Jump to content

jim-analog

Regulars
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

jim-analog's Achievements

Member

Member (2/9)

0

Reputation

  1. Greetings, Have any of you measured the LS bottom section for frequency response? I'm contenplating a project mating the LS bottom to an Altec 604G (duplex type) in its own cabinet to reduce the l/f required of the Altec. My LS are in storage and I won't be able to measure for some time. I was considering a cross over point around 100Hz or so. Thanks! Regards, Jim
  2. Greetings, As Dean was so kind and correct to note: My system is '86 khorns bought new, ALK's original x over, EV-T350s mounted verticaly in an external top cabinet, a Velodyne UDL-18 sub crossed over at 70Hz, and right now a McIntosh 225 runing full range. I have Al Ks' new transformer attenuators for the tweeters and a pair of Fostex R-100 transformer attenuators for the squakers. I have both the K77M and V drivers and thought the M sounded much better with the T-400 horns. A Manley Labs Massive Passive tube EQ is making some slight corrections; very steep low pass @ 18KHz, about -2dB @ 1K8Hz with a rather broad bandwidth. The attenuators are set to -3dB on the tweeters and -6dB on the mids. I have a set of JBL 2426H mid drivers on order. Front end is digital only (sigh) with a Meridian transport and Theta DAC. CJ tube pre-amplifer. What's realy strange is that before the T-400 horn upgrade with no external attenuators in the system, the T350s were definately too hot, but otherwise things sounded pretty darn good. The new horns threw everything out of whack balance wise. They have a clearer, more defined sound, but seemed to be too hot from about 2KHz up into the treble range. I changed the auto transformer taps in Als cross over to where I felt it was close (-7dB), then added attenuators to bring the highs down. Now I'm trying to get things rebalanced and hear what they really sound like. It became a completely new, unfamilar system after the Thorns were installed. I suspect it will take some time to sort out, but no doubt will be worth the effort. I haven't had a chance to run any frequency repsonse tests since the Thorn upgrade and have been doing it all "by ear". I have plots from right before that, so soon as I get a chance will be able to make comparisons. Regards, Jim ---------------- On 7/26/2005 12:06:00 PM sunnysal wrote: jim, what crossovers are you running on your speakers? can you describe a bit the whole system as it stands now? thanks, tony ----------------
  3. Hi Dean, I'm glad you've had such a positive experience with the Thorns. I still kind of mixed; seems the relative frequency balance that I had previously was upset when the Thorns were installed. I've been trying all kinds of things to get it back. Transformer attenuators on both the tweeters and squakers now, adjusting and adjusting. Even an EQ (yuk!). BTW, Al Ks' tweeter attenuators are VERY nice units! I moved the Fostex to the squakers when they arrived. All in all, I think the Thorns are a great product, but require quite a bit of effort to dial in IME so far. Regards, Jim On 7/25/2005 10:08:47 PM DeanG wrote: Tony, you will find that you can finally step off the merry-go-round. There is such a rightness to the sound that you no longer sit in front of the speakers thinking about some tweak, or whatever else it might possibly take to pull it all together. As far as what network to run, I wouldn't worry a bit about it. I strongly suspect you can run anything you want. I've really been enjoying the sound of a simple first order type. ----------------
  4. Hi Dean, I had made a similar inquiry a couple of years ago regarding a JBL 130 and an Emminance(don't recall the model). I was advised by a few more knowledgeable folks that a driver to be used in a "restricted throat" application as the Khorn was a very special "purpose built" unit. Also that no other than the K33 would provide any improvement, rather more likely poorer performance. Subsequently, I didn't spend the big $ on a woofer. The odd thing was the various driver vendors (and plenty of "non Klipsch" speaker guys) all had something they thought would be an upgrade. I think my old thread is still around on the forum somewhere (U&M). Good luck. Regards, Jim
  5. Greetings, OK, based on the responses and quite a bit of thought here's what I think might work. First and most importantly, the good folks at Klipsch need to give us their blessing and we need to be respectful of and properly deal with the mention of copyrighted names, drawings, other intellectual property, etc.. I've been through this before with a mail list we run for Neotek recording consoles; initially there were no objections to our list and web site, but after a change in ownership of Neotek we were hit with a cease and desist order regarding schematics that were displayed on the site. If this issue can be worked out, then we can proceed. We can start with a basic outline form as Chris had initially suggested with topic headings and subsections (of course open to suggestions). Then any/all contributors can try to add to whatever category they have info on or expertise with. Someone should then "take charge" of each category and edit/format the information. When a category is in reasonable shape and proof/fact checked, my web master and I will upload it to a dedicated Klipsch page on our site that everyone will have read only/download access to. As more info is compiled, we can do periodic updates. This is going to be a big project and will only be as good as the efforts of all involved. We can set up the page with links to photos, schematics, references, resources, etc.. Any and all suggestions and input are welcome. Material should be well researched and factual, not opinion, hearsay or conjecture (unless a specific category supports this). Let's try to