayton 295-120 12" just drops right into the motor board, using the same screws. It seems to be quieter in the mid- and upper bass than the Klipsch driver, so a lower inductance low pass coil (than the E2's) is better. My modded Heresy's still need to be in their corners. A correctly ported larger enclosure is probably the cheapest way to get non-corner-dependent low end. The Tangent 400 ported enclosure trex83 has posted info on seems like a place to start. Also one helpful gentleman wrote how to install a tuned port in the Heresy box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Greetings, Fellow Klipsch Fans

I have found a higher quality capacitor for the squawker in my Heresy. The one I previously specified is an inexpensive metallized polypropylene 2 muF. The stereo image with it was stable, but the midrange became QUITE harsh at moderate to loud volumes. I recently decided to try much more expensive poly film and foil caps of the same capacitance (parts-express #027-724). The differences in size, weight, and build quality (e.g. gold-plated leads) compared to the cheaper caps are gratifying and help justify the cost. The sonic result is mellow, warm, glare-free midrange worth listening to at any volume. Parts-express sells poly film and foil caps of various small values (0.01 muF to 0.47 muF in 5 steps) to combine in parallel with the main caps, so you can precisely match one speaker's crossover capacitances to the other's. Happy Listening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always a joy to go through 8 pages of dickering between people who have never designed and manufactured a successful loudspeaker trying to "improve" one of the most successful products of a speaker designer who is considered an icon of the industry. Go figger.

Wow, and merry Christmas to you too! May I suggest more coffee?

Some people learn about things by screwing around with them and asking questions. I guarantee that Antone has learned a bunch from what he did and what he was told here and other places.

PWK isn't God, although pretty close in my mind, and there are various areas where improvements can be made when not constrained by manufacturing costs.

I spent a day with PWK when he was 81. At the factory, his lab, his office, his home, and at a restaurant which opened for just 4 of us, (PWK, me, and our wives). We did a shot of Glenfiddich on the couch at his home while listening to his personal recordings of the Little Rock Symphony Orchestra on his 2PH3 array (thats 2 channels for R and Left Khorns, with a derived L+R mono channel.........yes, he practiced everything he preached, including his refusal to listen to "dilute stereo" which is any commercial, multi-miked recording..................during one of the quiet passages, he farted, so he is human after all.

There is certainly enough data and tools out there to do a closed box design of about 2 cubic feet and put different woofers in there with different sound characterisitcs to satisfy different setups and tastes.........it's not a religion, it's a hobby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately the points I'm trying to make are:

1. Taking a Heresy speaker and modifying it to the extent mentioned means it isn't a Heresy any longer. It's a speaker that uses some Heresy parts (mainly the cabinet) and is nothing more.

2. Frankly, the author seemed to be quite arrogant about "fixing" PWK's (implied) defective design. Once again, coming from someone who I'm sure I've never heard of, and never will. (as a successful loudspeaker designer and manufacturer.) Also, remember, PWK did most of his stuff with a sliderule rather than somebody else's software and I doubt many of these folks could even master the math.

3. The intent and execution of the Heresy was clearly not to reproduce the nauseating over-bassed synthetic stuff that passes for music these days and I'm sure most of it would have sent Paul running out of the room with his hands clamped over his ears. The Heresy's were designed to be used in smaller spaces or for center channel speakers with other Klipsch products.and were never intended to produce the kind of bass that larger speakers like the Cornwall produce. If you want more bass, get a Cornwall. (after all, the Heresy is a Cornwall with a smaller, sealed cabinet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T.H.E. Droid:

1. You're right. Taking a Heresy and modifying it to the extent to which I've done means it isn't a Heresy any longer; it's an IMPROVED Heresy. I have all the original components in boxes in my basement, so if I ever wanted to go back to midrangey, opaque sound with an unstable soundstage and bass that doesn't keep up with the squawker output, I could. I don't understand your umbrage at my mods. It is not as though I were furtively altering my Heresy's and trying to SELL them as original.

2. My goal was to fix obvious problems with my Heresy's' SOUND. All I wanted were: bass that BALANCES the mids and highs, treble that extends all the way to 20kHz, and a stable stereo image. PWK designed the Heresy mostly to handle mids as a center channel for primitive signal sources with limited frequency response. I utilize my Heresy's as the only speakers in my stereo system. I've spent decades listening to records and CD's through ruler-flat STAX electrostatic headphones. Slide rule or no, I KNOW what "flat" sounds like.

3.Nobody seems to believe that a smaller enclosure could ever reproduce low bass. Well, take a look at the Advent A3: smaller box, smaller woofer, and it still blew away the unmodified Heresy in the lowest octave. The A3 enclosure, made from MDF, is filled with foam rubber. Hence, I decided to try stuffing the Heresy enclosure and substituting a stronger woofer. These, along with the more-efficient low-pass inductor and woofer cap deepened and filled out the lows. My Heresy's are NOT bass-heavy, just balanced. The squawker is stock as is the value of its cap (merely a much higher quality one). I upgraded the phenolic plastic-diaphragmed tweeter, 17kHz limit (fine for sources in PWK's time), to a Titanium-diaphragmed unit with a bigger magnet and 20 kHz response. I matched caps and inductors' values to three decimal places Left to Right for stable imaging, but I didn't change the E2 network's architecture at all.

