official product request

[Paducah Home Theater]

http://www.krix.com.au/fanatix.html

I wish Klipsch would make something like that. Pro audio woofer, super slim design of less than 8" deep, consumer friendly finish where it could be used out in the open but isn't designed to win beauty contests, consumer friendly footprint that would be great for behind the screen use but could also be used as towers, and it's front ported. I think it's a great idea for home theater. Downsizing the cinema line into consumer friendly products while retaining a thin profile and pro woofers would be awesome.

Edited December 14, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[wvu80]

Dead link.

 

Message says the link is disabled by default for security reasons.

Edited December 14, 2015 by wvu80

[Paducah Home Theater]

This is still up:

https://www.facebook.com/krixsound/

 

website is down now though.  Not promoting them, I just like this design.  

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[wvu80]

I see what you mean.  That shallow depth with wide profile gives the builder the ability to use a larger single woofer (you said pro woofer, I know what you mean) instead of two smaller ones.

 

What I find interesting is also the opportunity (necessity?) to use a larger (wider) horn.  This would seem to require a horn with a very short mouth-to-throat distance, and would require a small compression driver, probably with an expensive neodymium magnet to keep the size small and light.  I don't know how changing those parameters would affect the quality, cross over point or efficiency of the horn/CD combo.

 

What is your opinion, MLO, would this design give a bigger sound in a shallow box?

Edited December 14, 2015 by wvu80

[rebuy]

Personally--I like the depth of my Klipsch Boxes-I think they're 16 inches.

This helps for a large sound stage and makes them stable on the floor.

I've seen Klipsch knock-offs with a more shallow cabinet and ruled them out.

[Paducah Home Theater]

I see what you mean.  That shallow depth with wide profile gives the builder the ability to use a larger single woofer (you said pro woofer, I know what you mean) instead of two smaller ones.

I said pro woofers because they are paper drivers with paper surrounds. But yes a single woofer would cut the amount of box volume down significantly.

What I find interesting is also the opportunity (necessity?) to use a larger (wider) horn.  This would seem to require a horn with a very short mouth-to-throat distance, and would require a small compression driver, probably with an expensive neodymium magnet to keep the size small and light.  I don't know how changing those parameters would affect the quality, cross over point or efficiency of the horn/CD combo.

 

What is your opinion, MLO, would this design give a bigger sound in a shallow box?

They're not using a compression driver, they're using something like a silk dome that's attached to a horn. I don't know what the ramifications of such a design is, I'm not a horn expert, all I know is that they would actually fit in tight spots better.

I actually built a custom RF-7ii enclosure because it was the only way I could fit one behind the screen. One of these Krix speakers would have just fit easily, and this isn't even their thinnest design. My box was only like 6" deep. To be honest, there wasn't hardly any drawbacks when crossing over at 80 hz, there is just an annoying resonance around 150 maybe 200 hz because I built the thing out of half inch MDF with no bracing and no stuffing, plus its sealed, was more or less an experiment to see if it could work without getting too involved. I think a slim design like this is very doable and don't see why it couldn't be a factory offering.

[Paducah Home Theater]

Personally--I like the depth of my Klipsch Boxes-I think they're 16 inches.

This helps for a large sound stage and makes them stable on the floor.

I've seen Klipsch knock-offs with a more shallow cabinet and ruled them out.

The biggest advantage is fitting them behind a screen. Klipsch even does this on their pro models, the KPT-325 is only 12" deep. This offering wouldn't exist if it weren't a significant issue. The KL-650-THX is also 12" but I think I'd be choosing a 10" pro woofer if it were possible, plus this model is 2/3 the depth of the THX, some models being half the depth.

[DrWho]

They already make in wall speakers which can totally be used in the same applications you're describing:

http://www.klipsch.com/in-wall-speakers

[Paducah Home Theater]

They already make in wall speakers which can totally be used in the same applications you're describing:

http://www.klipsch.com/in-wall-speakers

Yes of course, I'm about to install a room full of the 3-way pro series. Not sure they can keep up with a ported pro-style 10" woofer that's being fed 250 watts though.

Edited December 15, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[jjptkd]

That kind of reminds me of a KG 4.5. I'm no speaker expert but I have talked with my old speaker re-coning guy quite a bit. From what I understand paper coned woofers have a limit as to their upper end response which is why they are common in three way applications and the plastic or aluminum cones are more common for a 2 way, at least in smaller speakers like this where the horn starts in at a pretty high frequency.

[Paducah Home Theater]

I'm no speaker expert but I have talked with my old speaker re-coning guy quite a bit. From what I understand paper coned woofers have a limit as to their upper end response which is why they are common in three way applications and the plastic or aluminum cones are more common for a 2 way, at least in smaller speakers like this where the horn starts in at a pretty high frequency.

If that were true in general, a Selenium 10MB3P wouldn't have an upper response of 12 kHz. Most all pro woofers can hit at least in the upper 3,000 hz range. Their measuring may be different though, seems like pro stuff allows larger swings in the response. If you look at the graph of that Selenium it's all over the place, there's a 13 db swing from about 3,200 hz to 7,200 hz.

Edited December 15, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

Here's a winter project for you then.  Take the Cornwall dimensions, make it taller and thinner (use a fastrack horn for the mid).  Keep the same internal volume.  Boom!  You've got your wish.

[Paducah Home Theater]

Here's a winter project for you then.  Take the Cornwall dimensions, make it taller and thinner (use a fastrack horn for the mid).  Keep the same internal volume.  Boom!  You've got your wish.

