Jump to content

New hardware


John Warren

Recommended Posts

This was at the 2015 Hope Gathering

 

The demo/room setup was much better this year.

 

The 60th Anniversary Klipschorns won this day in my opinion and were my preference even over the P39-F Palladiums. Many others seemed to feel the same from the comments I heard that day and were posted later on the forum.

 

 

I would like to add that if you can find a way to come to any of these Pilgrimages/ Get Together you will meet some of the nicest people from the forum and especially the Klipsch workers that make them possible and playing with this audio stuff is just icing on the cake.

 

miketn :)

post-12368-0-36980000-1445639381_thumb.j

Edited by mikebse2a3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

DFH Terman resized.jpg DFH constant-k resized.jpgBTW: The Smith chart is used by microwave engineers because the outer circle represents 360 degrees down a transmission line.

John, Dean, et al,

I wouldn’t be so hard on Al for using “microwave engineers” techniques for designing his filters. Would you be equally hard on PWK if he had used similar techniques? Well, in fact, he did!

Check out Volume 7 No. 1 (January 4, 1966) issue of The Dope From Hope where PWK acknowledges learning his “Transmission Lines and Wave Filters” from Dr. Frederick Terman in 1933. At that time, transmission lines and wave filter applications dealt almost exclusively with radio engineering. The term "audio engineering" wasn't in the lexicon of the time.

Who’s Terman? One of the giants in early RF design and product development. Note that “RF” stands for radio frequencies, not audio frequencies. His books include: Fundamentals of Radio, Radio Engineers’ Handbook, Radio Engineering . Notice the word “radio” in those titles; Terman taught RF-based engineering and the wave filter topologies developed in the early days of radio.

While Stephen Butterworth’s seminal paper, On the Theory of Filter Amplifiers was published in 1930, the paper was all but ignored for years.

As PWK wrote in the above cited Dope From Hope, “Practical applications of wave filters to loudspeakers has been studied for over 30 years.” In the Volume 11, No. 2 Dope From Hope, Note that PWK is still tinkering with “constant-k” filter topology developed for radio engineering.

The preceding was not in any way to denigrate the accomplishments of PWK. It was only to point out that the use of crossover networks for audio frequencies is a direct evolution from filter theory developed for radio and transmission lines.

I’m sure the “family tree” of passive filter design has many branches and it would be an interesting exercise to see how topologies such as Butterworth, Bessel, m-derived, constant-k, Cauer, Chebyshev, etc. developed.

Lee

I'm lost, who is the Microwave Engineer here?

I think they called it Acoustic Engineering in those days, up to the present. John Hilliard was a fairly prominent one in the early 30s, an EE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mike, I thought so too, Hunter really had them hopping that day. Acurus on the front end, I can't remember.

Nice work with the camera there Richard, lol, too funny.

Network show down sounds fun. I would have to ship something down for Bobby C. to load up for me. That drive is too far, and I can't afford to fly.

Edited by Deang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only possible criticism to building Diplexers for loudspeakers lies with the low pass. The idea of course is to match the impedance of the high pass to the impedance of the low pass. The high pass is swamped back and stabilized, and the low pass is based on this idea of 6 ohms in series with 1mH of inductance. However, the impedance of the low pass is not static, but dynamic - it's reactive and going all over the place. Then we have the effects of power and thermal compression -- any numbers derived during test conditions go out the window under a real load over any extended period of time. Still sounds okay though, just not as good as PK's more simple solution.

What has always sounded best to me is the single coil in series with the voice coil, and the lower you can get the DCR the better it sounds. For many years, I ran my Klipschorns the same way Paul Klipsch did -- with just one capacitor and nothing on the bass bin at all.

People should try to see crossovers as filters (because that is what they are), and with having the same effect as tone controls -- because ultimately, that's exactly what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm lost, who is the Microwave Engineer here?
 

 

 

On 10/22 @ 0503, John posted with the words "microwave engineers" highlighted. Al was noting that microwave engineers use the Smith Chart as part of their filter designs.

 

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was at the 2015 Hope Gathering

 

The demo/room setup was much better this year.

 

The 60th Anniversary Klipschorns won this day in my opinion and were my preference even over the P39-F Palladiums. Many others seemed to feel the same from the comments I heard that day and were posted later on the forum.

 

 

I would like to add that if you can find a way to come to any of these Pilgrimages/ Get Together you will meet some of the nicest people from the forum and especially the Klipsch workers that make them possible and playing with this audio stuff is just icing on the cake.

 

miketn :)

 

 

As pretty as the Palls are, isn't it a physical impossibility for them to envelope the room with mids that small? (In comparison to the 400,401 and obviously not even going to the 402.    Now in the right (smaller) room, in near field listening, Im sure they are fab. But in every situation I have been in, which isn't that many, the larger horns rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jo56steph74

Mr. Dean Ex cranky solder man,

Yeah, that's me.

On the new $12,000 Khorns does the company use the kind of caps you are using as replacement? Is the crossover a new design?

No, Klipsch uses polyesters. I once asked about this and was told they were used "to prevent the speaker from sounding unduly forward." However, I think they sound brash and dirty. Strangely enough, the 60th Anniversary Edition uses metalized polypropylenes, and it's quite an improvement. And yes, the crossover is a new design. When I bought my Klipschorns new back in 2005, my AK-4 networks were actually on a piece of plywood on the inside of the bass bin door. I removed them, reverse engineered them, and made the attached drawing.

I don't see any information about it. If there are all these guys saying, "this is a better way for a crossover," is the better way being put into the new products?

