Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Chris A

A K-402-Based Full-Range Multiple-Entry Horn

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Chris A said:

 

 

I still heartily encourage Klipsch marketing and engineering to reconsider MEHs of the full-rage variety as a viable growth path to 21st century horn-loaded hi-fi, something that more and more younger audio enthusiasts will value.  This isn't my invention (in actuality)...but it sure works well.

 

Chris

If so, would they not be stepping on the Synergy Horn patents of Monsieur Danley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

So it seems in CONTRAST to anything I had ever thought before - one starts with GLOBAL and then uses individual driver settings to clean up small errors.  I would think this would only apply to MEH loudspeakers

If you have enough PEQs to do the job, that certainly is a doable approach.  I'm assuming here that your term "Global" actually means "input channel PEQs". 

 

With the Hypex FusionAmps, you've got 15 biquads (PEQs) per channel, so you can dial in using all output channels.  Or I suppose you could monoamp and use all "input channel" PEQs and essentially achieve the same thing.

 

Its the acoustic coupling of the drivers that is the key ingredient that most people are missing with MEHs.  This is new territory for almost all DIY loudspeaker tinkerers.

 

Chris

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

If so, would they not be stepping on the Synergy Horn patents of Monsieur Danley?

The answer to that is "no".  If you carefully read US8284976, it only patents the current design if you cross over to the lower frequency drivers (woofers, in this case) below the first notch frequency.  If you neglect to cross over, or you cross over at the notch frequency, there is no patent infringement.  I use PEQs to shape the output and effectively use no crossover filters, just trimming filters for overall SPL (and phase) flatness, so the acoustic crossover is at the notch frequency of the lower frequency drivers, and the electrical crossover of the higher frequency drivers is non-existent.

 

The controlling patent (US6411718) expired over 6 years ago due to non-payment of USPTO update fees.  The invention is free and clear, the way I read it.

 

Chris

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 12:01 PM, Chris A said:

If you have enough PEQs to do the job, that certainly is a doable approach.  I'm assuming here that your term "Global" actually means "input channel PEQs". 

 

With the Hypex FusionAmps, you've got 15 biquads (PEQs) per channel, so you can dial in using all output channels.  Or I suppose you could monoamp and use all "input channel" PEQs and essentially achieve the same thing.

 

Its the acoustic coupling of the drivers that is the key ingredient that most people are missing with MEHs.  This is new territory for almost all DIY loudspeaker tinkerers.

 

Chris

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

but it better not be too loud!

Try it.  I think you're underestimating the capability of this MEH design to produce prodigious amounts of subwoofer frequency output well below 32 Hz.

 

I've not had any issues producing all the deep subwoofer bass that I can stand, and with significantly lower harmonic and modulation distortion levels than the TH-SPUDs behind the Jubilees in their fully corner-loaded TH subwoofer configuration (they have dual 8" drivers in each TH configuration). 

 

That's what initially got my attention when I started to explore the deep bass potential of this MEH design.  I was astounded by how clean the output was, and how much it added to the deep bass perception in-room by having the center loudspeaker able to produce that amount of sub-20 Hz bass SPL. I now understand why it sounds so good: the lack of dramatic phase growth below 30 Hz of the MEH adds considerably to the perceived bass response. 

 

Chris

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

I think my speaker sounds best when i keep as much low frequency out of it as I can.

Based on what?  Measurements or expectation bias?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

I think xilica calls them GLOBAL. 

The Xilica XP series calls it "input channel EQ"...

 

Quote

Each input channel has 8 bands of equalization.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

I would think a respectful use of the idea in a serious loudspeaker for the home would not upset Mr. Danley or his backers.

It clearly wouldn't upset Tom Danley.  I'm not sure about the company owner (Hedden), however.  But he (the owner) has prevented Tom from working on home hi-fi consumer MEHs up to this point.  The only movement that I've seen has been the studio monitors they have produced in the last couple of years, but that business is not really home hi-fi consumer driven on either performance or price.

 

14 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

They are much too busy and sensible to waste their money on lawyers and lawsuits for a loudspeaker to be used in a house.

I'm sure that any patent lawyers that happen to stumble by this might take exception.  The reason to patent is to get IP rights.  Otherwise, if you're just trying to prevent others from trying to patent your ideas, you merely disclose the current invention so that others can't claim "no prior art exists". 

