Need Help Deciding Khorn X Over

[steamer]

OK,I can say I am doing this and I have no instruments just my ear.I greatly respect PWK but what I am hearing is better and I cant go back to passives.I believe Shawn has had good success with active crossovers also...I am sure there are more here that have as well.

The Doc wrote:

As far as more gear is concerned, by going to an active crossover you are running the same amount of gear. You have source>preamp>crossover>amp>speaker instead of source>preamp>amp>crossover>speaker. There are certain advantages to having the speaker directly coupled to the ampifier: less power compression, more efficient, better damping, no back-emf, etc etc.... The fact that you have more amplifiers doesn't matter because there is only ever one amplifier between your ears and the source for a given passband.

I was concerned with this issue as well but realized that I was just replacing my passive x-over with an active and in my case no more interconnects because I have a preamp section in my CDP.The benifits of dividing signals before the amps are well documented and repeated by the Doc above.Furthermore I have no passives to rob power from my horns(when your working with 2 or 4 watts why not maximize what you have).I use SS amps for the power consuming lows.

Doc also wrote:

As far as 'more wires and more noise' - I don't think another foot here or there is going to matter when your signal has already passed through a thousand feet in the studio. And if there is noise in an active setup, then there should be noise in the passive setup as well. Noise is an indication of a poor power source anyway and is a good sign that it needs to be cleaned up - which will result in an even smoother sound. Ground loops are a sign of poor grounding, which means there is a safety hazard - not a huge deal I don't think, but a ground loop indicates that the 3rd prong is pretty much useless in the event of large voltages.

No problem here,this is the quietest system I have owned due in part to the pro balanced configuration of everything but my tube amps.

Doc wrote:

And I believe a layperson should have no trouble dialing in an active crossover system without measuring equipment....maybe an SPL meter if they don't trust their ears. You should get very good results by mimicking the original passive crossover - and I would argue even optimum results that way. And you can just measure the time-delay requirements in feet: ~1ms per foot. It certainly isn't rocket science and I'm sure the layperson would enjoy learning along the way.

I have no instruments but my ears and was able to dial things in.I feel that you need as much level control as possible.In my case my pro SS amps have input level controls along with the various level controls on my Rane active x-over.Oh I chased my tail for awhile...lol.The best advise I could give in this aspect would be to make small adjustments and listen for awhile.DONT try to voice the system with a few favorite recordings.Listen to as many as possible and get a feeling for what the sound is doing then make small adjustments.

Note:After a few weeks of dialing it in I had a friend over who has heard the system many times.His comments were this:

within 5 min he said"I cant believe how well balanced this sounds"5 min later his comment was "I cant hear the speakers,they disappeared,the sound isnt coming from the speakers",he is not an audiophile and I doubt if he has ever heard the term disappeared! but he said it.He was astounded by my tube amps and what they do for horns and is equally impressed with my biamp rig.

I think if you choose this path you will be rewarded with great sound.

Greg

[DrWho]

I just wanted to say that I understand where Shawn and Dean are coming from...just providing a little counter point (I hope it didn't seem argumentative). I should probably have quantified my "huge step forward" by making it relative to any crossover option out there. I'm actually in the camp of passive crossovers simply because there are much bigger issues to deal with that usually mask the differences (like the room for example).

[BEC]

How do you figure out which passives to get.  Roughly, how much would it cost to get new passives for 2 Khorns and 2 LaScalas?

Also, after reading so much on the forum, I repossitioned my Khorns last night into the corner, rather than lined up to look good with the other furniture.  Wow, that alone made a nice improvement.

Once again, thanks to all who are helping me out.  I am going to try to go to the Pilgrimidge in Hope.  Do people discuss these issues some there.  Is it possible to hear some speakers with some of these changes there?

I think your best (and least expensive option) would be to get the old and bad capacitors out of the crossovers and see how they sound back in factory spec. You could start with the AAs from the Lascalas. Those are almost certain to have bad (high in ESR) caps in them by now.

I would be happy to rebuild those AAs for you if you want.

Bob Crites

bobcrites@centurytel.net

[Me Loves Khorns]

OK, POSSIBLE STUPID QUESTION TIME......

IS there a difference between placing an ALK type crossover on the Khorns instead of the AK-2 that is already on there vs. a crossover that is the same exact type.

I gather that the difference in an A and AA on the LaScalas is that the AA is more protective of the tweeter. So, same question, is the ALK OR ALK JR much different than a replacement or rebuilt AA. Are the differences something that would be sonically different, or is it just personal preference.

[Deang]

"IS there a difference between placing an ALK type crossover on the Khorns instead of the AK-2 that is already on there..."

