Schu Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 About two weeks in... these networks have really begun to open up and improve greatly. They were slightly "finicky" at first, but now... just what I was looking for when I made my choice. --------- I can see some undue mis-understanding in the posts by the more technical oriented... this isnt and never was about trying to correct recordings, or an attempt find solutions to negative OEM pre existing conditions. This is a very personal preference to modify a legendary speakers systems by employing a tried and true methodology by that same manufacturer... only using great upgraded components as a basis and great assembly technique in the making thereof. I think this thread and the wonderful sound I am now experiencing in a great example and justification. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 10 hours ago, Schu said: About two weeks in... these networks have really begun to open up and improve greatly. They were slightly "finicky" at first, but now... just what I was looking for when I made my choice. --------- I can see some undue mis-understanding in the posts by the more technical oriented... this isnt and never was about trying to correct recordings, or an attempt find solutions to negative OEM pre existing conditions. This is a very personal preference to modify a legendary speakers systems by employing a tried and true methodology by that same manufacturer... only using great upgraded components as a basis and great assembly technique in the making thereof. I think this thread and the wonderful sound I am now experiencing in a great example and justification. Sorry if the discussion hasn't went like you wanted Schu but I don't see anything "undue" in the responses to what is actually happening with swapping networks. You have totally changed the voicing of the system which definitely interacts with the source material whether it be to your liking or not and this should not be ignored. "Upgraded Parts" are just an additional variable that if their variables aren't accounted for in the frequency response at a minimum you can't establish a valid comparison. It's the idea that some would think there is some validity to such a haphazard approach as to these types of comparisons that should raise concerns..! All we really learned from this is Schu likes the sound he is getting and that's great..!!! miketn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said: It's the idea that some would think there is some validity to such a haphazard approach as to these types of comparisons. All we really learned from this is Shu likes the sound he is getting and that's great..!!! miketn Yes, I agree and add to that with no two rooms, component stack, source / material or ears being equal others are likely to have different (good or bad) results. I have done countless changes to my personal system and recognizing "change" is sometimes very easy and thought to be good, living with it after awhile isn't always as easy. I'm not dogging these beautiful new networks, I'm sure they sound great and would love to have a pair myself. This is a hobby and some enjoy the tinkering as much as the listening and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Schu was making subjective comments on his crossovers which is completely valid. It is not through mere scientific analysis and testing that I have come as far as I have towards great sounding music in my home (still have a ways to go). It is also the subjective comments and evaluations of others. Are all subjective comments worth anything? ...Well, some more than others. Debating results of subjective evaluations will not be very productive but I do believe that we could do a better job with our subjective methodology. A start would be to provide background and other details of the setup, equipment, room, musical goals. I admit, even with all the details you can think of their might still be significant variables (equipment, environmental etc..) that might not even occur to the person. These might very well affect how the same equipment might function in someone elses' home. Also, commentary about WHY is best left to the objective analysis... it is best to stick to the WHAT when discussing the subjective. There is nothing wrong exploring the WHY in the form of questions though. That is where the more technical analysis can come in. Pretty pictures of a new piece of equipment by itself even without commentary is a perfectly valid thing to share. Sometimes this stuff is just fun to look at too! I'd say to the objective analysts out there that I think many of us would welcome all the measurement you would like to perform in as ideal of an environment as possible. I would say your living room is not the place for much valid scientific study to be performed beyond the subjective and perhaps interesting numbers that you could compare between variables. As to how those numbers would translate to anywhere else I would strongly question. I'm interested in the science of this stuff and hope to keep learning more. I'm sure my ignorance shows through often! I appreciate the technical input and encourage more but remember that good subjective analysis is valid as well as critical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 3 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said: "Upgraded Parts" are just an additional variable that if their variables aren't accounted for in the frequency response at a minimum you can't establish a valid comparison. Perhaps Schu will forgive the following augmentation of his original thread subject...but I believe it needs to be said here: In my efforts to calibrate my in-room equalization, I found that getting every channel as flat as I could get them (using digital crossovers on each channel, REW, and a calibration microphone--which took some time) changed the overall character of the setup by a large margin. This EQ calibration work proceeded after I got sufficient absorption in the front of the room to control early reflections and diffusion/reflection sources to balance and diffuse the areas outside of the nearfield. I was floored by how much difference