TheEvan Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Installed your AA's in my 77 Khorns this evening. Why was under the impression these were just a fresh component version of the Klipsch AA? It's one heck of an upgrade! The sound improvement is dramatic. The voices of the Hillyard Ensemble singing Gesualdo's wild Tenebrae have never sounded like this! Yum! A big fat thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Evan, They are just a fresh component version of the originals with some minor manufacturing quality improvements in the components. The main difference is that you were listening to 28 year old worn out stuff before and now you are hearing the AA work like it should. Glad you are enjoying the music. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEvan Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 Hmm, that's how the crossovers have been represented here. but the components on your board are so much beefier than the old stock unit. And more of them. It's a great sound. Makes me wonder what that old set I once had (a 54 and 57 Khorn) would have sounded like with upgraded components. The wooden sqwakers sure were pretty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEvan Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 PS, what do folks do with their "de-installed" old crossovers? Any use for them or the parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 You need to call the EPA for proper disposal. Believe it or not, all of the parts with the exception of the capacitors are fit for reuse -- they just look like crap. You can try to sell them for cheap, or pull the caps and clean them up for possible reuse in the future. All of the parts on the board below came off the old board with the exception of the capacitors. The parts clean up nice, you just have to be willing to spend some time on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Guys, I might point out here that labor these days is more expensive than parts! I don't think Dean is going to want to keep doing that kind of overhaul on old networks much longer. If you are going to spend that kind of money to turn the clock back to 1975 with new parts in an old design, why not spend the money to turn the clock forward to a better design too. If you like the way a "new" AA sounds, try a true constant-impdeance multiplexer netwrok once! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 1:43:01 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: Guys, I might point out here that labor these days is more expensive than parts! I don't think Dean is going to want to keep doing that kind of overhaul on old networks much longer. If you are going to spend that kind of money to turn the clock back to 1975 with new parts in an old design, why not spend the money to turn the clock forward to a better design too. If you like the way a "new" AA sounds, try a true constant-impdeance multiplexer netwrok once! Al K. ---------------- Al, Perhaps you should also try a completely new AA. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Bob, After looking at the response in the computer using absolutely pure perfect components I just can't bring myself to do that! The AA is an economy design intended to be built for the minimum expendature by Klipsch. If saving money is your intension then rebuilding the AA with new parts is the way to go though. If you really want to upgrade, then do that! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffgeorge Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Al, Why don't you leave Bob alone. He produces a fine product at a price point that is attainable for most people. I know that you produce a fine product yourself, but to bash Bob and the rest of us that have bought networks from him, seems a bit distasteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 3:10:43 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: Bob, After looking at the response in the computer using absolutely pure perfect components I just can't bring myself to do that! The AA is an economy design intended to be built for the minimum expendature by Klipsch. If saving money is your intension then rebuilding the AA with new parts is the way to go though. If you really want to upgrade, then do that! Al K. ---------------- Al, But when we look at the anechoic chamber results of the AA in a Khorn, it is hard to see a place to improve its response. Have you done that type of testing to make sure you have an upgrade? As far as the AA being an "economy" design, I don't know how the tweeter filter could have been any more expensive to implement than is done in the AA. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The tweeter filter in the AA uses two cap of the same value (2 uF, which I have point out may times is wrong). Buying in quantity of the same value saves money. The AA filter was done only becasue the single cap of the "A" network was blowing tweeters and costing PWK waranty replacement costs. The inductor is the simpelest thing going. Some of them even had a steel screw through them when a brass one was needed. My universal upgrade network prototyped WAS tested in an anechoic chamber, but it was done under the agreement that the resulting curves were not to be published. I can't post the results. I will simpy have to say that they were exactly what I expected except that the curves showed that I initially had the squawker phase reversed. That was easy to fix. Again Bob, You do not have to justify the AA netwrok you build to anybody. It has PWK's finger prints on it and people will buy it becasue of that. It's Paul Klipsch who must justify it and he's not around to do it any more (sadly). People should simply realize that replacing all the parts in something with new ones is NOT an upgrade, it's maintainance, and that is perfecty justifyable. Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Al, is your netwrok good for classical and jazz, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 4:49:44 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: The tweeter filter in the AA uses two cap of the same value (2 uF, which I have point out may times is wrong). Buying in quantity of the same value saves money. The AA filter was done only becasue the single cap of the "A" network was blowing tweeters and costing PWK waranty replacement costs. The inductor is the simpelest thing going. Some of them even had a steel screw through them when a brass one was needed. My universal upgrade network prototyped WAS tested in an anechoic chamber, but it was done under the agreement that the resulting curves were not to be published. I can't post the results. I will simpy have to say that they were exactly what I expected except that the curves showed that I initially had the squawker phase reversed. That was easy to fix. Again Bob, You do not have to justify the AA netwrok you build to anybody. It has PWK's finger prints on it and people will buy it becasue of that. It's Paul Klipsch who must justify it and he's not around to do it any more (sadly). People should simply realize that replacing all the parts in something with new ones is NOT an upgrade, it's maintainance, and that is perfecty justifyable. Al K. ---------------- Al, You are correct that the new crossovers and rebuild jobs that I do are not to be considered upgrades. What I do is make a copy using new parts. My goal is to get them sounding like they did when they left the factory. If I were to produce an upgrade, I would have to prove someway that it was an upgrade. I would have to find a point on the reference plots for a Khorn (for instance) and show the need for improvement at that point and show how my "upgrade" improved that point. Since I don't have access to an anechoic chanber or the money to build one, guess I won't ever produce something I would call an upgrade. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Bob, Yes, It is definity MY problem to show that MY networks are an upgrade. Since I beleive that people hear what they want to hear, I try to do it with instrument tests rather than just swearing on a stack of Bibles that mine sounds better. I am just one guy and my opinion counts exacly ONE vote! As to my networks with Classical music, man, that's just about all I listen to! I do have one Kenny G recording. That's about as far as I have gone into Jazz though! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 You are correct that the new crossovers and rebuild jobs that I do are not to be considered upgrades. What I do is make a copy using new parts. My goal is to get them sounding like they did when they left the factory. ---------------- Which is why you would be my choice! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Bill, I believe most people think as you do. Stick with what the original manufacturer intended. This is the "safe" route. Going with an "upgrade" is a gamble. Choosing an upgrade depends on your own research, taking the word of someone you trust or by the reputation of the vendor. All I can do is offer to buy back any network I sell that the customer doesn't think is worth the money he paid. So far, NOBODY has ever asked to return one of my Universal replacements and only a single Cornwall network has been returned. Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I don't think anyone has to worry about me doing those "restorations" on a regular basis, because I don't and won't! This is only the second one I've ever done where I've taken the old parts and cleaned them up. The fellow only wanted me to do a cap change, but after I saw what the boards would look like after I did the work, well, I can't put my name on something that looks like that. So I redid the boards for the sake of pride I guess. Yeah, I took a real beating on those. I encourage people to pay a little more and build them from scratch. I don't like the old iron cores, and prefer steel laminates or air cores. Considering that the Erse Super Q's only run about $12 each, I don't know why anyone would bother with an iron core. The new autotransformers are better too. I can take an old T2A, put it in my hand, squeeze it, and feel the copper moving around underneath -- I prefer just to pitch them into the trash. I see absolutely no point in reusing any of the old parts if a person is going to spend the money to do this. Opting to have the autotransformers and inductors replaced only adds about $100 to the cost. People spend all this money on their gear, and then cheat the speakers! I don't want to hear anything about how it doesn't make any difference either. I'll be picking up on that back in the other thread - where I'm going to be shooting for the "Idiot Audiophile of the Year Award." "My goal is to get them sounding like they did when they left the factory." Well, the only way that is going to happen is if you use paper in oil (or polyester) capacitors. Of course, all you switch crazy types can't hear a difference anyway. "...when we look at the anechoic chamber results of the AA in a Khorn, it is hard to see a place to improve its response." Who is "we", and what anechoic chamber results are you looking at? the response is all over the place! "As far as the AA being an "economy" design, I don't know how the tweeter filter could have been any more expensive to implement than is done in the AA." Well, obviously you can go with steeper filter slopes like Klipsch finally did with the AK-4, or Al's ESN. If you are talking about going back to the time when PK developed the network, you have a point, especially when you add in the zeners. I don't understand the tweeter leg of that network. Since I don't have a fraction of the mind PK had, maybe I never will. Still, I have access to some pretty nifty calculators, and some decent books -- and the thing just plain doesn't make any sense. I simply can't figure out what he was thinking. Al remodeled it, and changing the first 2uF to a 4uF, and the inductor to a .15mH gives a much smoother top end. I think PK just didn't like anything that decreased sensitivity, no matter how little -- and he was obviously willing to sacrifice a smoother frequency because of this. I like his speakers a lot, but think they sound much better when a db or two are given up to get a smoother response. As for the general sound of the AA, it sounds good -- but it doesn't sound as good as a network with a bandpass for that squawker. No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Don't worry gang. I will be happy to continue to rebuild PWK's orginals. I have done over a hundred so far. I like stuff that is built to last and also easy to fix. I have never seen an original Klipsch network that I did not think was worth rebuilding or that did not test perfect after the rebuild. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Crites, you wiener, get back in here and fight. Of the two, I think I still like the Type A better, and yeah, I think those motor runs do O.K., but I sure wish you would use those other ones we talked about. I know I would sure feel better. LOL. The bandpass does work good though, and you should try it -- but you have to use the swamping resistor, or the inductor value for the lowpass section of the bandpass is too big (which might be one of the reasons PK didn't put one there $$$). 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.