Trachorn 400

[consistent]

Hi Guys,

Would anybody be aware of how the Trachorn may sound with a pair of AK4 Khorns?

Would I need some 'taming' on the top end?

Al, I read that some tweaking may be needed, what are your thoughts? I am still keen in giving it a go. Only problem is shipping costs to get these wooden marvels down below to Australia!

Cheers

[Deang]

That is the one network that I think will definitely give you some problems with the Trachorn. The AK-4 network is optimized for the K-401, and there are several things going on in that network that are put in place to deal with some of the response issues related to that horn. The two options open to you are either upgrading the quality of the capacitors in the squawker and tweeter sections of the AK-4 -- or dumping the network altogether for some other option. Either way, not inexpensive by any stretch.

[Al Klappenberger]

consistent,

I'm with Dean on this. I would not pair the AK-4 and the Trachorn.

AL K.

[consistent]

Thanks Guys for your honesty.

What sort of caps would you recommend? I have just made some changes to my tube pre-amp using Hovlands (what a significant improvement) and have ordered some Sonicaps to try out. Mundorf Mcap supremes seem to be getting a lot of accolades but are not cheap. If I change out the caps will this lead to other tweaks being needed?

Ciao

[Al Klappenberger]

I do not agree with Dean that upgrading the caps in the AK-4 will make it compatable with anyhting but the K400 horn. Don't even try it! The very design of the AK-4 is not compatable with the Trachorn.

Al K.

[sunnysal]

I think Dean was saying that the ONLY options for owners of AK-4 crossovers are cap supgrades NOT swapping drivers and horns...tony

[Deang]

Yes, Tony is right, that is exactly what I meant. C'mon Al!

[Deang]

O.K., I finally found some time to play. Here is my my state of the art test setup. Yes, I know, it's pathetic -- but it's the best I can do.

[Deang]

Uncorrected response measurement with the Behringer RTA using my first order constant impedance network with 6db of attenuation. Tweeters are on the outside now, and properly mounted to the front of baffle.

[Deang]

This is the corrected response using the AutoEQ function. I did 160Hz and below separately, wrote down the adjustments, and then went back and AutoEQ'd the frequencies above 160Hz. When the system was done making those adjustments, I went in manually inserted the 160Hz and below adjustments from the first session. 20Hz, 30hz, and 20kHz were manually dialed all the way the down.

[mikebse2a3]

Hey Dean

I noticed you are using your MIC in a Horizontal position for measurements but I'm pretty sure it is best used in a Vertical Position. Have you tried it both ways?

I use a boom style MIC Stand I bought from Guitar Center for about $20 or $30 dollars and works very good for me and gets most of the MIC Stand away from the MIC for better measurements.

I have liked using the Auto EQ between 100Hz and 5KHz and adjust frequencies above and below manually and thats worked very good for me also.I did notice alot of boost on your settings above 10KHz. Whenever I have run into the RTA/EQ calling for this much boost I try to listen and see if thats what I really hear going on in those bands and I usually come away with the impression that it is usually a measurement quirk at least in the very high frequency range. Either way I usually limit any boost to about 5db(Most adjustments for me have required less than 3db) and any cuts using the PEQ(FOR ROOM MODES) to about 8db say with a bandwidth of 1/8 or 1/10 octave for example.

I have also mostly used mine with the MIC at my dedicated listening position since this is the only position I listen critically from.

Thanks for posting this, its interesting to see how others are using the Auto EQ and RTA and MIC Position to make adjustments.

mike

[Deang]

I was hoping you'd post. Everything you brought up is stuff I was wondering about while I was driving into work. I noticed there wasn't an across the board correlation between the uncorrected response and how/what the AutoEQ function adjusted/compensated. It's interestestng, AND frustrating. I can't decide what hate more -- Ohm's Law, or acoustics. The boost above 10kHz is odd looking, but it does seem to correspond to what we know about the K-77's response.

"...and any cuts using the PEQ(FOR ROOM MODES) to about 8db say with a bandwidth of 1/8 or 1/10 octave for example."

I haven't gotten that far yet with the thing. I have a lot to learn.

"I have also mostly used mine with the MIC at my dedicated listening position since this is the only position I listen critically from."

I kind of had the idea that it wouldn't work well using it like that. I got the idea from your Behringer thread, as well as Al. Are you doing it with the dual mono setting, or the one channel/copy?

[mikebse2a3]

Yes my listening position is off axis of the K77 and so I do use a slight boost of about 1db to 2db in its range but I just don't believe it would be a good idea to try and boost it alot because of power/mechanical limits of the K77s and also if you feel the need to boost the K77 much their are probably other issues like maybe to much absorption or absorption in the wrong places in the room for example and also the need for diffusion in the listening space(Any Room I've ever used has benefited from diffusion for increased clarity and to keep the sound better tonally balanced.

I also use the Room Correction Curve feature and the slower modes when using the Auto EQ and again this is with the MIC at my listening position and have had very good results in my small room and a friends room which has Cathedrial Ceiling and very open large space say approx: 40'by 30' and large openings to other spaces.

Anyway I have to go now but it would be a good idea to discuss this more and hear other peoples experiences EQing their rooms so maybe we all can learn more about this complicated job of measuring and correlating that to what we are hearing.

mike

[mikebse2a3]

Dean said;

I kind of had the idea that it wouldn't work well using it like that. I got the idea from your Behringer thread, as well as Al. Are you doing it with the dual mono setting, or the one channel/copy?

--------------------------

Dean I found early on that adjusting each channel seperately didn't work very well for the most part so I always use stereo mode for all settings and I guess if a persons speakers where seeing to very different enviroments say like side walls for example you might tweek one channel slightly different but you would have to be carefull because we are adjusting the first arrival sounds as well as the room sound reaching us and something is very unnatural if you mess with the first arrival sound to much so that is why I suggest small adjustment mostly because larger adjustments indicate the need for other type of acoustical treatments or repostioning of listening positions for a couple of examples I can think of quickly.