I will not say that. What I will say is that there are different approaches, and none of them are wrong -- and you will have a preference for one way over another, just like you do amplifiers and Blu-ray players, etc. The new Klipsch networks are beautifully modeled and built, but there is a love/hate relationship with them. I didn't care for the sound, and had to take my Klipschorns 30 years back in time to get the sound I wanted.

My intuition says the company would know better than some guys in a garage ( no offense intended).

It's worse than you think, I don't even use a garage. Keep in mind that most of my business is cloning the old PK filters, and I actually only do three of them (the ones I like). These other two guys are extremely well educated in their fields and have thousands of dollars in test equipment - both are more than capable of creating designs that compete favorably with Klipsch designs.

I just wonder if this crossover stuff is mere niggling, like $10000 wires ...

No, not at all. In my case, I get grief sometimes for my choice and cost of the parts I use, but you'll rarely if ever find any of my stuff on the secondary market.

... or if it is fundamental design change? If the latter, how can they be better than the company???

Think in terms of different, not better.

The AK-4 and AK-5 networks have a huge notch filter to flatten the bell shaped response of the Klipschorn's bass bin. However, some of us really like the peak in the response, especially for Rock and Metal -- and the filter slurs the transients.

post-1106-0-28740000-1445644366_thumb.jp

Edited by Deang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should try to see crossovers as filters (because that is what they are), and with having the same effect as tone controls -- because ultimately, that's exactly what they do.

 

"same effect as tone controls"   :pwk_bs: :pwk_bs:    :emotion-41: :emotion-41:     :emotion-45: :emotion-45:

 

You have GOT TO BE KIDING!

 

Al K

Edited by Al Klappenberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's about the information........and the proof of performance.  The "I know exactly what I am getting".  That means a lot to me.

 

I can get past the rudeness.

 

There is rarely any solid information like this brought forward from experts on this forum anymore.

 

So I am enjoying this thread.

 

I'd rather spend my time reading posts written by people that know what they are talking about........and that I know I can trust.

Well said Stallion. Getting back into the forum with this thread.

tc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As pretty as the Palls are, isn't it a physical impossibility for them to envelope the room with mids that small? (In comparison to the 400,401 and obviously not even going to the 402. Now in the right (smaller) room, in near field listening, Im sure they are fab. But in every situation I have been in, which isn't that many, the larger horns rule.

 

If you take small horn systems and large horn systems into an anechoic chamber or out doors and equalize them to have "an equal frequency response on axis" the difference in there perceived sound is greatly reduced when you listen on axis of the systems.

 

BUT..!!! if you walk off axis and around the systems the sound dramatically changes.  The reason is when listening on axis in an anechoic chamber or outside (with no close reflective objects) you will not experience the difference in polar control characteristics of these different horns. Move these same systems indoors and you will immediately have to rebalance the systems "especially those without good polar control" because the different polar responses of the systems will interact with the room's boundaries/acoustics and where they are physically placed in the room is another major influence due to polar response.

 

The "Sense of Envelopment" and "Image Size" is greatly influenced by the polar response of the systems interacting with our room's unique acoustics and the systems integration into that environment.

 

In my experience systems with (very even polar angle control vs frequency) or (very gradual polar reduction in coverage angle as frequency rises) while interacting with the rooms acoustics differently can offer superior performance over system's that exhibits sudden shifts in polar response through their frequency spectrum when installed in home listening rooms but they will require different room acoustical treatment for best performance.. 

 

 

 

And Yes.... in my opinion WELL Designed Large Horns like the K402 Rule :D

 

miketn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one walks around their damn system while listening unless you're running a chainsaw like Richard. :-)

 

I blame Roy for helping to put that idea in my head.... :lol:

 

 

What's great about the room is it does the walking for you and sends you all those nice audibly colored reflections. ;)

Edited by mikebse2a3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

 

On October 18 (Post #109) you wrote: “Besides, I never claimed to be a filter designer or an engineer - just someone who knows how follow a schematic, and make a nice build out of it.” 

 

On October 23 (Post #255) you wrote: “My only possible criticism to building Diplexers for loudspeakers lies with the low pass. The idea of course is to match the impedance of the high pass to the impedance of the low pass. The high pass is swamped back and stabilized, and the low pass is based on this idea of 6 ohms in series with 1mH of inductance. However, the impedance of the low pass is not static, but dynamic - it's reactive and going all over the place. Then we have the effects of power and thermal compression -- any numbers derived during test conditions go out the window under a real load over any extended period of time.” And, “What has always sounded best to me is the single coil in series with the voice coil, and the lower you can get the DCR the better it sounds.”

 

Parlez-vous filters? Boy, you sure sound like an old-time filter designer there! I can just imagine the Pickett & Eckel Deci Log Log Duplex slide rule hanging off your belt……

 

But then you wrote, “People should try to see crossovers as filters (because that is what they are), and with having the same effect as tone controls -- because ultimately, that's exactly what they do.”

 

So, I’m sitting in my Eames Lounge chair listening to Béla Bartók’s Romanian Folk Dances on my Rosewood Klipschorns and, gosh darn it, that violin just doesn’t sizzle like my Guarneri. "Oh, Jeeves, be a good man and change the taps on my tweeters. Let’s try +3 dB this time. And bring me a hot toddy, I’m feeling chilled. For Gawd's sake, try not to get fingerprints on the wood this time."

 

Yeah, I suppose you could torture the definition of a tone control to include a crossover network but it’s a poor analog……..

 

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...