Family members who have heard my Heresy's through the years tell me that they sound MUCH better than before modifications. They still have the qualities that first endeared them to me decades ago. They merely no longer exhibit the weaknesses that used to frustrate me. I wonder when you, too, will cease to frustrate me.

Antone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

T.H.E. Droid: 1. You're right. Taking a Heresy and modifying it to the extent to which I've done means it isn't a Heresy any longer; it's an IMPROVED Heresy. .....They merely no longer exhibit the weaknesses that used to frustrate me. I wonder when you, too, will cease to frustrate me. Antone

Don't count on the latter happening too soon. But there's that arrogance that I previously noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T.H.E. Droid: 1. You're right. Taking a Heresy and modifying it to the extent to which I've done means it isn't a Heresy any longer; it's an IMPROVED Heresy. .....They merely no longer exhibit the weaknesses that used to frustrate me. I wonder when you, too, will cease to frustrate me. Antone

Don't count on the latter happening too soon. But there's that arrogance that I previously noted.

I don't see the arrogance you speak of, other than this guy had to defend himself for "daring" to change a 50 year old (very good) design with more modern components. PWK himself said they fixed the bad ESR caps of the before days in a letter that has been published on this board.

There are lots of woofers out there with bigger magnets than the K22 (the Klipsch K42 for Pro Heresy's comes to mind). If you have access to measuring gear and have had speaker design as a DYI (along with tons of factory Klipsch speakers owned and enjoyed), you will find no sacrilege in doing mods to fundamentally correct designs.

It has been my experience that with horns, it's difficult to get great sound with a 2-way without EQ. This is where the 3-way Heresy shines.

Did you know that the K700 Heresy horn has 6 db more output at the mouth from 700-4 Khz., than the same K55 driver measured at the mouth of a K401 in a Klipschorn at the exact same drive voltage?

Did you know that the old HIP, Industrial Ported Heresy used the same network (except for one cap value) as the venerable Klipschorn? Or that is was just as loud as a Khorn, except with very think bass??? All Klipsch designs that deviate from the "sacred" Heresy.

This makes the output of a K22 or K24 sound thin by comparison, but is the "signature Heresy sound" that passed muster, since it was responsible for 50% of Klipsch sales and basically saved the company from going out of business.

I used to own Stax headphones, so if THAT is this guys reference, I can see where he would want to improve the bass response and midrange definition of a Heresy. I have always had to use a 6 db bass boost with a Heresy when they sat on top of my Klipschorns. I prefer a horn subwoofer myself to achieve the same goals because I don't care about keeping a small box from my main channels, but use various flavors of Heresy's for my rears.

In fact, it this guy would drop the midrange and tweeter levels one notch on the autoformer, and changed the capacitor values, the Heresy would have even better bass then he has now (albeit with slightly higher amplifier power at a reference level).

None of this is religiion or arrogance. It is simply the objectivity of measurement (cause and effect) and/or the subjective value of personal taste in sound when dong the tweaks.

You mileage may vary. Caveat Emptor. Quid Pro Quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately the points I'm trying to make are:

1. Taking a Heresy speaker and modifying it to the extent mentioned means it isn't a Heresy any longer. It's a speaker that uses some Heresy parts (mainly the cabinet) and is nothing more.

2. Frankly, the author seemed to be quite arrogant about "fixing" PWK's (implied) defective design. Once again, coming from someone who I'm sure I've never heard of, and never will. (as a successful loudspeaker designer and manufacturer.) Also, remember, PWK did most of his stuff with a sliderule rather than somebody else's software and I doubt many of these folks could even master the math.

3. The intent and execution of the Heresy was clearly not to reproduce the nauseating over-bassed synthetic stuff that passes for music these days and I'm sure most of it would have sent Paul running out of the room with his hands clamped over his ears. The Heresy's were designed to be used in smaller spaces or for center channel speakers with other Klipsch products.and were never intended to produce the kind of bass that larger speakers like the Cornwall produce. If you want more bass, get a Cornwall. (after all, the Heresy is a Cornwall with a smaller, sealed cabinet.)

Your points are valid for sure. Still, there are many people here who have made improvements to many other Klipsch models, including the venerable Khorn. As a matter of fact, PWK designed the Jubilee to be above the Khorn as the new flagship (with Tractrix horns instead of Exponential horn lenses and bigger throat drivers). But the new owners, at the time, felt that they didn't want to mess with a legendary product with a 60 year history, so the Khorn remains, but with a newer network to fix some of the issues that have plagued it with the old networks.

The bass section cannot be improved upon, but the top section certainly has been.......tractrix horns with larger throats, larger magnets on drivers, better tweeters, premium network components, etc.