do a really professional job to do our topic justice. We all know that Klipsch is the worlds best speaker company building the best speakers; we should hold ourselves to their same standard of excellence. While I try work out the details with Klipsch, our web master and some other things, please start thinking about what you can contribute and putting some thought into the overall project. I'll also help with getting the first version outline compiled. If we keep all FAQ pertinent discussion under this thread, that will help to keep things organized. At some point, it will probably make sense to go to private email after the topic editors have sections ready to better enable the data to be uploaded efficiently. Until that point is reached, let's use this thread as our discussion platform. If we pull this off, we'll be the envy of speaker enthusiasts everywhere (well, we already are since we own Klipsch products!) and hopefully assist in creating more Klipsch enthusiasts and customers. Regards, Jim PS.................to see a basic idea of what this will look like, take a glance at: www.analogbros.com/neotek
  6. Greetings, On the autotransformer thread, Chris suggested and some others agreed that a FAQ would be a good addition ti the forum. As I didn't see anyone pick up the idea of a new thread to discuss it, here we go. At the end of my message is a paste in of Chris' post. I think it would be a great resource to have and am willing to host it on my wwww site if that would work for everyone and no better ideas arise. Some mention was made of non-factory info being in FAQ form on the Klipsch site, hence my offer. So, now the discussion is open, let's see where it takes us. Regards, Jim Guys, how about a FAQ Thread named simply "FAQ" We can start posting topics in tehe two channel that we want to be in the thread, when a final version for each topic is generally agreed upon (thats gonna be tough) it can be posted to the FAQ's. All we need to agree to is general info, not opinions like Al's xover can beat up deans xover and Bob's can beat um both up, just more like here are all of the x overs for the each speaker and the creators coments regarding the same for the non-Klipsch ones. Two problems I see are: Getting any sort of agreement as to what to post. Some numbscull posting junk on our newly created jewel of a thread. We should have several threads - General FAQ's K horn FAQ's La Scale FAQ's etc Amplification FAQ's CD FAQ's etc. Doing a general search of FAQ should catch all of them. Liek I said, the biggest problem I see is non-essential posts. Can amy or trey lock posts to just one user? One of you "Cry for help" or above guys can be the impartial post what is generally agreed upon gatekeeper. I think teh first step is to come up with the initial threads to use. Just some thoughts, Chris PS: Sorry to hijack the thread if this occurrs. Thsi can be moved to a new thread. EDIT: My vote for the person with the power to post to the thread is William McDermont. He does not build any equipment and has contributed a huge amount of information through his efforts for the general good of all of us. I think that this shoudld be considered an honor by the way (kind of a respect from all of us thing).
  7. Greetings, Just an FYI, I had built up a pair of boxes as miniatures of the Khorn top hat to enclose my EV-T350 tweeters. This allowed them to be oriented vertically for better dispersion and also allows for front to back position adjustment in an attempt to time align them with the mid horn. Seemed to sound better to me, but I don't think there were any measurable differences. It does look cool though. I'll post a link to pix when I can get them up. Regards, Jim
  8. Hi Dean, I agree that more fine, in-between settings would be nice. What is your source for the UTC 3636 autoformer? Regards, Jim ---------------- On 7/16/2005 10:56:45 AM DeanG wrote: I think what is really needed are some in-between settings for the squawker. With the K-55-M, 5 and 2 are just a wee bit too loud, and X and 4 are definitely too recessed, at least to my ears. I suspect 5 and 2 would be just about perfect with the K-55-V, but I can't get it dialed in with the K-55-M. I think the UT 3636 that Bob uses is the way to go here. ----------------
  9. Not exactly. Phantom power (P48) is a dc voltage run simultaneously over the +/- audio signal line (XLR pins 2 and 3)of a balanced system. This is referenced to ground via pin 1. There is a precise specification for phantom power, which is +48v through a pair of 6K81 resistors to limit the current to a maximum of 14mA. The precision of matching between these resistors significantly affects the CMMR of mic as the dc voltage powers an amplifier located inside the microphone, and may also be divided down to provide capsule polarization voltage. There may be a low and high range on any specific mic as to where this amplifier will operate, but to adhere to the specification it must function with the above circuit. Lowering of the voltage will adversely affect the SNR, FR and gain of the (internal) mic amplifier. Raising the voltage may damage the internal circuitry. Many console strip and outboard mic amps are designed with a phantom power circuit built in. Regards, Jim On 7/17/2005 2:14:00 AM DrWho wrote: Btw, phantom power is just sending a DC signal through the cable...it's basically a way of boosting the signal of the microphone who's diaphragm isn't moving far enough to induce enough current to send the signal down the line. The more phantom you give it, the lower your noise floor gets. Well at least that's what I've been told...I've never noticed much of any significant differences.