Yes, there is a difference. The crossover points are the same, but the circuits are different. The ALK type networks have their own unique sonic signature. IOW, they change the voicing of the speaker. Most consider this a good thing, and it is rare to see someone upgrade to one of them, and then drop back to one of the stock offerings. On occasion, I will have a customer who second guesses their purchase from me, decides to buy a set of stock clones to compare, and then after making the comparison -- sells them.

"...vs. a crossover that is the same exact type."

Not quite sure what you mean here. To have the same exact same 'type', you would need to stay with your AK-2's. Moving across 'types' of Klipsch networks means you can choose between the Type A, Type AA, Type AK-2, Type AK-3, or even the new AK-4 from Klipsch ($1800!). Of course, all of these sound a bit different from each other as well. Those who choose to stay this course end up with a Type A, AA, or AK-3. The Type A is best suited for low to moderate listening levels, where the latter two fair better at louder volumes or in bigger rooms.

"I gather that the difference in an A and AA on the LaScalas is that the AA is more protective of the tweeter."

Yes. Sonically, the treble of the AA sounds slightly lower in output than the A.

"So, same question, is the ALK OR ALK JR much different than a replacement or rebuilt AA. Are the differences something that would be sonically different, or is it just personal preference.

Yes, yes, and yes. However, most personal preferences prefer the ALK 'types'. They really do sound the best to me with the stock horns and drivers. They also allow adjustment of the midrange output to suit taste or room acoustics -- which is a nice plus. All reasoning and technical arguments against constant impedance networks fall to the wayside in the listening room.

[cjgeraci]

Nice post, Dean.

I have run A, AAs, and the Belles' version of the AK-3, including some refreshened versions.

I now have ALKs in my main Belles and the predecessor to the ALK, Jr. in my center Belle. No going back to stock networks once you make the move - at least in my opinion.

The adjustible midrange of both ALKs is a big plus. For many, that helps curb some of the harshness with the stock squawker. Additionally, the constant impedence feature of Al's design seems to provide a cleaner sound (ALK, Sr. also gives you less overlap between the drivers).

It does come down to personal preference though because people also like refreshened models of the stock networks.

Carl.

[Me Loves Khorns]

Dean, are the crossovers that you build based on the ALK's?

If so, how do they differ, if any from those. It looks like the website that you referenced lists a set for $375. Is that correct. Would those be used in the Khorn's on the top for the HF/MF. Would anything then be changed in the lower portion behind the panel?

Then, could these also be considered for the Lascala's also?

Thanks again. By the way, do you go to the Pilgrimidges?

Paul

[Deang]

I haven't been to Hope, and I won't be going this year either. I'm just too busy right now both at home and work. If you're are going, you're going to have a great time. Klipsch people are some of the best people there are. I do go to the events when they are held at Indy, which is less than two hours from me. Also keep your eye on the events held by forum members. Picky is holding an event in late August in Michigan, and Sheltie Dave/Carl G are doing one in St L during the first weekend in August. I will probably make the trip for that one -- mostly because while in process of taking all of Carl's money, he became a good friend.

There are two versions of the ALK: There is the original version which Al calls the Universal Type A Replacement, and what everyone else just calls 'The ALK'. The network has a first order woofer section, 2nd order midrange section, and a 3rd order tweeter section -- and uses some of the best parts in the industry. This network is built and sold by Al.

The ALKJr was designed by Al for me. We already had an established relationship since I was building and selling his Cornwall ALK design under license -- and it was just a matter of time before our brains clicked and spit out an idea for a new design.

After building and listening to just about everything available for my Klipschorns, I decided that for me personally -- I really preferred the sound of the midrange driver/horn with a first order filter section. I had been running the Universal Type A Replacements (ALKS), and had been comparing them to the Klipsch filters. My room is relatively small, and in my situation I couldn't get the ALKs to open up until I dumped some power into them. IOWs -- it only sounded good to me when turned up louder than I preferred to listen most of the time. By contrast, the early Klipsch Type A sounded good at low volumes -- but pinched up and sounded harsh and somewhat unforgiving when played loud. It was extremely frustrating. I had decided that I much preferred the sound of the ALKs over the other things I was building and hearing, but really wished it opened up faster.

At the time, I was also building and selling a network called the DHAxover, which had been designed by John Albright here on the forum for his brother. This network was a constant impedance network like Al's, but was pure first order top to bottom. I liked it a lot, but sometimes felt the tweeter was a bit too hot, and it also had fixed taps -- which meant I couldn't adjust the output level of the midrange.

