AA networks...

[Schu]

Testing...

 

[Deang]

2 hours ago, John Albright said:

O.K. ....... Interesting and uncommon response.  What frequency does your meter use?  Or, is the inductor wound on a steel bobbin? 

 

I think I remember testing my Tweeter inductors and the brass screw changed the inductance a small amount. 

 

John, parts are 302 series stainless steel, or austenitic, and therefore non-magnetic.

 

 

[Deang]

uh oh, getting busy 

 

Hey, if it doesn't sound as good, you'll have one heck of a nice paper weight.

[Schu]

Still collating... but there are some very distinctive differences that are extremely apparent on first blush.

[Chief bonehead]

21 hours ago, Schu said:

so you are going to replace an al-4 with an aa?

[Schu]

Listening to it now... I can hear positives to each.

 

Concerns Roy?

[Chief bonehead]

i am interested in reading your comments before i comment.....

[mustang guy]

Schu, you can get banned for porn. Those nets are dead sexy.

 

[wvu80]

8 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

so you are going to replace an al-4 with an aa?

 

7 hours ago, Schu said:

Concerns Roy?

 

6 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

i am interested in reading your comments before i comment.....

 

Roy, your responses are always so cryptic! 

 

I guess smart people are like that. 

+++

 

I'm halfway expecting Roy to wait 24 hours, then respond with something like "yeah, you can replace the AL-4 with an AA if you want, but if you turn the volume up past 4 you'll blow all the drivers..." 

[Schu]

17 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

i am interested in reading your comments before i comment.....

 

I am running the system Flat... (in direct instead of pure direct because I have timing/distance settings I want to perserve).

 

IMHO... both networks have positives.

 

one thing is for certain at this very early stage of listening for about 10-12 hours total... the speakers no longer beam incessantly and the ringing is gone. certainly room dynamics are not ideal, but in the real world where room acoustics/decorations can not be juggled because of livability sake I found the AL-4's to be extremely strong and attacking... this is not a negative, but merely a characteristic.

 

The OEM XO's were quite revealing and extremely crisp... the AA's are a bit more forgiving albeit it at the sacrifice of some high frequency and a much quicker decay in that high frequency region.

 

The AA's are stronger and deliver more in the low frequency areas but at the sake of some tightness and clarity.

 

As far as the mid region, the AA's are much more revealing and natural sounding... I can hear much more detail and less distortion.

 

I anticipate the sound to change slightly over time and I am commited to listening to the AA's for several months as my ears gets retrained to it's delivery... just as I had had to go thru when I first got the La Scala II's.

 

if I had to sum it up is a quickly I have to say that the AL-4's are very agressive and have extreme clarity with a very forwad sounding footprint... the AA's built with upgarded components are more laid back with zero beaming and ringing but at the sacrifice of some glistening and more low frequency fatness.

 

IMHO

 

 

[wvu80]

22 minutes ago, Schu said:

if I had to sum it up is a quickly I have to say that the AL-4's are very aggressive and have extreme clarity with a very forward sounding footprint...

 

the AA's built with upgraded components are more laid back with zero beaming and ringing but at the sacrifice of some glistening and more low frequency fatness.

 

I don't know much about the AL-4's but that is the kind of aggressive sound I prefer for jazz, loud brass.  I have heard other people NOT like the A/4500 type of XO's for exactly that reason, bright, aggressive, forward.

 

By comparison I have heard others describe the AA the way you did.  Very listenable, smooth, pleasant sound.

 

I have 1978 Khorns with the AA's and I wish I could try out other XO's before I pull the trigger on update and upgrade.  Originally I wanted to use the same AA XO's with the mods to A/4500 w/new tweeters, but once I go that route I am committed to the non-stock setup.

 

I am now leaning towards two physically separate XO boards in case I ever want to return the Khorns to stock it will be a simple switch.  I was worried about the separate board costing some money, but I didn't factor in the idea that the extra XO still has some resale value in and of itself, so any investment is not lost and can be recovered at a later date.

[mikebse2a3]

Do you know what the autoformer midrange -db tap setting is?

 

miketn 

[Deang]

-3dB

 

I don't like the idea of all AA builds being lumped into the same descriptive pile - there are tonal differences. One should not expect a Mylar or metalized polypropylene build to sound like this paper/wax film build (or a paper in oil build). 

[wvu80]

34 minutes ago, Deang said:

-3dB

 

I don't like the idea of all AA builds being lumped into the same descriptive pile - there are tonal differences. One should not expect a Mylar or metalized polypropylene build to sound like this paper/wax film build (or a paper in oil build). 

