Jump to content

Chorus 1 Questions


Chorus1 Fan
 Share

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, jason str said:

Nothing is free in the audio world, its all give and take.

Very true,  but two $3 port tube and 4 cents worth of electrical tape are closer to free than usual in this hobby.

The key is, you will always wonder "what if" if you don't try.

Heck, it's almost February, I could use a good $6.04 project.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say for $6 give it a try but honestly I think I have to side with Jason on this one. I recently compared the Chorus 1 to the Chorus II and I actually really liked the Chorus 1 sound quite a bit better in my room, much more tight and realistic sounding. The Chorus II sounded flabby and a little bloated next to the 1's. I'm sure the room made a big difference as well as type of music and what not so yes, I'd say try it out not much to lose but give it some time maybe a few days and switch back and forth to really get a good idea of what you're hearing because first impressions aren't always right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pzannucci said:

To get lower, increase the size of the box and length of the port.  This can be done to squeeze several hz of bass extension.  Not quite a free lunch.

 

Klipsch was able to lower the bass response from 45hz in the Chorus 1 to 39hz in the Chorus II just by changing the port?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jjptkd said:

 

Klipsch was able to lower the bass response from 45hz in the Chorus 1 to 39hz in the Chorus II just by changing the port?

Chorus II does not use a port (well unless you consider the passive a port).  I'm not sure these are the same woofers.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jjptkd said:

Passive radiators are ports from what I understand, typically used in situations where a standard port would be too long for the cabinet and both Chorus models use the same woofer.

 

Having fun with edits, not.  Yes just checked on the woofer.  

 

You are basically correct, the passive is equal to the mass of the air in a port that size to a point.  They do have an x-max which needs to be paid attention to.

 

My point about making the box larger and extending the port was when using a standard port.  There is a difference in the sound of a port and a passive radiator, particularly when one is pointed forward and other is in back.

 

As you mentioned earlier, flabby and bloated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pzannucci said:

You are basically correct, the passive is equal to the mass of the air in a port that size to a point.  They do have an x-max which needs to be paid attention to.

...

As you mentioned earlier, flabby and bloated.

 

 

I submit that a passive radiator has mass that exceeds that of the air in a typical listening room, much less that in a tube inside the cabinet... at least they don't "chuff."

 

And perhaps better said flabbier and bloateder, as there are many that feel a ported box itself is indeed both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jjptkd said:

I'd say for $6 give it a try but honestly I think I have to side with Jason on this one. I recently compared the Chorus 1 to the Chorus II and I actually really liked the Chorus 1 sound quite a bit better in my room, much more tight and realistic sounding.

Yes to this and the big bonus of placing your speaker anywhere and it works right and is not corner dependent.

 

2 hours ago, jjptkd said:

Passive radiators are ports from what I understand, typically used in situations where a standard port would be too long for the cabinet and both Chorus models use the same woofer.

90 degree angle and then extend from there perhaps? How long does it need to be anyway?

 

26 minutes ago, glens said:

at least they don't "chuff."

 

I guess I am missing something here. I see this term used but I can't say I have ever noticed anything like this with speakers I have had.

 

  I don't have a set of Chorus I's to play with but I know sometimes blocking a port can lower hz. I had a pair of EV tl440's and if you wanted the lowest hz you had to block one of the two ports. Playing with a program called BoxNotes last night which was indicating on the KPT-456's if I blocked two of the four ports the lowest hz would drop more than you might think. I would take front ported over a passive any day and if this is right is just another reason in favor of front ports. You can tune these front ports with length and or covering one or more ports. With passives even though you can put weights on a passive and tune it that way you still have to use a corner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave A said:
34 minutes ago, glens said:

at least they don't "chuff."

 

I guess I am missing something here. I see this term used but I can't say I have ever noticed anything like this with speakers I have had.

 

 

You've never heard a port make self-generated noise while performing its task?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, glens said:

 

You've never heard a port make self-generated noise while performing its task?

