ALK Crossovers for SET amps

[George Roland]

Hi,

I have a question about the various ALK crossovers and SET amps. I asked Al about this and found out he favors higher power amps than my Welborne 300Bs, but I like their sound. In any case, I heard a rumor that the extreme slope crossovers do not work as well as the gentle slope crossovers with low power amps. I would be interested to hear about others' experiences with ALK's networks and SET amps--mine is ca. 7 w/ch.

George

[Guest " "]

You are right.

The Universals would be a better choice.

The issue is really not one of the amp architecture, but more so, the available power output.

I notice you indicate 7 watts per channel, thats more than adequate for a gentle slope xover like the universals.

I had a set of universal which I liked very much and currently have a set of ES networks.  I can push 13 watts thru the ES networks and still be in the same room.  With the Universals, I had to bail at 1.3 watts.  Same findings with a 30 watt, 50 watt, 100 watt, 130 watt per channel tube amps and 130 watt, 160 watt per channel SS amps.

[awsjr]

hey George...I am using ALK's ES500T that I built along with the ES5800 with my Welborne Moondogs.....I also have used the Universal ALK....

both work very well the those amps....woofers are 416-8a, 805 horns with 292 8ohm midrange drivers and JBL 2404 tweeters....regards -Al

[jcmusic]

George I am using Al's universal xovers in my 1977 khorns, with a Sophia Electric SET amp (9 wpc) and I never have gotten to use all of the first watt. These xovers so far were the best upgrade I have made to my system. I will never go back. I am thinking about the mid and tweeter upgrade as well. Can you tell me how much improvement or change you expirenced after you changed out those two drivers.

Jay

[mark1101]

I agree with both of the above posts. I have had all of Al's networks in my system at one time or another. Even with only 7 watts I can't imagine a situation where the universal would provide the clarity and imaging improvements of the ES line.

I believe it has more to do with how you listen and the size of your room than what power you are using. The universal provides more signal information to the drivers with the amount of overlap it has. At lower volumes those will sound better. But even with only 7 watts the ES will sound better at higher volumes and provide more clarity, more perceived separation between instruments, and a wider stereo image.

The bigger the room the better the ES sound. The louder the volume the better the ES sound. The louder the volume (past a point) the worse the universals sound.

[Guest " "]

"The bigger the room the better the ES sound. The louder the volume the better the ES sound. The louder the volume (past a point) the worse the universals sound."

It seems that way to me...but more so due to the overlap of the drivers as with any gentle sloping network.

[seti]

I don't hear the current klipsch crossovers being mentioned that often but haven't they evolved pretty far from the A AA crossovers. They look very different but what kind of slope are they? I saw the 60th anniversary khorn crossovers and they looked very cool.

[mark1101]

In the big Heritage models Klipsch has over time increased the slopes and also added more elaborate EQ to flatten the response. The differences in the ALK models are that there is no EQ at all, a bandpass for the squawker has been added, and they are constant impedance networks. Pretty different altogether. Another big difference is the components used in the ALK....cost more.

[mark1101]

Speakerfritz,

So George doesn't get confused.....yes I agree. I should have clarified that the reason I said the universals sound worse with increasing volume (past a point) is due to the overlap of frequency between drivers. But you can be pretty darn happy with them before they get harsh. Still, they are not even close to the ES.....but they don't cost like the ES either.

[seti]

In the big Heritage models Klipsch has over time increased the slopes and also added more elaborate EQ to flatten the response.  The differences in the ALK models are that there is no EQ at all, a bandpass for the squawker has been added, and they are constant impedance networks.  Pretty different altogether.  Another big difference is the components used in the ALK....cost more.

What are they EQing? Hope I am not annoying just curious.

I wonder what a klipsch crossover would look like if cost was not a factor? They do have to come in at a certain price point.

[mark1101]

Well.....we would need someone more up on the subject than I......but in simple terms crossovers like the AK-4 have more elaborate EQ and make adjustments to the output levels of certain frequencies right in the network for flatest response out the horns. For instance the Khorn has a spike around 200hz. A look at the filter response of the AK-4 shows a corresponding dip to compensate. Just an example.

[Benesesso]

I'm in a real quandry now.  A few years ago I was all set to buy a pair of Al's "original crossovers, but then I read where he was hard at work on the ES idea.

So what to do?  I am using a pair of George Wright's 3.5 watt 2A3 amps, which are fine and loud enough with my stock Khorns (only mod. is the 1.0 uf cap. addition which really opened up the high end).  I see that Al's website has a good/better/best list, with his Univ. model as good, the AP12-350/ES5800 is better, and the "best" is his ES400T + ES5800.

I have to wonder how much volume I'd lose with his better or best combos, but I sure don't want a crossover that sounds "worse as the volume gets louder".  What does the AA do at higher volumes, when the 1.0 cap. mod. is done?  I don't think it gets worse as the volume is turned up, but my ears don't hear some of the finer things I read about, like tube-rolling..