grindstone Posted November 24, 2022 Share Posted November 24, 2022 Hey Jim, just tripped-over a '58 Mar Hi-Fi blurb about parts to either corrob or mess with your ointment. FWIW & thanks for fighting entropy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRH Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 Thanks, grindstone! Not sure I've seen this one, but it has been added to the digital archive in case we don't have that particular issue. No surprises. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanksjim1 Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 Just to add a bit to this post for those that might not have seen the upgrade doc from Klipsch at the time... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted November 30, 2022 Moderators Share Posted November 30, 2022 @JRH and @Chief bonehead we have discussed what PWK called the circuit/device that is often (incorrectly) referred to as a network. At one point I looked at a number of DRF that he authored along with AES and other papers he authored and he typically used the phrase “crossover network.” Occasionally he would use the term “balancing network.” PWK was a wordsmith of sorts, and tended to be very precise in his journal articles. Are the terms “balancing network” and “crossover network” interchangeable? Or is the device up above truly a balancing network as opposed to a crossover network? Or, did the term change or evolve (e.g., CPS to hZ) from ‘50s to his writings 20-30 years later. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRH Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 I believe they can be used interchangably. "Network", for PWK, was greatly influenced by his graduate study under Frederick Termin at Stanford. The oldest loudspeaker "network" so far identified in the Klipsch Archive is 1951, where "crossover network" was used. Semantics does evolve. The original impedance rating of the Klipschorn was 16 ohms. The DCR of the woofer coil was, and remains, a little over 3 ohms. It is no longer considered "16 ohms". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted November 30, 2022 Moderators Share Posted November 30, 2022 1 minute ago, JRH said: I believe they can be used interchangably. "Network", for PWK, was greatly influenced by his graduate study under Frederick Termin at Stanford. The oldest loudspeaker "network" so far identified in the Klipsch Archive is 1951, where "crossover network" was used. Semantics does evolve. The original impedance rating of the Klipschorn was 16 ohms. The DCR of the woofer coil was, and remains, a little over 3 ohms. It is no longer considered "16 ohms". Thank you Jim. “Just don’t call it a crossover.” 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W. Posted December 3, 2022 Share Posted December 3, 2022 I notice that this is a T-2 ( with one fewer taps than the later T-2A) When was the T-2A implemented and what are the differences in the winding ratios of the taps between the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRH Posted December 7, 2022 Share Posted December 7, 2022 You've stumped "the historian"! It will take some research to identify the transition date. I highly suspect that both transformers have taps "spaced" by 3dB. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W. Posted December 7, 2022 Share Posted December 7, 2022 Thanks Jim, looking forward to what you can dig up! 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.