there was (and my wife commented on the differences without my prompting). Everything got a lot more "realistic" sounding. All recordings got a lot more engaging. (Note that I didn't have to change anything from the settings that Klipsch provided on the Jubs above the Schroeder frequency of my room.) The point to the above paragraph is that I had something more than just my ears to help guide me. While the ears are an irreplaceable element in this process, they're not sufficient for making a buying decision, I've found. I have several visual representations of the changes that I introduced--in the form of data plots. I believe that this is what Roy and Mike are actually commenting on--that process of measuring and making careful adjustments--in addition to extensive listening trials. When you drop in a complete passive crossover network into your loudspeakers and declare "it sounds better now...", there is so much going on that I'd say that any listening differences are not transferable to any other environment. Measurements and understanding of the changes induced are key to providing relevant information that others can use, I've found. I've also found that passive crossover components don't "break in", but human hearing certainly does accommodate over time. It's also known as the placebo effect. Measurements are necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff, I've found. All the other uncontrolled variables, such as room acoustics, loudspeaker placement, driving electronics, and, unfortunately, the value of the listener's judgments--all these factors conspire to nullify any transferable knowledge that others may benefit from. I don't trust any third party hardware providers--especially those selling or advertising their wares on this forum--without sufficient data measurement and plots of the differences between what Klipsch provides as stock. Klipsch is the one source that I trust. Everyone else must bring data in addition to their listening impressions, and I must have some calibration of that listener's hearing opinions. I've found that some opinions aren't dependable, unfortunately. Any seller/advertiser that issues an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam that "it's too hard", or even worse, "it doesn't matter anyway--since no one uses data to make decisions"-- really shouldn't be allowed to sell or otherwise advertise their wares on this forum, IMO. (That's Chad's territory, however.) For those that are strictly DIY (no financial gain involved), then my response is caveat emptor--"let the buyer beware". You're getting information that is no better than the price that you paid for it. If you're willing take that risk (and it's a large risk, as it turns out without data plots, usually for significant amounts of money in this pastime), then you shouldn't be upset if it doesn't turn out as planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Too much drivel and no substance in this thread The thread is discussing the AL-4 and the AA's compatibility with an LS II Can someone explain why a person cant put an AA setup in a LS II? We have the 55X and the 77D and their slightly better param's and another slice of wood on each end, but its still a La Scala and although Klipsch felt the need to modernize its network and change the response, who says it sounds better? I certainly don't know. Why would Schu be totally wrong if he wanted to use a proven, old school first order setup which is known by many including the man himself, to offer the very best sound in sub-watt to small watt playback? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Max2 said: Too much drivel and no substance in this thread The thread is discussing the AL-4 and the AA's compatibility with an LS II Can someone explain why a person cant put an AA setup in a LS II? We have the 55X and the 77D and their slightly better param's and another slice of wood on each end, but its still a La Scala and although Klipsch felt the need to modernize its network and change the response, who says it sounds better? I certainly don't know. Why would Schu be totally wrong if he wanted to use a proven, old school first order setup which is known by many including the man himself, to offer the very best sound in sub-watt to small watt playback? Pretty simple the crowd with 40 knobs to turn and graphs to analyze can not accept that some of us just like to keep it simple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 6 hours ago, Max2 said: Too much drivel and no substance in this thread The thread is discussing the AL-4 and the AA's compatibility with an LS II Can someone explain why a person cant put an AA setup in a LS II? We have the 55X and the 77D and their slightly better param's and another slice of wood on each end, but its still a La Scala and although Klipsch felt the need to modernize its network and change the response, who says it sounds better? I certainly don't know. Max2 Why would Klipsch go to the expense of the AL-4 if the changes you mentioned didn't change the sound and all they needed was to throw in an A or AA network? The even larger question is why would they make the changes if they felt it sounded worse especially considering they have designed and probably heard every version? So I believe it's safe to say Klipsch says it sounds better for whatever that's worth to someone. All I'm saying is if you own the speakers you certainly have a right to do anything you want but people should not assume that the change is an "Up Grade" when it is really just a change in sound (voicing). 