BEC Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Just to stress again, you don't have to do anything to your crossover to use the new tweeter for a replacement for the K-77. I believe you will see an improvement in the sound compared to the K-77 by just putting these in. Now, if you want to more fully utilize the new tweeter, you can do that. You can cross it over safely at 4500 and you can roll the midrange off gently there with an inductor. Below is what we have tried on DaddyDee's Type A crossovers with the new tweeters. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Bob, Even better than the newest K-77s from the 2005/06 K'Horns...great...ANOTHER thing to buy...[][] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Given that the HF cap and Inductor changes are after the AT, I will assume that the same changes/values also apply to the type B. Can't wait to hear these changes, other than the lack of HF extension and problems in the mid/HF xover region I am very happy with my corn mutts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Yes, shoulld work fine of the Type B, Type A and Type E crossovers exactly the same way. The AA gets somewhat more complicated in that you really would just want to eliminate the tweeter filter completely and replace it with just a 4 uF cap. Then add the 500 uH inductor to the squawker. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Just my .02. Bob was kind enough to send me a pair for Demo. I tested them and sent them back. I will probably order a pair in the future. Yes it is a drop in replacement and visibly looks like a K77 mounted. I also did some RTA on the tweeter in my HT room....not outside so room reflections could be a playing part. The BEC tweet (Bob, damn it, we need a name) did go out to 20K. My K77M fell off just as Bob's plot shows but not as fast. Of note: I couldn't hear anything after 15K Hz. Sound quality is hard to "measure". Bob is gonna sell a ton of these because they are at least as good if not better in sound. Good job...I;m jealous. They handle more power and can cross lower. I see no reason why an educated forum member would want to buy K77's off Ebay again. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Bob, Were those plots taken anechoically (outside in space) or in you test Cornscalla? The dips and peaks of both tweeters are so in sync below 12.5KHz is why I ask. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Rick, Those traces are inside and on my workbench with the mic at about a foot from the horn. I am sure we are seeing some reflections and such in the trace. However, test conditions are exactly the same for the two, so differences are valid. In my opinion, the extra extension above the range of the K-77, is not the main reason to use these new tweeters. With an A/B switch between this new tweeter and a K-77, the difference is clear and very noticeable. People usually say the new tweeter is actually producing notes where the K-77 just sounds tinny. Also, since the new tweeter is much more robust in power handling than the K-77, we should no longer have to worry about tweeter protection and crossing over at 4500, if desired is fine even with a first order crossover. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 jc, The tweeter does have a name or designation at least. It is the CT-125. Bob Crites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 "Those traces are inside and on my workbench with the mic at about a foot from the horn. I am sure we are seeing some reflections and such in the trace. However, test conditions are exactly the same for the two, so differences are valid. " Bob, That's what I thought. I wanted you to clarify the test parameters so that no one would think that those large drop offs at 3, 6(especially), 9 and 12 KHz were in the tweeters. Rather, they are a product of the test setup. Some day, take them outside, hang them on some fishing line and rerun the test. I think yours will win. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Bob, It is the CT-125 so we can name it a "Crites Tweet" .......... Formica was right when he was worried about the "fins" but i am happy the looks are the same. But for the toolmaker are the fins a lot extra work !! Again very impressive.....[][]Bennyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 It is the CT-125 so we can name it a "Crites Tweet" .......... I'll call it a BEC-77... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meagain Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 All I know is that when I walk up & put my ear to my khorns' stock tweeter - it's horrifying. I'm looking forward to hearing critiques on this. I love the fact that probably even "I" can install them and they don't need a x-over tweek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Here is my RTA of the K77M vs CT-125. Now this is in my room with an ALK B on my Cornscalas. Notice the room reflections as Bob's had. Also notice that both are attenuated like what would be on a Cornwall. AS said. Curves are the same and the CT-125 wasn't as hot in my test. The difference of "hotness" wasn't noticeable to me when listening to music. So here is proof of the "drop in " replacement regardless of the XO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 One more proof. Here is the tweeter and it's integration with the other drivers on my Cornscala with ALK B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dflip Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Assuming that the inductor change can be made on the B network as well, the 500 uH inductor is the same as a .51 mH inductor, just moving the decimal point three places? Since this is an inductor for the squawker, should I look at a hepta-litz inductor to provide a more accurate result in the higher frequency ranges, or does this just apply to the tweeter circuit? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Don, I don't know about the hepta-litz inductor... but the one Bob supplied for me sounds very good. I don't recall what I paid, but just remember I thought it was reasonably priced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 "All I know is that when I walk up & put my ear to my khorns' stock tweeter - it's horrifying." I think they all sound that way when you put your ear close to them. "Since this is an inductor for the squawker, should I look at a hepta-litz inductor to provide a more accurate result in the higher frequency ranges. Yes, less insertion loss with the litz at the frequencies it's being applied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Dean, What is "insertion loss"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dflip Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Thanks, Dean, one more question for either you or Bob, would I be right in assuming the inductor should be 16 awg, or is 14 awg better for the squawker? 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.