I've got to go but I would like to continue this dicussion later Dean!!

mike

[mikebse2a3]

Hey Dean

I was looking at your RTA uncorrected response picture and noticed the levels displayed where in the -70db to -80db range and you where showing considerable response even in the 25Hz and below range. You might be picking up interfering background noises at this low level if you are using this level for pink noise testing normally. I have noticed alot of low level low frequency background noise in my room which doesn't bother my listening but would certainly throw off measurements if test are run at this low a level.

One interesting thing that an ETF(ENERGY/TIME/FREQUENCY)Computer PROGRAM first showed me and the RTA also shows it was that I always knew I didn't like listening while the washer or dishwasher was running in the other end of my house. Sometimes I would just get listener fatigue for no apparent reason till one day I was doing some measurements with the ETF program when I saw what looked like a room mode at about 120Hz that continued for many milliseconds when the washer kicked on. The RTA Display will also show this problem while they are running with constant noise centered around 120Hz and others frequencies also that showed they where creating a constant low level background noise which had proved to be very irratating without really calling attention to itself otherwise when I was listening to music. Needless to say nobody washes clothes or dishes when I'm listening to music now.

Use the RTA with no other sound in the room and see what your noise background levels look like. In my case I often see noise from other parts of the house like washer, dryer,TV, air conditioner for some examples. Anyway I would suggest you run the pink noise level at least 20db to 30db above background levels and I actually think it would be a good idea to run test levels closer to the average listening levels you use although this can get pretty fatiguing after awhile.

I was thinking maybe we could start a thread where we could discuss things like this and limitations and possibilities of using an EQ and also different measurement methods that can be tried, like MIC placement for example because depending what we are trying to measure about the room/speaker and differences in room/setups would require different poistions to be used.I'm learning about all this also but I am learning what is begining to work best for my situation and using this EQ, I just wish I had more time to play with it.

mike

[Deang]

Great post Mike, thanks.

Man, I'm SO frustrated. I go from someone who feels like they know what's going on most of the time to feeling like a total imbecile -- this stuff is freaking complicated! I moved my mike to the seating position, and set it up the way you advised. Of course the readings were considerably different, but coincided with something I'm very familiar with. I realize that's a bit cryptic, but if you shoot me your email I'll send you something that will explain it.

Today I played with the PEQ, which I think is pretty cool. I had some good luck using it instead of the GEQ because the new readings had broader peak areas as opposed to individual spikes. DEQ is next, and I like the idea behind that one. The thing I find myself doing is second guessing everything I do. I sit, and it sounds good -- but I think, "Well, it sounded good before too!". How in the heck does one know what is right!?

[mikebse2a3]

Dean you have e-mail just list Klipsch for subject so I want delete any of your email by accident.

Talk to you later.

mike

[Al Klappenberger]

Guys,

One big mistake people make with equalizers is trying to put the mike at the listening position. It doesn't work! Where Dean has it positioned in the picture is the correct place. You also have to set the left and right speaker setting identical or your stero image will go all to h___ too!

Al K.

[mikebse2a3]

----------------

On 7/31/2005 6:09:11 PM Al Klappenberger wrote:

Guys,

One big mistake people make with equalizers is trying to put the mike at the listening position. It doesn't work! Where Dean has it positioned in the picture is the correct place. You also have to set the left and right speaker setting identical or your stero image will go all to h___ too!

Al K.

----------------

Al I have to disagree on the MIC Placement Point and using the listening position definitly works for me. It makes a difference what I'm using the EQ for and this determines where I want the MIC placed. If I wanted to EQ for certain problems I have identified in the speaker then close MIC placement would be important. If I want to use the EQ for problems(*A ROOM MODE for one example) that are associated with the listening position then the MIC needs to be located there, otherwise "How would we measure and know what we are hearing at that location and any correction that using the EQ might correct"?

Now when I measure at the listening position I try to be carefull of interference from say my listening chair or back wall for instance. I will usually fold a very absorbant blanket on the chair and maybe a pillow where my head would be located to block reflections from the back wall(It is To CLOSE TO MY LISTENING POSITION) that could cause interference with my measurements. I use diffusers on the back wall and when I listen to music also I actually use the pillow behind my head to block the early back wall interference I would receive from them and this technique allows me to still achieve all the benefit from the use of the diffusers on the back wall.

It is actually a very good idea to measure close to the speaker as well as at the listening position to compare the changes that are happening as we move back into the room and away from the speaker so a person can learn how the sound is being changed at the listening position due to the room interference and thus what action we might use to treat these changes.

*Also before anyone says anything( like "Bass Traps should be used for Room Modes" for one example) I think most of us know that Room treatments placed properly should be one of the first things done but sometimes due to circumstances beyound our control thay cannot be used or even with them some problems might still be best treated with an EQ used properly for better sound.

I definitly believe like you that for the most part the speakers should be adjusted together not only because it can screw up the imaging but also the modal response of the room can change when using multiple sources and this should be taken into account.

mike

[mikebse2a3]

Deang said:

Today I played with the PEQ, which I think is pretty cool. I had some good luck using it instead of the GEQ because the new readings had broader peak areas as opposed to individual spikes.

------------------------

Dean as you get use to the PEQ you will really appreciate its great ability to fine tune the correction needed in some areas. I actually use it to correct for some problems and then run the Auto EQ with the PEQ active so that it will take into account my PEQ corrections.

Sorry if this is begining to hijack your thread on the Trachorn though.

Also did you get my e-mail address? I never recieved the e-mail you mentioned sending me.

mike