Jump to content

AA networks...


Schu

Recommended Posts

  • Klipsch Employees
5 hours ago, wvu80 said:

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I know my comments above are somewhat rambling and argumentative, but I'm not trying to ramble.  That resonance is real and audibly noticeable to the point I took several steps to get rid of it in my CF-4's, which I was successful at.

 

That "beaming" is also real.  With some horns if they are pointed right at your ears you get a wonderful articulate sound, but if you move off-center by a foot the sound is less impactful.  You have to physically change the horn shape to change that beaming characteristic, no XO component change is going to affect that off-axis sound

The horn in a cf4 was exposed to the back wave of the woofers so damping the horn walls was a logical solution. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
41 minutes ago, Bill W. said:

I would love to hear Roy's description of the development and evaluation process for crossover networks and speaker voicing. When the decision was made to develop the AK-4 to replace the AK-3 it seems to have represented a significant change in how the crossover network is used to balance more attributes of the speaker system performance. In the case of the AK-4 and AL-4 being developed for existing systems, how many people were involved in the evaluation process, what are the discussions like, how closely does everyone agree before crossover voicing specs get locked in?

Lol!  That would require writing a book. The synopsis would be that I have people that I trust listen. I listen to various cuts of music that I have collected over the years and i also "listen" to what the speaker and measurements tell me. :)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

The horns are plastic not metal in the LaScala ll and how do you propose changing the crossovers would solve this type of ringing if it did happen?

 

miketn 

 

 

I'm no acoustic engineer but logically speaking changing the crossover won't help as you'll run into the same frequency regardless of changes made to crossovers. It's music dependent. 

Again take what I say with a grains, grain of salt.

As for one being metal and the other plastic I do apologize for not being clearer. I was using my Belle's horn as an example.

Also here are some "remedies" to address some of the issues for horns.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
2 hours ago, wdecho said:

Not me, I am using a very simple 1st order crossover with Russian PIO caps and regular nothing fancy inductors. I actually have 2 complete crossovers, the other a 1st order crossover with motor run caps and regular nothing fancy inductors. There is very little difference between the two. I have tried all the crossover schematics available on the web with my speakers and have settled on liking these the best. This is over many months and over 30 different combinations. I have never tried any of the steeper order crossovers with so many parts it boogles the mind. Some say they like them. I say simpler is better especially when it comes to horns. Klipsch has far better engineers than my abilities and I am sure what they are using is very good if not better than anything I can come up with for a generic one size fits all. Just as there are very complicated amplifiers with many components being made along with other designers using as few parts as need in an amplifier thinking this is the way it should go. Until you have tried many crossovers with your speakers you will never know what if anything you are missing. The same with amplifiers. Nelson Pass spent many months and many different combinations designing some crossovers for a JBL rebuild and he is an acoustic genius. It is not easy finding the best crossover for your room and the specific speakers one is using. Most settle for whatever is available and what someone else has to say about the Xover they are trying to peddle. 

 

Personally I have no use for an equalizer. Too much is lost to gain a plausible sound. At one time when I was younger I used equalization along with a professional DBX unit to expand the recording. Now I like the simplest of circuits and equipment.  There are tradeoffs in everything. 

So one simple question......with all the crossovers you tried, did you adjust and try to keep the freq response the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
1 hour ago, Max2 said:

Was the jump to the to the 4 series network because of a driver change or a network improvement or both? Also, what was the change with the 5 series and why?

Both. The al4 was taking all that mr k and I had talked about and I implemented those findings in those nets. No diff with the 5 series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wdecho said:

Personally I have no use for an equalizer. Too much is lost to gain a plausible sound.

Don't tell that to LP lovers or they will have to get rid of that RIAA equalization circuit...!!!:D  and you Reel to Reel Tape fans are in trouble too..!!!:o 

 

I have to respectfully disagree with your overly general statement wdecho based on personal experience with quality DSP units available today.

 

I'll agree the majority of past analog equalizers were very limited in performance and parameter adjustments range/availability which severely limited there ability to be used properly for good benefit.

 

If someone knows or is willing to learn how to fully use the abilities of a quality DSP based equalizer you will find you have the ability to optimize your system and compensate for many recordings that were clearly produced/engineered for something other than a quality high resolution reproduction system.