 

Agree!

 

The problem is that most people have experience with their stock XO and maybe one or two variations.  Then the results are all anecdotal stories, albeit from experienced listeners.

 

But what can we do?  I've certainly read about speaker shootouts, but I don't think I've ever heard of a crossover shootout with blind testing.  I'm not even sure how someone would pull that off.

[Budman]

Dean, i need to ask you a question on the ALK's you built for my cornwalls. can you pm me. i don't know how else to get ahold of you. thanks, russ

[Deang]

Can't PM you because I don't know how. With my iPhone, I can't do much of anything since the software change. Can't change my profile info, can't view profiles, can't PM, can't load new images (though I can upload cached or saved images).  Most attempts at just about anything hose my phone up. 

 

Email is dgwescott@gmail.com, or if you want to talk, just call me - 937-344-6164. 

 

Dean

[Deang]

WV - I'm sure Schu would have no trouble being able to identify my AA build from the AL-4 in a DBT - as long as you use material he's intimately familiar with. 

 

We sometimes use different words to describe the same thing - describing sound isn't always easy - it's like trying to describe the taste of food. 

 

"Beaming". Not sure what Michael is hearing here. The AA crossover point is 1500 cycles higher than the AL-4. The AL-4 will have a better power response, since it crosses over before the vertical response completely collapses. Distortion should also be lower at higher volumes, since it uses steeper slopes. Conventional wisdom says that the loudspeaker with the best power response will "sound better". 

 

"Ringing". Another interesting choice word. I would like more detail on this one.

 

My AA build(s) sound more relaxed and open. Though technically "beaming" as it reaches the transition area, listeners often comment on the excellent imaging. 

[Chief bonehead]

On 8/7/2016 at 7:02 PM, wvu80 said:

 

 

 

Roy, your responses are always so cryptic! 

 

I guess smart people are like that. 

+++

 

I'm halfway expecting Roy to wait 24 hours, then respond with something like "yeah, you can replace the AL-4 with an AA if you want, but if you turn the volume up past 4 you'll blow all the drivers..." 

well unfortunately for some, cryptic is not good.  not necessarily doing it to be cryptic.  i really just wonder what you and others will hear that makes one go backward in choosing networks that were by the way, chosen by mr k himself.  i will always take pauls word and his thoughts over anyone deciding, without any kind of measuring equipment, other than ears to make the judgement call.  not that ears are not an important part of the evaluation chain, but that doing that in an environment that is less than ideal.  one thing that i do remember to do is to listen to speakers with different kinds of types of musics in order to see if where the improvement was done is being excited.  

 

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.  shallow slope filters can cause so many lobes to develop between two sections of the speaker.  it also allows the devices to tend to operate at extreme ends of their capabilities.  i guess that is why intially the hertiage speakers were rated for 100 watts.

 

and deciding to choose expensive, and supposedly better components, can be misleading.  if the elements do actually present some sort of advantage, what does that do the freq response curve as compared to the ref curve?  i have said repeatedly, that if the freq response is altered then the values need to be adjusted until the freq response is back to the ref curve.  THAT is more of a meaningful evaluation.  if you dont adjust the freq response, then why not just an eq to system and adjust to flavor.  in essence, adding an element that actually does have a parameter that changes the freq response, is the same thing.  

 

i have done so much work in this field to just support that someone change something to our klipsch speakers to say... that is an upgrade.  the measurements should guide you and should validate what you hear.  

 

i still want to hear from others what they hear in the comparison.  i am and will always be curious.......

[Schu]

19 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

well unfortunately for some, cryptic is not good.  not necessarily doing it to be cryptic.  i really just wonder what you and others will hear that makes one go backward in choosing networks that were by the way, chosen by mr k himself.  i will always take pauls word and his thoughts over anyone deciding, without any kind of measuring equipment, other than ears to make the judgement call.  not that ears are not an important part of the evaluation chain, but that doing that in an environment that is less than ideal.  one thing that i do remember to do is to listen to speakers with different kinds of types of musics in order to see if where the improvement was done is being excited.  

 

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.  shallow slope filters can cause so many lobes to develop between two sections of the speaker.  it also allows the devices to tend to operate at extreme ends of their capabilities.  i guess that is why intially the hertiage speakers were rated for 100 watts.