 

14 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

Speaking for myself not sure I want to hear a CD driven by an HYPEX amplifier.

Wow...I hope you're wrong on this one.  By "CD" here, I think you mean "compression driver" and not "compact disc".  It's a commonly overloaded acronym that should not be overloaded, in my experience.

 

14 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

I am sure they are decent amps but the tiny power requirements of a CD does not interconnect well with their strengths.

Again, this is a statement that is based on your opinion, not fact.  One of the reasons why we have a MEH design is due to Tom Danley not "taking someone else's word as gospel", instead building and testing the idea and then listening to it.  That's been his MO to date, and I'm also a big believer in that approach.

 

14 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

I do not doubt they fear what is left of the kook press and getting them to assess the speaker fairly without having to give away many pairs of them in exchange for good reviews,  Yes, I am that cynical.

At some point, you have to bite the bullet and just do it, otherwise nothing innovative actually occurs.  That means that the "kook press" isn't something that you should worry about, but rather what actually works.  There are some ideas that are more difficult to sell than others, but the MEH idea isn't one of the harder ones, IMHO.

 

Chris

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rickmcinnis said:

Why trade more distortion for less?

Show me the data--apples to apples--on the MEHs and your subs at the same output levels (...below 105 dB please). 

 

I think the thing that has my attention right now is that you're making a lot of statements that you can't back up with measurements.  That does concern me, and causes me to comment about it in my K-402-MEH thread.  Otherwise, in the spirit of real DIY, I would think you would be going the opposite direction.

 

Chris

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, With all due respect, trying second guess someone or question their perspective and motivation does not accomplish anything positive. If the advice has been good, solid and helpful (I believe it has from what I have seen), then the appropriate response is simple. It starts by saying "Thank you". 

 

Of course, this is just my opinion,

-Tom

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, rickmcinnis said:

I realize you are making a case for the MEH as being a full range loudspeaker.  But I suspect most folks will already have a sub system in place or will want to use ons sop it becomes a special case instead of the typical one.

 

I haven't used subs at all, and would love a system that doesn't need another box or two in the room.

 

1 hour ago, rickmcinnis said:

You have hardly had any interest in it for the last six months.

 

I'm following this all the time, even when I don't post to this thread. It's excellent, and I only wish I had the funds to do this. I will be going active with my MWMs, but would LOVE to shrink the size down to something the wife would be happier about (she's fine with what I have, but getting back some floor space is a good thing).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rickmcinnis said:

You cannot possibly want me to prove that minimizing cone movement is best for low distortion?

You assume that is the case with your bass bin/subwoofer vs. the K-402-MEH.  I think you've missed something (once again) about MEHs.  A hint: look at the horn/driver loading differences via boundary loading.  If your bass bins/subwoofers have similar sized horn termination geometries, then I would still like to see the data for my needs--which is not a lot to ask considering the effort I've spent above, and a request that is obviously within your abilities based on your posted measurements above.

 

You say you're puzzled by the few rebuttals and requests for data I made on your opinions.  I can assure you that personal opinions-as-fact statements in this thread that I can't agree with aren't going to "slide by".  In case you haven't noticed, I've actually put a bit of effort into the subject over the past few years.  Because others here (clearly observable from the comments above) also read these statements, if I don't take exception to them, some readers might conclude that I agree with them.  (I don't, at least the ones that I've commented on.) I've made measurements that helps me to request some of that data based on your particular statements I've taken exception to. Other requests for data are real (e.g., your subwoofer's distortion measurements vs. your K-402-MEH), I actually need that data.  If you prove your point with measurements, I will acknowledge it.  I don't believe they are unreasonable requests.

 

As a side note, you've also actually pushed me into questioning some of your statements--as if it's your right to do so with impunity, which I personally don't understand after providing the data and information that I have to this thread.  Have I done something to offend you?

 

If you would like to start your own thread, you're perfectly able to do that.  I only ask that you don't say the things I have taken exception to (above) in this particular thread without backing them up with something that's more than opinion (yours or any others).  That's it.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  Not trying to mute the conversation entirely, just keep it a bit more fact-based than opinion-based in this particular thread (as I believe that I have mostly done, above).

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
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...