No to be honest I have not that I could identify. Maybe it is there but to me all I hear is a speaker that sounds different than others do which is what I expect anyway since they are different. No steam engines or puff puff noises I can tell with speakers I have had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not (usually) a typical occurrence, but if for any reason the port gets overloaded it's definitely something that gets one's attention.  Think along the lines of "below tuned frequency information at high levels."  A drone may clack in such a situation but I think it less likely to happen, at least not as readily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glens said:

 

I submit that a passive radiator has mass that exceeds that of the air in a typical listening room, much less that in a tube inside the cabinet... at least they don't "chuff."

 

And perhaps better said flabbier and bloateder, as there are many that feel a ported box itself is indeed both.

For the size and amount of movement.  Passives are limited, air is not.

 

http://www.mh-audio.nl/Calculators/PassiveRadiator.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, glens said:

It's not (usually) a typical occurrence, but if for any reason the port gets overloaded it's definitely something that gets one's attention.  Think along the lines of "below tuned frequency information at high levels."  A drone may clack in such a situation but I think it less likely to happen, at least not as readily.

Here is where you need surface area on the passive.  That should be at least 2 to 3 times the area with associated available x-max to be at least equal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the some of the online posts(Quotes) that got me interested in this mod to start with 😎  (1 on this forum, one on another one)

 

 

 

" With the Chorus I would suggest adding a couple of port tubes to the holes in the front, bring the total depth up to about 7". The bass will sound quite a bit better (more like the Chorus II). The cabinets are tuned to around 45hz @ -3db. With the help of some fellow AKers, I cut some tubes to fit the ports and dropped the cabinet tuning to around 38hz. The modification is totally reversible. The new tuning is very close to what I want."

 

 

 

" I read on another site that I should try port tubes in my Chorus Is that are about 7" long to get the bass a little lower.  to test i used a mp3 called "bass hit"...its an old song that the kids played back in the day to rattle everything in their cars. It has a point in the song where the bass hits 4 low notes in sequence getting progressively lower. Without the port tubes, note 3 was about half the volume of notes 1 and 2 with note 4 being almost non existant. With the port tubes installed note 3 was as loud as 1 and 2 and note 4 was much quieter but definitely audible/felt. I do not know what frequency these notes are but it did make a difference. For 25 bux in parts you cant beat it. Sorry it wasnt more technical and scientific but it works. "

 

 
Edited by 4JaxJags
backspaced
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glens said:

It's not (usually) a typical occurrence, but if for any reason the port gets overloaded it's definitely something that gets one's attention.  Think along the lines of "below tuned frequency information at high levels."  A drone may clack in such a situation but I think it less likely to happen, at least not as readily.

Most of what I hear is Klipsch and the excursion is pretty small so not a tremendous amount of air volume moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you get below tuning the woofer moves quite a bit.

 

In the case of the Chorus II you will never hear the passive overexcursion until its too late.

 

You may gain a few Hz in the bottom end extending the ports but you will give up something else in return hence my sub recommendation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave A said:

Most of what I hear is Klipsch and the excursion is pretty small so not a tremendous amount of air volume moving.

 

Well, I'm a Klipsch neophyte; and I've noticed it's more typical these days to round over port ends so things would be much quieter when there's actually "airflow."

 

I don't know but suspect that a woofer wouldn't become as "unloaded" below system tuning with a drone as it does with a port.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, glens said:

 

Well, I'm a Klipsch neophyte; and I've noticed it's more typical these days to round over port ends so things would be much quieter when there's actually "airflow."

 

I don't know but suspect that a woofer wouldn't become as "unloaded" below system tuning with a drone as it does with a port.

 

Major problem with the port noise is when the speed is too great.  That's why boxes should be bigger along with port area/volume.

Below box resonance, the woofer unloads and maybe the passives will keep it from over excursion but if you have a 2 to 3 multiplier as you are supposed to for passives, I think destruction is just as likely as with a port.  Need to give that a try :biggrin:

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...