Alexander Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 Having read in another thread how ALK removes the LF VC inductance value from the low pass coil value and that it is not the industry norm. So should we consider "putting it back" into the low pass coil value if using one of his designs? In my case the forte II has a 2.0 mH listed and one would add back the .66mH so say replace the 2.0mH with say a 2.7mH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 Klipsch has done all the leg work figuring this stuff out, if its not broke don't fix it. I know the forte woofers themselves are limited in frequency response very near their crossover point anyway so probably not needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Alexander said: Having read in another thread how ALK removes the LF VC inductance value from the low pass coil value and that it is not the industry norm. I stated in the other thread that Al considered the VC inductance of woofer as being part of the network -- apparently that's not true. I found the original thread where he discusses this. It is true that backing out the VC inductance from the low pass coil is not done by anyone else. The problem is that the inductance changes based on the position of VC, as well as the current being applied -- the inductance in modulated by the input signal. I've built many versions of the Universal, and the lower coil value sounded "off" to me -- as if I was losing some upper midrange through the bass bin. I suggest you try it both ways and see what you think. 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.