To each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked they were still claiming that this is a free country.You are intitled to your opinion and so is the other guy. I think that he ownes his Heresy speakers and in my book that means that he can do with them what ever he wants.

You know I admire and respect PWK and I am grateful for what he did and achieved. I don't understand why you think that someone you have never heard of could not improve on the work of Paul or any other designer. It happens every day. Special people do special things but they have to be open to the posibilities. We all have to be open to the posibilities and to others. Just my two cents. Best regards Moray James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully we can agree that the Heresy line of speakers is, and has always been, a modestly priced system with compromises in design and manufacture that are understandable given that modest price. That the system performs in many ways above expectations due to its modest design is noteworthy.

The original design by PWB had a specific application in mind and he used parts and components available at the time that fit with this design preferences and philosophies. The sound of that original design has become a standard, if you will, that all later production revisions and component revisions had to emulate.

To suggest that there is some failing in the design can be tricky especially if we presume an informed compromise to be a design failure. There can always be criticism of chosen compromises since one user’s preferences can differ from another’s. This difference in preference is what drives many of us DIY types to tinker with the product.

Since preferences are often expressed in opinions then we should be willing to accept someone else’s opinions. In return we should also expect opinions to be challenged. The stronger the opinion, sometimes, the stronger the push back. We see this a lot in politics and audio forums.

I share many of the opinions of the Heresy that Antone has expressed in this thread. I have read with interest what he doing and trying to accomplish. He openly states that his modifications are not based on any effort to commercialize his design but rather to share with others what he finds has worked for him. When Antone says something like this, however, “You're right. Taking a Heresy and modifying it to the extent to which I've done means it isn't a Heresy any longer; it's an IMPROVED Heresy” well, I am thinking that is going to invite a challenge.

I would say that Antone has a modified Heresy. Are his modifications an improvement? They sure are to him and it’s hard to fault him for what he experiences. But if they do not hold to the production standard Heresy sound Klipsch has strived for decades to maintain and uphold are they still a Heresy? Simply, no. How can they be? It’s not like Klipsch hasn’t looked at an “improved Heresy” over the years. It’s just that they called it something else. Like Forte. Or like Tangent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello Again Fellow Klipsch Fans,

It has been awhile, and I've learned a few things since my last post. I now understand what an autoformer is and how a capacitor across the inputs to a driver increases its upper-end roll-off. With a little more knowledge I've found some different mods to smooth and to refine the voicing of my beloved Heresy's.

The most important one is to use the built-in flexibility of the original T2A autoformer to bring the squawker output down 3 dB overall from stock by unsoldering the lead from terminal 2 and moving it to terminal 1 of the T2A autoformer. I love the way the K-52 H driver and horn handle the midrange; there is just a little too much of it. This mod nicely remedies this. If you'll remember, for the tweeter driver I specified the Eminence ASD-1001S titanium-domed driver [8 Ohm, screw-on] with the Selenium screw-on to 3-bolt adapter plate {#ADF25-25}; you will need to mark and drill holes to match the original K-77M Horn's 4-hole bolt pattern and to buy long brass 8-32 bolts to attach it. Trim the plastic adapter plate's flange with a hacksaw ( after drilling and before attaching, of course), and the whole assembly will fit well. This driver has a much better frequency response curve (out to 20kHz), but it is a little less sensitive than the stock phenolic-domed driver, so it gets a 3 dB overall boost by unsoldering the lead from terminal 3 and moving it to terminal 4 of the T2A autoformer.

In order to smooth the transition between the tweeter and and the squawker I recommend two things: to change the tweeter high-pass capacitor from 2 muF to 1.8 muF (this makes a huge difference in sibilants' harshness), and to add a roll-off cap across the squawker driver inputs of around 0.43 muF. Polypropylene film and foil sound best, but metallized polypropylenes are cheaper and pretty good (both of these types are more precisely tolerated and won't go bad in twenty years like electrolytics!) . Capacitances add in parallel, so you can achieve 0.43 muF with a 0.33 muF and a 0.1 muF poly film-and-foil cap in parallel.

I still believe that a 2 muF polypropylene film-and-foil cap is best for the squawker high pass cap (between INPUT + and terminal 5 of the T2A autoformer)

With lowering the squawker output by 3 dB as mentioned in the first paragraph, I do not need to be so dogmatic as before about the Direct Current Resistance of the woofer low-pass inductor. So, I can now recommend a (much cheaper) 16- gauge "Super Q" inductor with an inductance of 3.5 mH and DCR of 0.200 Ohm (parts-express #266-916). Of course, this inductor is for my recommended, MUCH-better Dayton Audio Series II ST 305-8 12" drop-in replacement woofers. BTW, they do reproduce 30 Hz QUITE well; I used a 30 Hz test tone to confirm this fact. I still like a 33 muF metallized polypropylene cap across the the woofer inputs to roll off its upper end; although, I believe there may be room to fiddle with that a bit for smooth transition between the replacement woofer and the squawker. Also, I wonder if 1.7 muF might be an even better value for the tweeter high-pass cap.

Happy Listening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...