While sharing all of these different thoughts with Al in a phone conversation, he proposed a simple solution: Take the things I liked about both networks and put them in one design: 1st order woofer section, 1st order midrange section, 3rd order tweeter section -- with adjustable taps. The network is not truly constant impedance like the ALK, which presents an almost flat 8 ohm impedance to the amp -- but moves between 6 and 14 ohms -- which is still very good. I really liked the result, and asked permission to build and sell it to others. Al liked the idea from the standpoint of having something that allowed people to experience the benefits of a constant impedance design at a lower price point -- which he felt would eventually lead to more sales for his other networks. The ALKJr costs less because it has a lower part count, and uses capacitors that are considered to be excellent -- but not the best available. However, if a customer requests a certain brand capacitor, and is willing to pay the difference -- I will build it. At any rate, I will say that for the money, the standard build sounds scary good. Al sees the ALKJr as a value engineered version of his original ALK. I see it as a value engineered version of his original ALK that under certain conditions can sound better than the ALK. What conditions?

1) smaller rooms, 2) larger rooms, but the listener is only 10-12 feet from the speakers, 3) listeners who typically listen between 70-100dB peak, 4) multichannel setups, 5) with people who have grown used to, and/or enjoy the characteristic snarl of the Klipsch midrange (but without the bite:).

If you had a very large room, and only used two speakers -- I would tell you to buy ALKs. If you were one prone to continuous sessions of live level listening -- I would tell you to buy ALKs. I also recommend ALKs for anyone who absolutely can't deal with the sound of the Klipsch midrange, or demand a higher level of refinement from their sound -- the ALKS are silky smooth. Please don't take this to mean they emasculate the speakers -- they don't.

Incidently, I love the sound of the Type A, and am in fact running mine right now. I use the Type A as my low level listening solution. However, I simply cannot bring myself to recommend it as the best network for most people. I wish I could -- it's a heck of a lot easier to build!

[sfogg]

"as my low level listening solution."

You will have another potential solution for that soon too.

You have a RS SPL meter don't you?

Shawn

[Me Loves Khorns]

Dean, thanks for all of your patient explanations.

So, if I understand you, the ALK Jr's will go into either the khorns or the lascalas? The unit that is listed on line, would that be the passive part that is used on the upper part of the khorn for the mid and highs? Does the lower portion behind the panel on the lower part of the khorn have to be changed out too? I'm a newbie at all of this, and have very little electrical "tinkering" experience. Is this changeout something that can be explained or shown of directions. I am good at tinkering with things, but this is new stuff for me.

In regards to what you said... My khorns and lascalas sound good when loud, but only kinda good when at lower levels. Is the differences that a set of ALK JR's might fix....

My room is somewhat small, and I listen in multichannel about as often as I do pure 2 channel. I have a very diverse spectrum of likes in music, pure audio, movies, etc.

Also, on different subject... How much different is using a seperate amp, like my Carver, vs. using the amps in my good but hardly McIntosh like Yamaha reciever. I would like to upgrade someday to something like a good McIntosh or try some tubes, but alas, $$$ groweth not on ze trees....

Do you think that redoing the passives is a good place to go from here. I have pretty come to the conclusion that I would be more able to pull off doing that better than setting up biamps. As others have said on different threads, there aren't people in Waco that can come and set all of this fun stuff up here. It needs to be something that I can do.

Back to amps. Do people very often use something like the Yamaha as a pre/pro and then get a seperate McIntosh or good, older, amp. I like the surround sound aspects of the Yamaha or similar and do not have the space or budget to do a different 2 channel room. I guess I want it all, now, for free.....

Oh well, that won't happen, but do you think that the passives would be a good starting point.

Thanks again for all of the help.

[KT88]

"There are two versions of the ALK: There is the original version which

Al calls the Universal Type A Replacement, and what everyone else just

calls 'The ALK'. The network has a first order woofer section, 2nd

order midrange section, and a 3rd order tweeter section -- and uses

some of the best parts in the industry. This network is built and sold

by Al."

"... a simple solution: Take the things I liked about both

networks and put them in one design: 1st order woofer section, 1st

order midrange section, 3rd order tweeter section -- with adjustable

taps."

Dean, I learned that the bass and the treble section remains untouched in the ALKJr. Xover. Is this true also by its values?

And further, do you need other values for the cap of the midrange

section than in the ALK 2nd. order midrange design or does it stay

unchanged. And makes an additional coil in parallel after the cap in

series leading to the squaker the difference between the ALK and ALKJr.

design?

If the cap is about the same value, is it theoretically possible to add a switch which could take the mids coil in and out?