 

Here is an example of what is possible with a DSP EQ that can take many less than perfect recordings to another level in realism in reproduction. This EQ Program will teach someone very quickly how a shift of as little as +/- 1/2db over a broad range can easily be heard and your preference can easily shift from one recording to another. People are spending $1000 -$10,000 doing similar things with swapping equipment (ie: merry-go-round) looking for that "perfect sound" which is in reality a moving target due to recording standards that don't exist among many other variables.

 

 

 

 

miketn

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
5 hours ago, wdecho said:

No, I never worry about frequency response. With enough components one can make a crossover with a flat frequency response but that does not mean it will sound the best. The AL crossover for instance with notch filters on each driver. Horn speakers have never been known to have a very flat frequency response. One reason some reviewers gave Klipsch speakers less than flattering reviews. 

I didn't say flat freq response but never mind you answered my question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
5 hours ago, Schu said:

Roy... in your professional opinion, would changing out some components, such as capacitors, in your/mrK's AL-4 network (using the exact same values) yeild an audible difference?

Depends on the component and it spec.   As mike said above, something as small as a .25 dB change over a large bandwidth can make a huge difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that Shu has asked about sibilance how much of all the above is/can be effected by what is being fed to the network/speakers? I know my KHorns take on the varied characteristics of each amp I use. Some SS at higher volume levels is nearly unlistenable, drive you from the room, cut your head off harsh. Insert a tube preamp, it all changes. Insert all tubes, it changes once again. And wouldn't the same apply to what the amps are being fed - vinyl via a crappy table/cart vs. a rig of several K$; a crappy Walmart CD player vs. a disc spinner and DAC? And now you begin to change network parameters with components of various ratings - I guess my question is where would it end? At what point in this chain do you chase and where does the chase end? Would the network with "perfect" parameters ever be possible with all the other variables in the chain that sonically change what one actually hears? Does a rig that just sounds "right" qualify as does one being done scientifically?

As you can see the tech talk leaves me behind but I think I know what sounds good. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, richieb said:

Now that Shu has asked about sibilance how much of all the above is/can be effected by what is being fed to the network/speakers? I know my KHorns take on the varied characteristics of each amp I use. Some SS at higher volume levels is nearly unlistenable, drive you from the room, cut your head off harsh. Insert a tube preamp, it all changes. Insert all tubes, it changes once again. And wouldn't the same apply to what the amps are being fed - vinyl via a crappy table/cart vs. a rig of several K$; a crappy Walmart CD player vs. a disc spinner and DAC? And now you begin to change network parameters with components of various ratings - I guess my question is where would it end? At what point in this chain do you chase and where does the chase end? Would the network with "perfect" parameters ever be possible with all the other variables in the chain that sonically change what one actually hears? Does a rig that just sounds "right" qualify as does one being done scientifically?

As you can see the tech talk leaves me behind but I think I know what sounds good

 

The last three words is the answer to all of the above questions. The problem is that hearing capabilities are like snowflakes. That is compounded by different music and sound and music levels. Every engineer between the mouth of the woman singing and your ear think they know what to do to make you like her voice more. You turn up the music and suddenly you don't like her voice even though she's your favorite. As it turns out, you like her voice as long as it isn't loud.

 

Inevitably you should want what sounds good. You should also be aware that what sounds good to you may sound hideous to the person next to you. Perhaps he is standing in a node or maybe he has a headache or prefers jazz.

 

It seems to me the "Silver Bullet" for speakers would be to reproduce the perceived "Timbre" of any input sound perfectly no matter the volume. There is nothing the speaker maker can do about all the idiots between the woman's' vocal cords and the speaker inputs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, muel said:

A perfectly flat frequency response doesn't sound that great to me.  

 

There are at least three really good reasons for this:

 

1) First and foremost, and as you now know, the mastering of the music tracks typically rolls off bass by 1-3 dB/octave below 100 Hz, and sometimes as high as 800 Hz, and accentuates highs...sometimes by as much as 15-20 dB boost over the typical 1/f cumulative SPL curve. 

 

This is correctable if you unmaster your recordings and the results, at least in my experience, are like the difference between the living and the dead.  It's truly the most spectacular thing that I've found to help the sound of your favorite music. (...And why others aren't doing it--big time--for themselves is one of the biggest mysteries that I've encountered in this pastime.)

