Dylanl Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 I have heard of others on the site moving the tweeter to the front of the carrier board ( the one that holds the squawker and tweeter ). Trey also mentioned it a while ago as a worthwhile mod. I am thinking of doing it. Q? Has anyone performed this and what did you like vs. dislike. Its been some time since I posted regularly good to be back. Thanks all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 It is NOT a time alignment...................... The wood of the motor board will block the tweeter a bit......... Don't bother leave it that way. Bennyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 I've done it to my La Scalas. It reduces harshness. I'm sure the reduced reflections from not firing through the hole improves frequency response. It is not time alignment and in fact moves the tweeter into worse time alignment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylanl Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 I've done it to my La Scalas. It reduces harshness. I'm sure the reduced reflections from not firing through the hole improves frequency response. It is not time alignment and in fact moves the tweeter into worse time alignment. Really, worse? Since I have the grills off I thought now would be the time. Why not just enlarge the hole then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The tweeter is so far out of time with the mid that moving it 3/4" makes no difference for time. It does eliminate roughness in frequency response by eliminating the cavity. How much? EV says flush mounting can give up to 7dB improvement. It is most noticable with type A, B, E, crossovers. Less so with AA and AL, AK types; but still worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I've done it to my La Scalas. It reduces harshness. I'm sure the reduced reflections from not firing through the hole improves frequency response. It is not time alignment and in fact moves the tweeter into worse time alignment. Really, worse? Since I have the grills off I thought now would be the time. Why not just enlarge the hole then? Are you thinking of using a Z-Bracket to hold it in? That is the way Klipsch does it now. It is more of a challenge to front mount the flange in a sealed cab. I think you'd end up having to take the back off the tweeter and reassemble it "through the hole". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Flush mounting makes a difference! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylanl Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 I was just going to use a router to enlarge the hole to fit the back of the tweeter and then make a slight depression on the front of the mounting board. The tweeter flange will fit into the depression laying it flush. I have heard that this mod is very worthwhile and Trey is the one that mentioned the Z bracket. I just think the since I have it all apart why not do it right and skip any bracket. That is why I questioned the comment WORSE. John, have you heard this mod? If so I am interested in your findings vs. a stock Khorn. I just find it odd that Klipsch is now doing it. Someone is off here. It is either better or worse. I tend to side with the makers of the speaker. I look forward to anyone who has a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Dylan, I can think of no reason to move the tweeter back, you only risk diffraction artifacts. front mount the thing for best results IMHO. As dennis mentioned time delay has nothing to do with this modification, you would need to move the tweeter back about 5' IIRC to get it aligned time-wise with the woofer. regards, tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 See this thread. http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/680556/ShowPost.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 d-man, this is about a tweeter, I thought we established in the older thread that the potential benefits were reaped at low frequencies? tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemihorn Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 This is not time alignment we are talking about here. Moving the tweeter to the front baffle board will give you a better dispersion pattern and a increase in db. What is really needed, is to delay the signal going to the tweeter or align the acoustic centers of the two drivers in the vertical plane. Such "time alignment" is commonly achieved by angling the baffle so that at the listening position, the signals are properly in phase and time. Stepped baffles have also been used, but often create more problems with diffraction than are solved by the time alignment.I experimented with La Scalas by putting the drivers on center (time aligning) tweeter and midrange. It made a improvement in depth of sound stage, imaging and clarity. Now the woofer would be difficult to physically align since the bass box would end up about 5' in front of the tweeter midrange. This would probably be best done digitally? Now on the Khorn this would be even more difficult because of the physical layout of the speaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriton Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Didn't PWK know this? Why did he make all those H1's and Corns for so many years if this was such a big deal? I know the H2's and CW2's are flush but surely he would have fixed that sooner? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Tony, read the thread. What part about slot diffraction effects didn't you read about? Now slot baffles generally are for? That's right, diffraction horn TWEETERS exactly like the K77 (EV T-35) in particular. Granted, it flies around a bit, but the VERY SAME QUESTION of front or back mounting a horn is discussed. Rather than repost, it's far easier. However, I'll sum it up: Front mounting is best. I started out thinking one way and ended up being convinced of the other, let it not be said that I am unwilling to learn. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 So, say a guy (like myself) wanted to flush-mount (in a vertical orientation) one of Bob's new tweeters in a Khorn. Obviously, there is little room above the squawker for this (on a stock motorboard). Now, I've seen some of those old wooden mid-horns, with a T35 mounted right in the middle. Would this be possible (and sound good) with the K400 horn? I'm sure a mounting set-up could be made (the T35 being flush-mounted, and the K400 being rear-mounted). Is this a real dumb idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Didn't PWK know this? Why did he make all those H1's and Corns for so many years if this was such a big deal? I know the H2's and CW2's are flush but surely he would have fixed that sooner? K simply ...Cost.. and easy assy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Didn't PWK know this? Why did he make all those H1's and Corns for so many years if this was such a big deal? Because they were easier and cheaper to build that way (less labor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 One thing's for sure - they were good enough to sell, and that is what it is all about. We are merely "optimizing". DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I would not mount them in the horns but rather inset (Tweeters closer to center and stereo imaged) or outset (tweeters closer to the outside walls stereo imaged). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I have read somewhere that PWK did not think mounting the tweeter from the front made any significant difference in his measurements. Certainly not worth the fuss of the extra machining involved. As you know, if he could not measure it, it was worthy of the term "Bull Sheet" to him. With the developement of the Z-brackets, the controversy could be resolved by simply machining the slot wider. The edge defraction can be reduced, if not eliminated, in both the tweeter hole and squaker hole by applying Velcro to the perimeter of the openings. That said, with the avability of low priced routers now, if I were recovering my motor boards today I would front mount both horns. Rick 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.