J.4knee Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 OK, I Just put in the first 2 of three ALK kit series A crossovers in my 84 La Scalas. The first thing I noticed was an immediate increase in the presence of the tweeter and high range sounds. The mid range is clear and everything in the mid to HF sound is very crisp and more brilliant. I have noticed a slightly less emphasized bass output (by this I am talking how loud the bass plays vs. the AL series), which I was not expecting. I have a Radio Shack SPL meter but I am not sure the representation would be accurate as I have heard its sampling range is limited on these meters and I do not want to put the ALs back in to do an A/B. It may be an anomaly I will have to wait and see. It is more noticeable in the right speaker, which lacks a corner behind it. For there first test run I selected Michael Lington Everything Must Change. The overall sound is excellent genuine improvements they light up and announce themselves similar to the first time I heard them. I will have to spend more time listening to them before I can offer any more on the topic but so far it is a definite thumbs up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 J.4.. What notice might be real. I think you might want to reduce the squawker level setting a bit. Most people like x-4 best but 5-2 might be better for you. This will bring the bass up in relation to the mids. My tweeter filter has lower loss than the stock filter and will make the tweeter seem hoter. If it bothers you, you might add an "L pad" in the tweeter sometime later. The radio shack meter will do ok if you can find a CD that has 1/3 octave pink noise tests. You just can't use CW tones as a lot of people try to do at first. CW tones are all over the place! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 Al, Thanks for the suggestion. The bass problem is coming from only one speaker (the right one). I am considering the 5/2 setting in general but my bass problem appears to be my woofer. The only bass I hear from that speaker appears to be coming from the bottom end of the squawker range. I replaced the fuse just to see if it inadvertently blew but it did not. My listening level never peaked above 80 db ran at an average of about 72 at my listening position, which is about 9 feet measured on the diagonal from the La Scala's. As luck would have it I ordered a K33E woofer that I was going to use in my build of a center channel split La Scala. Ironically it came today. I have noticed the bass was weaker in that speaker for a while but with your super clear crossovers it is very noticeable now. I though maybe it was the old AL crossover starting to fail. Now I have to pull the bottom off of my La Scala, which has not been done in over 20 years. R/Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 J.4Knee What level setting for the squawker are you using now. I'm using the 5-2 setting(KHorn) in my system/room setup. Definitly use very good recordings to get a good feel for where you want to leave it set. Variations in Recordings and room/setup can definitly affect your preferance. mike edit: I see you have found a problem with the woofer section hope its just a bad connection or something simple for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I DIY'd my own ALK's a year or two ago. They're in a set of DIY LS with new K-33. I listened to them awhile with the stock setting, went to 5-2 just to see what it would be like. They're still on 5-2. I went back to 4-x once, went straight back to 5-2. Best for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 OK I have more bass out of the former bass-less speaker. IT appeared to be a connection. I tightened everything down again after I put the woofer back in the doghouse. I compared the K33 in that speaker with my new one and could not discern a difference. I had to do the test anecdotally though using a bass track from PF DSTM. I am curious how much influence the corner vs. the non-corner is attributing to this problem. I have the speaker with less bass against one wall only angled to point to the listening position. Where as the other speaker is not hard fast in a corner but has more surfaces around it to reinforce the bass. Next I am going to try the 5/2 to see how I like that. In the long rung I am probably going put in new diaphragms, but they are not in the budget yet. I have to finish my center channel unit first. I may at some point, try the K-401 horn lenses as well. But as my boss would say there is no budget allotment for that yet. Thanks for all the recommendations guys. This was my first trip into the doghouse, getting the bottom cover off took some old-fashioned elbow grease. That had been on there since it left the factory in 84. I was surprised how easy it is to line up and mount the woofer. I figure with its weight there would be a tendency for it to sag but it lined right up no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 J.4Knee, Yes, the corner restricts the extreme low bass to half the area that it sees along a wall. That means twice as much gets to you! That was why PWK folded the Khorn to fit in the corner! The 2-5 setting on the squawker give slightly better impedance match to the squawker filter than x-4, but it's a smal difference. X-4 is best for low level listening. That setting helps follow the "Fletcher-Munsen" curves a bit better, I think. 2-5 is where I used to set all of the ones I build. It is truly a matter of taste though. Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 On an interesting aside. My wife finally listed to them last night and was astounded at the difference. Her comment was something to the affect of "Wow they sound really crisp and clean" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 Double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-Man Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 J.4Knee, I think that as you listen you will find that the bass even sounds cleaner. This is do to second order harmonics, and a better woofer choke. It's easier to tell if you A/B the networks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 As I listen to these more and more I can hear nuances and subtle changes I thought were gone due to hearing loss or something. I am genuinely pleased with the result so far. I hear a cleaner sound across the board. Now that I have my bass issue resolved. I am not sure what was loose because I took the woofer out and reinstalled it and when I re-connected the speakers to test them there was bass. I am definitely glad I made this change. Last night the little Mrs. was forced to close the bedroom door as I was ..well lets just say I was conducting a more in depth test (like closing the door did any good). IMO the dynamics and clarity has been significantly improved. I will admit a portion of improvement comes from replacing old deteriorated networks with newer ones. But I also feel there has been a smoothing effect as well as an improvement in clarity over the old AL networks even in their hey day. I take my hat off to Al and his design. I have yet to make the 2-5 change Ill probably try it this weekend. We just watched Finding Nemo the detail and imaging were astounding when the fishes were swapping places all over the screen their voices followed perfectly. This happened before but not with such clarity and accuracy. It was like the sound literally followed the image on the screen seamlessly, kind of like you felt the move. I am not sure if my description does justice to what I heard/experienced. At this stage I would have to say a definite thumbs up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 "nuances" -- I hate that word, along with, "organic". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Dean, YEAH! How about the word "succulent" and the name Lezzzzzlie! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 ---------------- On 9/15/2004 1:31:39 PM DeanG wrote: "nuances" -- I hate that word, along with, "organic". ---------------- Deano send me a style guide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 LOL -- I've come to hate audiophile verbiage, as it tells you absolutely NOTHING about the sound. They use the same words whether they're writing and describing the sound from sitting a rock on top of a CD player, or a set of speakers. How about we keep it simple and actually get something out of the description? Clean, clear, open, and grain free -- with a nice tight sound down low with good grip. I think that sums up the sound of a nice rig. One isn't likely to get anywhere near this sound with old, out of spec networks. Right now, I'm down to: "Sounds great", "sounds good", "sounds O.K.", "sounds tolerable", and "sounds like crap". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 15, 2004 Author Share Posted September 15, 2004 I think what may have been a better description was the detail I heard that clearly was not there before. Their dynamic range has improved significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 Dean, here some of my favorite irritants although Im fading way off topic but hey its my thread: Orientated in lieu of oriented Irregardless in lieu of irrespective or regardless. Utilize when use or works best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Guys, I think the problem is quite simple actually... Everybody know what, for example, an apple tastes like. right? Well, tell me what it tastes like.. You can't! Please, let nobody say "succulent"! So, tell me what your stereo sounds like.. You can't do that either! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 picky, picky, picky, OK AL here this one is for you. It has a sensitive yet voluptuous, full, sound that arouses your ears to an unanticipated aural pleasure but it does not sound succulent! How is that for a mouth full of nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 J.4 You wouldn't be running for political office, would you? Al K. 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.