5 hours ago, Max2 said: Why would Schu be totally wrong if he wanted to use a proven, old school first order setup which is known by many including the man himself, to offer the very best sound in sub-watt to small watt playback? Why do people think just because PWK said or thought something during a certain period of time in his life that he never changed his opinion as his research/knowledge progressed..? Such as Tractrix versus Exponential Horns or Steep Slope Filters. Speaking of sub-watt to small-watt amps which I enjoy very much but I would never claim PWK thought they produced the best sound with his speakers especially since it appears he embraced SS amplifier technology once the bugs such as TIM distortion was identified in some designs and eliminated. I think it is pretty clear were PWK thoughts on 1st order versus Steep Slope Filters by Roy's statement below. On 8/8/2016 at 10:02 PM, Chief bonehead said: just so you know, paul in his later years began to understand the advantages of steep filters in order to minimize the overlap band and would tutor me and would want my feedback and how to figure out a way to validate or invalidate to see if this would something we should pursue. Again all I'm trying to get across is to have valid and useful comparisons/conclusions you have to take into account all the variables to know what has really changed and especially if it is to be of any use for others otherwise caution is advised. If that's not self evident and just plain common sense then what is? miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 3 hours ago, NOSValves said: Pretty simple the crowd with 40 knobs to turn and graphs to analyze can not accept that some of us just like to keep it simple... I had several simple setups as you say for 20 years and understand why people like them but they have their own issues just as more complex systems have theirs. People shouldn't have closed minds about either choice someone prefers or that people having "graphs to analyze" makes you less understanding or accepting. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Let me show anyone interested what happens when a Single Ended Tube Amplifier drives a K402/K69A The Red curve is the frequency response when the amplifier is driving the K402/k69A (uncompensated impedance). The Blue curve is the frequency response when the amplifier is driving the K402/K69A with impedance compensation. The red curve(uncompensated) is going to give a more forward presentation to vocals and this difference is very audible and depending on the source material you could easily prefer one or the other. Changing networks like from an A to an AL-4 can cause similar differences and which you might prefer is anyone's guess and is why I am saying just swapping networks should be done with cautions and eyes wide open.. miketn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said: You have totally changed the voicing of the system which definitely interacts with the source material whether it be to your liking or not and this should not be ignored. "Upgraded Parts" are just an additional variable that if their variables aren't accounted for in the frequency response at a minimum you can't establish a valid comparison. It's the idea that some would think there is some validity to such a haphazard approach as to these types of comparisons that should raise concerns..! Yes, the voicing of the loudspeaker changes. That's the whole point. "I've heard 'Y' and it sounds good, but now I'd like to try 'X' and see if I like it better". Everyone understands that the AL-4 and AA sound different. A comparison through listening is not invalidated because the FR is different - we already know the FR is different (along with several other parameters). The real question is this: is the Type AA a valid network choice for these loudspeakers? Since the drivers and horns are the same as those used when the AA was used, I would say the obvious answer is"yes". Why did you put "upgraded parts" in quotes - as if they're not upgraded parts. The Jupiter is a fully protected film capacitor with soldered leads. It won't fall victim to moisture creep and climbing ESR, and it'll probably last 50 years or more. A polyester metalized capacitor is wrapped in Teflon tape, and the leads are attached using a conductive paste. They're cheap for a reason. Someone once told me, "hey, take it easy, those Mylars aren't that bad". I'm not interested in "not that bad". Material and construction quality matter. Finally, there is more going on here than slight changes in the FR, as applying DC biasing to capacitors easily demonstrates (DA). With the early networks, we know that some of the bass is elevated in relationship to the midrange and high frequency sections. Because the networks are low order, they open up fast with very little power. People who have grown accustomed to these attributes do not like the newer networks. What they do like however, is a cleaner version of what they already like. This isn't the first Al-4 (or AK-4) I've replaced. The approach is not "haphazard", but calculated - my builds are a little expensive. At their best, these speakers are +/- 5dB across most of their range. In an average room, they can go +/- 10dB. Please explain to us why we should get stressed over a .25dB variance over the loudspeakers useable range. A flattened out response doesn't sound very good, and of course, PWK had FR listed as fourth as those things that matter most in a loudspeaker's performance - did he change his mind about that too? So PWK wanted to pursue some other solutions. That's cool. Did he ever get to hear any of them? This is a man that used a network with three parts - how do we know what he would have preferred given a young set of ears again. The alarmist attitudes are comical. For years, people have been modifying these loudspeakers, and Klipsch has never said a word. We even have a "mods" section of the forum, where we've seen all kinds of driver recommendations, and the development of several horns. If these modifications are so detrimental to the performance of these loudspeakers, then why do we have a "mods" section? Now, after 15 years, we get the "OMG, you people really need to stop doing these things to our speakers!" The AA is a perfectly acceptable network solution for these loudspeakers, and I'm sorry, but insulting me doesn't make me wrong. If you listen in a large room with a lot of power, and really enjoy loud music, the AL-4/AL-5 are the way to go. If your environment is more intimate, and you listen at low to moderate levels, you'll prefer the Type A or AA. That doesn't mean you can't reach live levels - you can - but distortion will be higher. I have no "agenda". My back is so busted up that that I can't spend more than an