Just an idea because I have candle light situations as well as sometimes a party or just crazy moments to crank it up.

[Deang]

So, if I understand you, the ALK Jr's will go into either the khorns or the lascalas?

Yes.

The unit that is listed on line, would that be the passive part that is used on the upper part of the khorn for the mid and highs?

It is a 'complete' network. IOW's, it would replace both what you have currently in the bottom, as well as the top.

Does the lower portion behind the panel on the lower part of the khorn have to be changed out too?

It's not 'changed out' -- but simply disconnected/bypassed.

...Is this changeout something that can be explained or shown of directions.

Yes, and yes -- there isn't much to it actually. It's not unusual for people to be intimidated by what they don't understand, but once they get into things a bit they see how simple it really is.

In regards to what you said... My khorns and lascalas sound good when loud, but only kinda good when at lower levels. Is the differences that a set of ALK JR's might fix...

Absolutely, no question.

How much different is using a seperate amp, like my Carver, vs. using the amps in my good but hardly McIntosh like Yamaha reciever...

My opinion is that if you get the speakers right, the amps start making less and less difference. People spend a lot of money on amps and preamps to change the sound or voice of their speakers -- or to reduce distortion artifacts from the midrange and treble. This really is putting the cart before the horse. Better gear does make a difference, but it doesn't make as big a difference as going with upgraded passives -- or changing horns and drivers. For now, use the Yahmaha as your front end, and if you can or want, integrate the Carver into the mix and see what it sounds like.

Do you think that redoing the passives is a good place to go from here.

Yes, I do. Horizontally biamping a three-way speaker like the Klipschorn or LaScala is a sloppy, half-baked implementation.

Back to amps. Do people very often use something like the Yamaha as a pre/pro and then get a seperate McIntosh or good, older, amp. I like the surround sound aspects of the Yamaha or similar and do not have the space or budget to do a different 2 channel room. I guess I want it all, now, for free...

Sure, people do it all the time and it's an excellent approach.

[Me Loves Khorns]

Dean, thanks again for your excellent and patient answers. I am going to try to give you a call, but I keep having emergencies pop up. Yesterday I had to do 2 unexpected surgeries.

Do you have any idea if anyone at the Pilmgrimige ( that is the hardest word for me to spell$%&*#@ for some reason) will have anything with your crossovers in them?

Yeah, putting the Carver in and out of line will be easy to do to hear what changes that makes. Like I said before, I can't afford to go in and change all the stuff at one time. It has taken me 12 years to gather all of the stuff I have so far. It sure is fun to tweek stuff around though.

Thanks again, Paul

[Colin]

My opinion is that if you get the speakers right, the amps start making less and less difference.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

By extension then, if you get the room right, the loudspeakers make less and less difference too!

Yes, I do. Horizontally biamping a three-way speaker like the Klipschorn or

LaScala is a sloppy, half-baked implementation.

Hey, I represent that![]

[sfogg]

"By extension then, if you get the room right, the loudspeakers make less and less difference too!"

Not really. Different speakers interact with the room in very different ways. Amps don't.

Shawn

[Me Loves Khorns]

STUPID QUESTION TIME FROM NEWBY ALERT:

What do mean by getting the room right?

; , angling of the speakers, wall treatments, etc?

[DrWho]

Well here is my understanding of getting the room right...

Proper speaker placement and angle is the first step and also involves moving the listening position around too. Then you should treat the flutter echos and modal issues in the low end. From there you treat early reflections and keep an eye on the RT60. In all cases you want to maintain a balance of absorbtion and diffusion so that you can hit a solid and balanced RT60. If you want a slightly warmer sound, then you will want to aim for a slight rise in the lower frequencies. A good goal is around 250ms for 800Hz and above and then maybe as much as 400ms for frequencies below 100Hz. Beyond that there isn't much more involved except going back to step one and seeing if the optimum speaker/listening positions haven't moved around.

[Deang]

Get the Klipschorns nice and snug into the corners. Throw up some nice drapes, and lay down some comfy plush carpet. Put some furniture in the room, hang some pictures, and bookshelves are nice too. Plants are cool as well. If you do all that, it will sound pretty darn good.

There isn't anything more anemic and lifeless sounding than an overengineered system.

[DrWho]

There isn't anything more anemic and lifeless sounding than an overengineered system.

Sounds like what you consider overengineering is just plain old bad engineering []

[3dzapper]

Dean is right again. A concert hall or auditorium needs to be engineered, a living room/den needs to be decorated.

Unless your room has unique features that degrade the sound, that is all that is required IMO.

Rick