 

2) Most loudspeakers have irregularities in their controlled directivity that requires "salt-and-pepper" EQ to reduce the effects of wide-vs.-narrow coverages in the midrange band (about 200-2000 Hz).  Once you hear the differences in horn coverage in a room under controlled conditions (such as the difference between a K-400 and a K-402, for instance), you'll understand why controlled coverage angles throughout the midrange passband is critical.  Time misalignments also show up as coverage issues due to the disturbances in the polar lobes around the crossover frequency bands--which can be quite large in the case of the older Klipsch Heritage loudspeakers between the midrange and tweeter (~2-9 kHz). 

 

3) Most people don't spend much time controlling the early midrange reflections in their room (sidewalls, front wall clutter, coffee tables,  equipment racks, etc.) so these early midrange reflections add to the direct path acoustic energy to make the midrange sound irregular and unbalanced. 

 

I found that a lot of people are looking to their passive crossover networks to fix the above issues.  The passive crossover networks can't fix it, however.  All the passive crossover network can do is to perform some sort of EQ that the owners think isn't really there...and perhaps reduce the width of the crossover pass bands to a minimum. 

 

But the polar lobe issues are still there...especially in the crossover pass bands (including the "z" axis time misalignments), the music played still has the mastering problems mentioned, and the midrange nearfield reflections are still unbalancing the listening experience.

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Chris A said:

 

There are at least three really good reasons for this:

 

1) First and foremost, and as you now know, the mastering of the music tracks typically rolls off bass by 1-3 dB/octave below 100 Hz, and sometimes as high as 800 Hz, and accentuates highs...sometimes by as much as 15-20 dB boost over the typical 1/f cumulative SPL curve. 

 

This is correctable if you unmaster your recordings and the results, at least in my experience, are like the difference between the living and the dead.  It's truly the most spectacular thing that I've found to help the sound of your favorite music. (...And why others aren't doing it--big time--for themselves is one of the biggest mysteries that I've encountered in this pastime.)

 

2) Most loudspeakers have irregularities in their controlled directivity that requires "salt-and-pepper" EQ to reduce the effects of wide-vs.-narrow coverages in the midrange band (about 200-2000 Hz).  Once you hear the differences in horn coverage in a room under controlled conditions (such as the difference between a K-400 and a K-402, for instance), you'll understand why controlled coverage angles throughout the midrange passband is critical.  Time misalignments also show up as coverage issues due to the disturbances in the polar lobes around the crossover frequency bands--which can be quite large in the case of the older Klipsch Heritage loudspeakers between the midrange and tweeter (~2-9 kHz). 

 

3) Most people don't spend much time controlling the early midrange reflections in their room (sidewalls, front wall clutter, coffee tables,  equipment racks, etc.) so these early midrange reflections add to the direct path acoustic energy to make the midrange sound irregular and unbalanced. 

 

I found that a lot of people are looking to their passive crossover networks to fix the above issues.  The passive crossover networks can't fix it, however.  All the passive crossover network can do is to perform some sort of EQ that the owners think isn't really there...and perhaps reduce the width of the crossover pass bands to a minimum. 

 

But the polar lobe issues are still there...especially in the crossover pass bands (including the "z" axis time misalignments), the music played still has the mastering problems mentioned, and the midrange nearfield reflections are still unbalancing the listening experience.

 

Chris

Excellent Chris!  I was kind of hoping you would chime in as I was writing that!

 

I don't think many of us know the actual causes of the issues we are hoping to change by changing crossovers.  For some, it is throwing darts in the dark hoping to get lucky.   Playing with different crossovers and different capacitors has results that are usually full of pros and cons.  I have found that using different capacitors results in slightly different sound and some are more pleasing than others over all.  

 

Another point is that some of us have different goals...  Some folks might want good sound throughout most of the room while I care mostly about just where my head is (insert joke here).   

 

My biggest challenge now is fixing my room (or moving and starting over).  My equipment is capable of much better sound if I could just get the room set right.  I've heard way better sound from a non-EQ'd system but in a meticulously set up room.   I'm not opposed to trying a little high quality EQ but I'm thinking that I've got bigger problems to solve...  Like how do I get some of that <junk> out of my room?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO... what ARE the things that the passive crossover addresses?

 

You've got the crossover frequencies for the drivers, and the slope, and then you've got the phase (how it is affected by slope I don't quite understand), and impedance.  I know this gets complicated really fast but I'd love to hear from the Chief explaining more about this.. or point us to some resources.

 

Perhaps explaining in relation to the AA specifically would be interesting.

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...