hour at a time at my work bench - so I shut my business down. Pictures are from some things I needed to finish up. After back surgery, I'll reaccess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 5 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said: Let me show anyone interested what happens when a Single Ended Tube Amplifier drives a K402/K69A Most of us use real amplifiers, we don't worry about impedance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 This is 100% the kind of things we SHOULD be talking about, on BOTH sides. I am the middle guy. I can decide what I like with my own ears, but I understand and accept my limitations. We should understand that there is more than one camp, and IMO BOTH are valid. There is a significant segment in our insignificant 1% who DO care about charts and graphs. I find nothing wrong with that. I really appreciate what Schu has to say (I won't be naming any other names because it's Schu's thread ). I am now the new owner of some unmolested older Khorns, specifically 1978 w/AA XO's. I think most here would agree that the 38 year-old XO capacitors have lost some punch and would benefit from being refreshed. The question I ask myself, "since I have to put components in anyway, is there anything I can do to IMPROVE the sound with more expensive caps?" My answer would be "yes" in the same way I can hotrod an older car with headers, bigger carb and a more free flowing exhaust. Is there anyone here who would recommend I refresh my AA's with the stock parts direct from Klipsch? Or is improved performance possible with aftermarket parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted August 17, 2016 Author Share Posted August 17, 2016 One thing certain... absorption is critical. I need more of it and have plans to do so very soon... though I do completely disagree on the audible change in the component stream. There is an open invitation to any of the knob turners and measurement geeks to come over to my home next time you are out west to hear and listen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjimbo Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 6 hours ago, wvu80 said: Is there anyone here who would recommend I refresh my AA's with the stock parts direct from Klipsch? Or is improved performance possible with aftermarket parts? Dave, First of all, you will not be able to get "stock" parts for your AA crossovers from Klipsch. Secondly, didn't you already answer your last question in your post? The question I ask myself, "since I have to put components in anyway, is there anything I can do to IMPROVE the sound with more expensive caps?" My answer would be "yes" in the same way I can hotrod an older car with headers, bigger carb and a more free flowing exhaust. Your crossovers need to be refreshed, certainly. How much you want to spend to supposedly improve them, relative to what you are hearing (or want to hear) is entirely up to you. And, as usual, your room setup, placement, source, amplifier, etc, etc, all have a direct bearing on your listening experience. IMHO, are you going to hear a significant, several hundred dollar difference between a Dayton Precision Audio Cap, a Sonicap, or a Jupiter Flat Stack? I doubt it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 6 hours ago, wvu80 said: .............................. Is there anyone here who would recommend I refresh my AA's with the stock parts direct from Klipsch? Or is improved performance possible with aftermarket parts? I would, were they available. But since they are not, go for good caps, if your speakers sound dull. I have a theory that if used regularly, the caps maintain their values longer. Yours may not be in need of replacement, yet. BTW, U.S. made Musicaps are available again as well as Supercaps, a variation made with teflon by Robert Hovland. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 16 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said: I had several simple setups as you say for 20 years and understand why people like them but they have their own issues just as more complex systems have theirs. People shouldn't have closed minds about either choice someone prefers or that people having "graphs to analyze" makes you less understanding or accepting. miketn absolutely...but those people that spend enormous time and energy shoving those other approaches down folks throat that are entirely happy with there simple system need to chill out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted August 17, 2016 Klipsch Employees Share Posted August 17, 2016 23 hours ago, Max2 said: Too much drivel and no substance in this thread The thread is discussing the AL-4 and the AA's compatibility with an LS II Can someone explain why a person cant put an AA setup in a LS II? We have the 55X and the 77D and their slightly better param's and another slice of wood on each end, but its still a La Scala and although Klipsch felt the need to modernize its network and change the response, who says it sounds better? I certainly don't know. Why would Schu be totally wrong if he wanted to use a proven, old school first order setup which is known by many including the man himself, to offer the very best sound in sub-watt to small watt playback? dude you can do anything you want...just be glad that mr k isnt around. i really dont care what you do but i call bs on those that can do only certain things and claim them to be the best thing since monofilament..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted August 17, 2016 Klipsch Employees Share Posted August 17, 2016 20 hours ago, NOSValves said: Pretty simple the crowd with 40 knobs to turn and graphs to analyze can not accept that some of us just like to keep it simple... LOL!! right...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Chief bonehead Posted August 17, 2016 Klipsch Employees Share Posted August 17, 2016 30 minutes ago, NOSValves said: absolutely...but those people that spend enormous time and energy shoving those other approaches down folks throat that are entirely happy with there simple system need to chill out. i got the ac on so no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.