Then I get to build a new crossover because the baffle step compensation is all wrong at that point.   Although, if you make it taller as well as thinner, would that even out?  Not sure.  This other one I made was the exact same size baffle as the RF-7ii.  

Edited December 15, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

 

Here's a winter project for you then.  Take the Cornwall dimensions, make it taller and thinner (use a fastrack horn for the mid).  Keep the same internal volume.  Boom!  You've got your wish.

Then I get to build a new crossover because the baffle step compensation is all wrong at that point.   Although, if you make it taller as well as thinner, would that even out?  Not sure.  This other one I made was the exact same size baffle as the RF-7ii.  

 

 

I'm not a crossover guy but I would think that if you kept the center distance of all the drivers the same as stock it wouldn't matter.  The interior volume needs to be the same to keep the box tune correct.  You'd need the same port volume as well.

[Paducah Home Theater]

I'm not a crossover guy but I would think that if you kept the center distance of all the drivers the same as stock it wouldn't matter.

 

 

Not really.  Read this:

http://www.salksound.com/wp/?p=42

 

 

Real world example based on my limited understanding of it:  

 

A Cornwall is 25.3" wide.  That's the wavelength of 535 hz.  Half that is 267.5 hz.  Basically everything below that point will be lost in part due to it wrapping around the baffle.  Everything above that point will have to be bumped down a little to compensate.  

 

So let's just chop it down to 16" wide, which is the wavelength of 846 hz.  Half that is 423 hz.  Everything below that will be lost in part due to wrapping around the baffle.  At the minimum, you just killed the frequency response from 267 to 423 hz.  I'm just not sure how height affects it, and I'm not sure if in this example everything below 267 hz is diminished even more or if it just gets to a certain point and stops losing any more decibels.  

 

Even if the baffle and volume were the same, you'd have similar problems if you took drivers out of a speaker that was meant to sit out in the room, built a thin enclosure, then put it up against the wall, which will reinforce the frequencies below the baffle step by acting like a larger baffle.  Only reason why the one I built doesn't do this is because I surrounded it with acoustic panels.  

Edited December 15, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

I guess you would need a new crossover then.  Thanks for the link.

[DrWho]

You can't talk about baffle step compensation outside of the polar response of the drive units themselves. A 15" woofer at 1kHz is going to have the same acoustic output regardless of the baffle because the driver itself provides a 90x90 polar pattern (no sound is hitting the baffle). You really gotta get down to about 300Hz before you start seeing any appreciable baffle gain from a 15" driver. If you have a shallow cabinet pressed up against the wall, then it's totally a non-issue and the xover should be treated as if the driver were in an infinite baffle.

 

Long story short, baffle step should have a small impact on the actual xover design....small enough that I usually don't even bother compensating for it. Of course I'm actually using controlled measurements when making those decisions - not relying on rule of thumb ideas. I've found it's far better to use rounded over corners to compensate for the diffraction / reflections at the corners of the baffle. A nice roundover bit on a plunge router makes this a piece of cake to manufacture too. It even makes things look nicer too.

 

 

 

Btw, if a loudspeaker goes loud enough with low enough distortion, then what does it matter how much power it takes to reach that SPL? If you want more out of the in-wall series, then supplement the two-way main speaker with one of the subs and do a proper xover between them. They even make flatpanel speakers too (if you really want a thin cabinet).

 

 

I personally would prefer Klipsch to make bigger/deeper speakers that weren't so blasted expensive. All of the acoustic principals point to bigger being better, and I'd love for me speakers to be a fashion statement in the room. Form following function and all that shnazz.

[CECAA850]

Long story short, baffle step should have a small impact on the actual xover design....small enough that I usually don't even bother compensating for it.

 

I'd trust doc.

[Paducah Home Theater]

You can't talk about baffle step compensation outside of the polar response of the drive units themselves. A 15" woofer at 1kHz is going to have the same acoustic output regardless of the baffle because the driver itself provides a 90x90 polar pattern (no sound is hitting the baffle).

So how do you calculate this?

 

If you have a shallow cabinet pressed up against the wall, then it's totally a non-issue and the xover should be treated as if the driver were in an infinite baffle.

If you had a normal speaker, took it apart, put the drivers in a really shallow cabinet pressed up against the wall, and used the same original crossover, it would be incorrect at that point, no? To what extent I'm not sure, but I don't see where I'm saying anything different than what you are.

 

Btw, if a loudspeaker goes loud enough with low enough distortion, then what does it matter how much power it takes to reach that SPL? If you want more out of the in-wall series, then supplement the two-way main speaker with one of the subs and do a proper xover between them. They even make flatpanel speakers too (if you really want a thin cabinet).

 

 

I personally would prefer Klipsch to make bigger/deeper speakers that weren't so blasted expensive. All of the acoustic principals point to bigger being better, and I'd love for me speakers to be a fashion statement in the room. Form following function and all that shnazz.

 

Those two statements are kind of the opposite though, you say the 3.5" deep in-walls are perfectly fine, then turn around and say you really like huge speakers.  All I'm saying is that it might be nice if you could have the best of both worlds, something in between those two choices, where you can use a thin-ish design while still retaining big-ish drivers in a ported enclosure, as to not have to compromise on the midbass by leaning on your subs like you say, which is the entire issue.  Even the KL-650-THX is a compromise on the midbass, the in-walls even more so. A ported high efficiency 10" pro audio driver that can take 250 watts would likely spank those in-walls in the midbass department.

 

Acoustically transparent screens in the home are becoming more and more popular, and thinner designs simply open up more possibilities.

Edited December 15, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

If you can live with a 12" deep speaker, Klipsch already has what you're looking for in the KPT-325-B.

Edited December 15, 2015 by CECAA850