 

and deciding to choose expensive, and supposedly better components, can be misleading.  if the elements do actually present some sort of advantage, what does that do the freq response curve as compared to the ref curve?  i have said repeatedly, that if the freq response is altered then the values need to be adjusted until the freq response is back to the ref curve.  THAT is more of a meaningful evaluation.  if you dont adjust the freq response, then why not just an eq to system and adjust to flavor.  in essence, adding an element that actually does have a parameter that changes the freq response, is the same thing.  

 

i have done so much work in this field to just support that someone change something to our klipsch speakers to say... that is an upgrade.  the measurements should guide you and should validate what you hear.  

 

i still want to hear from others what they hear in the comparison.  i am and will always be curious.......

 

In the past, I have always been an EQ'er... however, since aquiring the LSii's I have been listening to the system flat and trying to tune my ears to the way Klipsch built the system.

 

I spent a year listening to the AL-4's in this manner, and learned to really love the speakers as they left the factory. There really was only one thing that really bothered me, and that was the ringing and beaming of the mid/upper mid range areas of the sound. There were many times where the ringing was very agressive and left me squinting and wanting to turn the music down to try and tame the assault... never once did I try to EQ this characteristic back into line with the other aspects I was really enjoying, which were the beautiful in focus and tight low frequencies and the shimmering long decay times of the upper frequencies. I am quite sure I could tame the mid range if I did EQ the signal, but Ive also had bad experiences in the past with eq'ing where I managed to tame the sound to my liking, however it also killed any of the life and spatial qualities of the music.  

[mustang guy]

24 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

well unfortunately for some, cryptic is not good.  not necessarily doing it to be cryptic.  i really just wonder what you and others will hear that makes one go backward in choosing networks that were by the way, chosen by mr k himself.  i will always take pauls word and his thoughts over anyone deciding, without any kind of measuring equipment, other than ears to make the judgement call.  not that ears are not an important part of the evaluation chain, but that doing that in an environment that is less than ideal.  one thing that i do remember to do is to listen to speakers with different kinds of types of musics in order to see if where the improvement was done is being excited.  

 

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.  shallow slope filters can cause so many lobes to develop between two sections of the speaker.  it also allows the devices to tend to operate at extreme ends of their capabilities.  i guess that is why intially the hertiage speakers were rated for 100 watts.

 

and deciding to choose expensive, and supposedly better components, can be misleading.  if the elements do actually present some sort of advantage, what does that do the freq response curve as compared to the ref curve?  i have said repeatedly, that if the freq response is altered then the values need to be adjusted until the freq response is back to the ref curve.  THAT is more of a meaningful evaluation.  if you dont adjust the freq response, then why not just an eq to system and adjust to flavor.  in essence, adding an element that actually does have a parameter that changes the freq response, is the same thing.  

 

i have done so much work in this field to just support that someone change something to our klipsch speakers to say... that is an upgrade.  the measurements should guide you and should validate what you hear.  

 

i still want to hear from others what they hear in the comparison.  i am and will always be curious.......

It is safe to reproduce the FR curve exactly. Listener's tastes and even the listener's hearing capabilities vary so greatly, not to mention across the different music types. To impassion the final sound with personality to meet the subjective desires of the target demographic may not be a bad thing. Many people prefer to listen through tube amplification more than a very high SNR SS amp. As I understand it, tubes distort the original FR in a way that is pleasing to those people. What sense does that make? There has been some science done to try to figure out the answers to that very question.

 

Having a high SN ratio undoubtedly sets the stage for the response, or perhaps the excuse, that you can't blame the speakers for the less pleasing sound. On the other hand, it does nothing to set the speakers apart from the rest. Which is best? A better question may be "which isn't the worst?"

 

I think that is why many like you have the continued interest of "why people revert to older networks?" or "why people like tube amps more?". The artist can record, the studio can master, and the amp or AVR can boost, eq,, otherwise distort, and even perform mixing and crossover functions between speakers and subs. The speaker, however, is the point at which the final blow is landed before the sound hits the ears. Predicting what all of the manipulation and distortion is between the original track and the speaker wire for a single track is difficult enough. Predicting those things for all sound types and all listeners at all volumes and in all rooms of all shapes and sizes is impossible. Even if it could be predicted, there is not a single chance there would be one individual thing that could be done which would improve all of them.

 

If you have accurate speakers, that can be measured with incredible accuracy. I am sure there is a short list of truly accurate speakers. Other than having accurate speakers, the only thing to set your speakers apart are cosmetics, psychology, and other snake-oil and BS props. 

 

Perhaps all this means that you are right to match the FR curve (and timbre?) of the original signal as exactly as possible. There is enough going on between the original cut and the speaker wires. Nothing else is needed. Less is more in this case...