mikebse2a3:

The PEQ comment is just a sign that you really don't grasp what is being done with the K402/TAD 4002. Value versus Cost of the TADs in your comment is a personel choice but performance itself is a different matter Claude and the K402/TAD has a clarity and coherence that must be experienced and to make comments such as you have based on no experience of them(if you have used the TADs then I apoligize but you have said nothing to indicate you have any real amount of experience with them) is really meaningless.

Again Claude my orginal response to your post wasn't about wether the MWM, KHorn,or Jubilee was the better reproducer but instead about the ways you were forming your many conclusions and stating them as fact which I believe to be flawed/wrong based on again the reasons I orginally stated.

The above being said again Claude you obviously enjoy your system very much and have worked very hard at your goals for it as well as done it very economicaly and I really do think that is great! We obviously see the path to the ideal loudspeaker reproducer differently but that's OK and if I was close by I would love to listen to your system.

On a more serious note Claude I read about the Health issues in a later post and I hope all goes well!

mike tn

 Thanks for you response and good wishes about my mom. I don't actually disagree about 2-way being easier and better vs. the way I'm doing it. Perhaps I didn't emphasize the fact that I have put together my ENTIRE system.........7 discrete channels that includes two 4-way mains, a 3-way center, and 4 two-way surrounds..........ALL HORNS. Plus, two large direct radiator passive subs with ouboard dual mono amplification for about the same price as JUST the Jubilee bass sections from a Klipsch Theater Dealer. I have paid cash for all thes parts incrementally over 2-years and mostly working off my original stock Khorn pair with single LaScala sale.

 There is no question in my mind that if I had the money, I would end up with a bi-amped 2-way Jubilee and TAD berillium drivers on the 402's. I fully recognize the benefits of that setup, so it's not that I don't understand the anomalies and compromises I'm making, as you and Grasshopper suggest. We honestly have no disagreement at all. Its just that I have more space in the room, and more time, than I have money for right now. Nothing more. Despite the odd looking collection of "a dog from every town" in my setup, it sounds really amazing on movies and concert DVD's as well as LP's and CD's in 2-channel mode. It's WAY better than what I started out with in 2007  (30 years of Khorn LaScala with PWK's resistor box for mono center).I have everyone on this Forum including you, to thank for fueling my quest.

colterphoto1:

 "If you look at my curve, it was done in corners, in my concrete basement, 7-foot ceinlings,"

-so then you have all kinds of room gain, negating any really meaning full data, other than 'these sound like this in MY room'. 

 I can't believe a knowledgeable guy like you even wrote that. What could be more meaningful then getting everything below 300 Hz. to Plus/Minus 5 db in a real listening environment. That's how PWk designed the Khorns to start with. The chamber only allowed him to do more isolated measurements of driver and crossover behavior, another great tool, but it doesn't negate the meaningfulness of adjustment for a real room.

Don't you EQ your PA stuff for the space your're in?

Hey Claude

When you have time how about a picture of your latest setup.

mike tn

mikebse2a3:

Hey Claude

When you have time how about a picture of your latest setup.

 

mike tn

I would like to see too.  A close up of your top section on your Khorns.  More details on the passives....

Are you still using a cone for mids?

jc

jwc:

mikebse2a3:

Hey Claude

When you have time how about a picture of your latest setup.

 

mike tn

I would like to see too.  A close up of your top section on your Khorns.  More details on the passives....

Are you still using a cone for mids?

jc

I will try to post photos by this weekend. It's a total hack job by anyone's standards, but it's still in the R&D stage.....done with the least regard to aesthetics. But at least you will have some idea of the simplicity of it all.

JC, the MB-1 has a Black Widow 12" driver with a beefy magnet and a 4" voice coil feeding a large styrofoam phase plug in the large horn throat (about 6" I'm guessing). They are basically making a compression driver out of a kevlar impregnated cone. It really sounds amazing teamed up with the JBL 2360 and the 2446 driver (a little flatter than the EV-DH1a it replaced). Together they cover 180-6,000 Hz. with the VC's jammed in the corner. You'll see in the photos.

Cask05:

"The tweeter sound arrives at 3.7 ms but has an internal reverberation whose period is about 167 microseconds with a decay rate of about 9 dB per second.  This causes irregularities in the free-field sound around 6 kHz...The midrange sound first appears at 5.38 ms and shows a mild reverberation characteristic which pulls the energy out for a half millisecond or so before it drops.  Subsequent enclosure reflections occur after about 6 ms.  The first sound from the woofer is not on this measurement since it arrives about 8.4 ms after the sound from the tweeter."

Claude, as you can see, that 8.4 ms offset is a big delay relative to the Jub's 2.2 ms relative delay (ref. KPT-KHJ-LF bass bin and K-402/K69 upper horn assembly).

I'm only concerned about the delay from the mid to the woofer. This is why my midbass/mirange/twetter horns are in the corners 4 feet back.

ClaudeJ1:

Don't you EQ your PA stuff for the space your're in?

I don't...even when I have multiple graphics and PEQ's on hand. I'll see if I can't find this one article that talks about pre-90's vs post-90's EQ methods. With properly positioned speakers, time-domain spectrometry should demonstrate the precedance effect and how the power response is the dominating factor of how the system is perceived. Sometimes I'll throw in EQ to tame some feedback, but the real problem is lack of control over the polars (whether it be the speakers or the microphone), but we don't have that problem in home listening....well I suppose it sometimes exists with microphonic turntables/tubes

I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative....this is a topic I find extremely interesting and just trying to offer some counter-point to spur on some conversation.

My biggest question would be, what exactly is the meaningfulness of adjustment for a real room? Like what problems are being introduced by the room that the EQ is supposed to be fixing? And then how well does the EQ fix the problem?

Btw, I missed the thread on the health issues, but I hope all is well.

DrWho:

I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative....this is a topic I find extremely interesting and just trying to offer some counter-point to spur on some conversation.

My biggest question would be, what exactly is the meaningfulness of adjustment for a real room? Like what problems are being introduced by the room that the EQ is supposed to be fixing? And then how well does the EQ fix the problem?

Btw, I missed the thread on the health issues, but I hope all is well.

It's all of our nature to be agrumentative about audio. It's the only way to make us think about other possiblities, so no problemo there. While aligning voice coils was easy for me, it still took countless hours of moving components, litening, measuring, second and third opinions from other audophiles, and 1/24th octave measuring gear to get the closest thing to sine sweep "dirty curves" from pink noise. I did discover that my subs were the biggest issue and had to reverse polarity to get the to smooth out and increase the low bass output instead of create a suckout. So basically I got the entire setup to be as good as possible before applying the Audissey room EQ, which was really the icing on a very good cake to start with.

Thanks for the kind thoughts about my mom. Stage 4 lymphoma and it's just a matter of time, as she will go to a better place soon.