Al Klappenberger Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 J.4, Yes, the AP12 networks are gentle slope "All-Pole 12 dB / octave" networks. This allow the woofer / squawker network and the tweeter / squawker network to be upgraded seperately. They are "cable-compatible" with the ES400T, 500, 600 and 700T. That is, the 3-wire cable that runs between any of the low ES networks and the ES5800 netwrok will also diretly connect the ES5800 to the AP12 networks. Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Dean, who came up with that stupid idea? Actually you gave me the idea without realizing it! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 And you're sure I didn't realize it? You just don't remember, but you actually fell into the idea while we were on the phone fixing my 'Super Kluge' -- running the AK-3 low pass section with the ALK Jr. high pass. You were running through iterations and checking phase when I said, "Sure would nice if we could run some of those low pass sections with the tops of these filters -- people wouldn't have to go into the bass bins.":) I think I gave you the idea without you realizing it -- the old Jedi Mind trick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardhead Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 At this point it may be worth mentioning/reminding that the K-55-M and the K-55-V with the solder terminals don't need their crossover points lowered and wouldn't benefit from your doing so. Their two-piece phase plug allows them to go up to 6000 Hz without any trouble. Only the old style K-55-V spring-loaded terminal version, the current Atlas PD-5VH, and the K-55-X may benefit from a lower crossover point because of their one-piece phase plug. Therefore, if you have K-55-M's or the solder-terminal K-55-V's in your speakers, you can simply exchange one of Bob's ATP's for the K-77 or K-77-M without bothering your crossover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Dean, Now I suppose you are going to tell me I owe YOU royalties on the AP12-ak3 networks!Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 (edited) EDIT: I should have charged you for every idea I ever came up with -- half of your product line to the way you build; no more soldering leads on the autoformer taps, gentle slope networks, new autoformer, 2" horn, zip ties instead of hot melt, ClarityCaps, 3rd iteration of Universal using 1dB steps, etc. forget the money, I would have been satisfied with honorable mentions. Edited November 8, 2015 by Deang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 "Therefore, if you have K-55-M's or the solder-terminal K-55-V's in your speakers, you can simply exchange one of Bob's ATP's for the K-77 or K-77-M without bothering your crossover. " REGARDLESS OF THE VERSION OF THE K-55 DRIVER BEING USED YOU DO NOT NEED TO MOVE YOUR CROSSOVER POINT. THE SINGLE PORT VERSION OF THE K-55, MOUNTED ON A K-400, K-401, K-500, K-600, OR K-700 REACHES 6000HZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamer Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 I understand the idea of a two way system being better in that the crossover is simpler but all two way systems I have heard seem to lack in some form. Either one or the other driver seems to be over tasked to my ears. I know the 511B/902 rig sounds great but I believe it was Sean (SFogg) who said it gets a little beamy. It is probably suffice to say I am a bigger fan of a well managed three way design than the two way, at least in the configurations I have heard. Hello, Shawn did say it could get beamy but I believe that was in reference to his goal of a home theater set up with 2 levels of seating,and one level or the other getting more HF info(amplitude levels).Through email conversations we had he felt that it was not as big an issue in a 2 channel setup. As you may know I run my Scala's 2 way with the 511/902 from 500hz to 20khz and can say the HF drop off out of the listening position is noticeable but not dramatic.BTW the sweet spot is much bigger than before.This is something I can live with,as Dr. Who would say its all about compromise. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 "Shawn did say it could get beamy but I believe that was in reference to his goal of a home theater set up with 2 levels of seating,and one level or the other getting more HF info(amplitude levels).Through email conversations we had he felt that it was not as big an issue in a 2 channel setup." Yes, WRT getting even coverage over two rows of seating (both vertically and horizontally) the high end got a little beamy. So I wanted to experiment with other horns to see how even I could get the coverage. For typical sweet spot listening no problem IMO. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamer Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Hey Shawn, How is the system sounding?Glad I was correct in my last post.Im lookin hard at that Behringer! Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Robin Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 When the name gets changed it must have NEW AND IMPORVED in it and it should have at least 15% more FREE for the same price. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Guys, I think any 2-way system with a large upper frequency horn like the Altec 511 is going to beam the highs straight out. I don't think a big horn will ever disperse highs as well as the small horn of a tweeter. The 3-way system gives you better dispersion but the time difference between the drivers is what screws up the sweet spot and the stereo image. BUT: Exterem-slope crossovers solve that problem! If there is virtually no overlap between drivers there is no interferance between them! Each driver makes only the sounds it is responsible for. The delay difference between them itself is not something you can hear, the comb effects mess up the frequency response randomly throuout the room when two source make the same sound. This you CAN hear. The fact that you hear everything twice causes a smearing. This is becasue you hear the sound from the tweeter first and then again from the squawker becasue the driver is farther away and maybe a foot or so higher at best. Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Al, "I don't think a big horn will ever disperse highs as well as the small horn of a tweeter." A large CD horn will stay constant on the high end compared to a sectoral horn. The disadvantage to the CD horn is of course it needs EQ on the top end to keep it flat. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I would imagine the 2-way would sound better though. I wouldn't count on that. Whaaaaa ...??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Shawn, Yep.. A big CD horn is an exception. They have problems of thier own though. They have the reputation of sounding like frying pans. The process of EQing also makes them incompatible with a horn bass becasue the efficiency becomes the lowest point on the curve. That usually puts them together with direct radiator woofers. I am using a Beyma CP09 CD tweeter on my den "Heresy on Steroids" speakers. The overall efficincey is about 90 dB. The reponse if flat out to 20 KHz though. The horns we mostly use (Altec VOTs) are NOT CD horns. Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 " They have the reputation of sounding like frying pans. " Like everything else that will depend on the horn. "The process of EQing also makes them incompatible with a horn bass becasue the efficiency becomes the lowest point on the curve." Not a problem when you bi/tri-amp. May not be much of a problem passively though depending upon the driver. Some of the high frequency drivers are much more sensitive then the bass bins. The 288s needed about 10dB of attenuation to match the LaScala bass. That extra 10dB can be used for EQing the response. Some drivers are even more sensitive then that. "The horns we mostly use (Altec VOTs) are NOT CD horns. " The 511/811 are not CD horns. The multi-cells are an attempt to have more even dispersion but are not CDs either. Later VOTs did have CD horns (called Mantarays) on them though. I have a couple of small CD out of the Model 14 that I want to play with at some point... they could be fun in a smaller project since they only go down to around 1400hz. They are interesting in that they also have asymetric vertical dispersion. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmusic Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Al, I have a question. What do you mean by improper values in the original AA-xovers? Was it created with a defect from the begining? Or have you and or Dean created or discovered a better value? Please explain, thanks. Jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Jay, The answer to all your questins is yes! The AA tweeter filter is a "constant K". It the wrong thing for a crossover network! The above is a comparison of my Universal "ALK" tweeter filter (left) with the tweeter filter of the "AA" (right). Notice the AA tweeter filter plot looks like somebody sat on it! This is real and computer simulation confirms it. The plots above are actual measurements. 3.4 dB loss in the filter compared with 0.4 dB in a correct filter (17 KHz). Replacing the caps with brand new ones does NOT fix it! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 "Replacing the caps with brand new ones does NOT fix it!" True, but 30 year old capacitors in that part of the filter is like running an additional 3 ohms or worse in series with the driver. You gotta start somewhere -- and it's better to replace the caps than do nothing - ya think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Dean, You would think replacing the caps would take the loss down, but it doesn't! I tried unhooking the two 2uF caps and grafing in new caps. The loss was still 3 dB! The computer analysis (below) proves this. Perfect lossless parts still yields 3 dB loss through the tweeter. 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.