WMcD Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 For people's information. JPEG format is good for photographs. My understanding is that the algorithm finds a mathmatical function, some sort of curve, which fits the somewhat slow changes beween the pixels. However, this means it is dealing with gradual changes. The problem is that drawings have very quick transitions from a white background, to a black line, and back to white. The JPEG algorithm is forced to put a grey in the transition area. So we get halos at the transitions and these result in fuzzy lines. One solution is to increase the resolution. But then number of pixels and file size goes up very quickly. The GIF algorithm is meant to be used with drawings. It handles the transitions very well. All the scanning software I use will let you choose this short of thing somewhere. Either "scan drawing" or "text as image." One HP scan software package I use even allows you to chose bit depth. E.g. you can have just 0 and 1 or 8 or 16 levels of grey, etc. The result is that gif files turn out to have better resolution for file size if you're dealing with scanned text and line drawings. BTW: The most accurate but least efficent file format is bitmap. If you have to start with that, you can use MS Paint to open it and then save as GIF. I always use Paint to check things in any event. I find that 200 dpi is good for most scans of 8.5 x 11 if they're to be printe. On the other hand, the image is too big to see on a screen with regular resolution. Others here can give more detailed advice. The lesson is that it pays big to take control of the scan programs rather than let them run off on their own. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 TIFF files would be better, and I wouldn't do anything serious under 300 dpi. You can always resample the image to a smaller size for posting, to give an idea what it looks like. the gif format only allows for 256 colors, while the jpg format allows for 65k and up, If aliasing is turned on in your software, it will fill in the blocks of the diagonals with another pixel of a lighter shade. THis can tend to make things look fuzzier. I can't believe you took the time to do that in Paint! I started to go over the first drawing in Photoshop, but have had a busy week and didn't spend much time on it. I can't on the weekend as I have a bedroom to paint before my daughter gets back from Santa Fe early Monday morning. In looking at all three drawings, I can see where this is just a flattened out LS (sorta). I should be able to do the 3D images of this part of the cabinet pretty quickly. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardre Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Tom - you are correct....no riser on my center Belle because it makes the speaker stick up just a wee bit too far when I have the screen configured for 1.85 ratio flicks....I have a couple of sticks layed down for stability so's the speaker doesn't rock to and fro on the woofer hatch. Outstanding work on the 'not so steller' prints!!! I was hurried when I took the measurements and admittedly did not cross check the sums of the individual measurements to verify that indeed they totaled the whole. Sorry. I should however have some breathing room this weekend to revisit my measurements and will post any glaring probs next week. Have a great 4th of July weekend everybody!!! Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I also spent some time with it in Photoshop and didn't get much of anywhere. I agree that a 300 DPI TIFF would be ideal, and though they start out huge they generally ZIP down nicely. Unfortunately I haven't had any time to do more with it since the initial once-over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 What mid-horn does the Belle use? I see old Klipsch literature, looks like from the mid 70's, where they spec the crossovers as 400 and 6000. Current specs show 450 and 4500. K-400/401 won't fit in the cabinet, I believe the Heresy uses a K-700. I thought the Cornwall used a K-600, is that what's in the Belle too? They're a little hard to come by. Anybody making any progress with re-drawing the plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Reed Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 The Belle uses the K-505 mid horn. I know this because I just bought a pair for another project. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardre Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 "What mid-horn does the Belle use? " Tom, my Belles use Altec 511b's. Is the K-505 a 500hz horn like the K-400 is a 400hz horn? What is the '05' designation? I'm pretty sure that the horn that originally came with my '74 belle was a 400hz horn. It's in the garage now....I'll check it out tonight and verify..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 Maybe we should just basardize a lascala to look like a belle instead of starting from scratch ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 A LaScala is about 25" deep, a Belle is only about 18" deep. the Belle is much less obtrusive along a wall. It's really a WAF thing. That LaBelle you posted the pic of, is that one from the guy in Tx or is that of Greg's creations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 Tom : Ya, i do believe this is one of the creations from the texas guy . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardre Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 My '74 Belle came with a mid-horn that's stamped 'K-500'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Reed Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I believe the mid horn in the Belle has gone through a few minor changes. That's probably the reason for the designation changes from the K500 to the K505. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hey, you Belle owners: What in the heck is the exact height of the Belle bass bin? DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardre Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 22.5" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Thanks, Ed. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 is that including the riser? how tall is the riser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 I'm pretty sure a Belle basshorn is simply a LaScala in which the the non-flaring part of the horn after the corner, the first part of the horn running rear-to-front, is running sideways in the back. Thus when the corner is turned you go directly to the final flare. Thus the horn is wider, and also shallower, by the dimension of that non-flaring part of the horn. It then follows that with LaScala plans, which are easily obtained, the mechanically inclined can easily figure how to make a Belle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Tom, I'm pretty sure you are right about that. Technically, the belle bass horn might even be slightly better than the LS just for that reason. The LS cabinet has that section you're pointing out, it has no flare at all. I seriously doubt it makes any audible difference, but it's there. Just tonight I was looking over this stuff again, I've been so busy at work and home I haven't had time or energy to do anything with it. I'm glad you pointed it out in such an easy to understand manner. But then, you're always good at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 In fact, according to the dimensions Klipsch lists for the current selling models, the Belle is about 6.5" wider than the LS, and the LS is about 6" deeper. Looks like a wash to me. This whole deal just got a lot easier to understand for me. Thanks again, Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Tim H, The email I'm sending to your hotmail addreess is bouncing, the hotmail servers aren't giving a reason. I forwarded some stuff to your IEEE address and tried again to your hotmail, but it bounced again. Check your IEEE email for the attachments. Tom 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.