  10. Greetings, Yes, I am using the ALK; current setting is 4,1; -7.4dB. That's close, but would like to have another setting between this and (I think) the next step which is -9 or so. You're absolutely right about the 12dB/oct! I was thinking of the l/f and confused the two. Thanks for getting my head straight. I'll probably order a set of the JBL drivers being discussed very soon. I'm also working on a new mid/high amplifier that will probaby max out at 4 watts or so; can't imagine damaging the drivers unless it hard clips (which it wont). A 76 driving a single 6A5G into a really cool "R" core transformer (I can post a link if anyone is interested). Mr Al K.............how are the tweeter transformer attenuators coming along? Please set aside a pair for me so I can move the Fostex to the mid horn. I haven't had a chance to run any sweeps yet, but it's on the plan when I can get a bit of time alone. Promise to post them as soon as I can get to it. Thanks again! Regards, Jim On 7/14/2005 3:36:50 PM DeanG wrote: Jim, aren't you using the ALK? If so, you are 12db/octave for the squawker, not 6db/octave. If you use the JBL with the ALK, and use taps X and 4 -- I think you'll be fine along as you don't get carried away. Which of course means that option is out of the question for me. Did you run those sweeps, and what did they reveal? What tap settings did find worked best with the Trachorn? ----------------
  11. Hi AL, Thanks for the response. I should have phrased my question differently though. I understand exatly what you're saying; what I'm trying to determine is if it is safe to operate the JBL driver at 400Hz/6dB oct. As it's a relatively high power handling driver, would say 25 watts (max) of input at the above stated xover/slope be workable? That's why I asked which xover you were using. Thanks! Regards, Jim On 7/8/2005 12:48:06 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: All of my networks use the 3619 transformer and swamping resistor. That allows them to run ANY driver. The only factor is how much power and how low in frequency. The extremem-slope filter allows any give driver to safely operate lower becasue the lows just below the crossover are attenuated much quicker to the 25 dB down level. It's the lows below the cutoff that kills drivers. Al K
  12. Hi Al, I looked up this JBL driver and it specs minimum 500Hz w/ 800Hz/12dB/oct. Are you using this with the exteme slope x over? Would it work with your original x over? Thanks! Regards, Jim ---------------- On 7/4/2005 7:10:36 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: I am using JBL 2426H drivers on my Trachorns but I am crossing over to Beyma CP25s to handle the highs. I think the Altec 902 is a better driver than the JBL. I don't think it will take as much power though. AL K.
  13. Greetings, Al and Chris, thanks for the suggestions. I have a very nice EQ in the system (Manley Labs Massive Passive, a very unique product: http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/masspass99.html) but feel that using EQ is "cheating" to some degree. I'd prefer to acheive balance with the crossover and attenuators if at all possible, using EQ only when absolutely required. Yes, it was quite a bit of $ for the attenuators and probably overkill for use with the tweeters. I may end up placing them in the mid range line when AL gets his units on the market. It will be less of an issue when I return the system to bi-amplification. I spent most of Monday tweeking settings and though things are improving, I'm not yet close to my expectations. Still seems to be a problem finding a midrange driver that will work with down to 400Hz without an extreme slope or power limitation. Regards, Jim
  14. Greetings, I received the Fostex transformer attenuators via next day shippment. Installed them into the H/F line (EV-T350) and they work great. As far as I can tell, either by using the zero attenuation setting or bypass they don't seem to have any adverse effects. The finish work is very good, no clicks or noise when changing settings. It's very nice to have 1dB flexability for adjustments. Al K., would these work either as replacement for the midrange auto-transformer in your original x-over networks or be better placed down line? I'd like to have the ease of setting change and 1dB increment for the midrange driver. I'm sure that most users would "set and forget" the midrange, but I've found that different source material can benefit from a balance change; sort of like adjusting the levels as a type of "equalization". Anyway, even though the Fostex units were on the expensive side (about $170/ea), I do recommend them to anyone seeking the fine degree of control, neutral sonics and ease of adjustment they offer. Regards, Jim
  15. Greetings, Many thanks for the tip on the Fostex transformer attenuator and the suggestion of Madisound as a vendor. I ordered a set last night. They look to be very nice, high quality units and the fine degree of resolution will be most helpful. With the new Trachorns, Als' crossovers, the EV tweeters and the attenuators, it seems that a possible weak link in the chain could be the mid driver itself. What are some of the currently manufactured mid range drivers that are a significant improvement over the K55M and K55V (I have both available)? I've seen mention of some older Altec and JBL units, but am concerned they may be difficult to source or find replacement diaphragms for, so current production is a plus. I'm not completely against older drivers as long as replacement diaphragms are available and the 400Hz requirement can be met. Many other drivers I've seen also don't seem to want to go low enough in frequency to mate well with the K-Horns. The TAD 2001 seems very nice, but requires a 600Hz crossover point. What are you guys using or have heard? Anything that's been tried with the Trachorn and Als' original crossover? I really appreciate all the input the group has given and the free exchange of knowledge here! Klipsch rules! Regards, Jim
×
×
  • Create New...