I don't think so. They are mainly reflex but the Westminster is a back loaded folded bass horn.Don't some of the bigger ones use transmission line bass?
It is mahoosive, that is a 15" unit in there.
I don't think so. They are mainly reflex but the Westminster is a back loaded folded bass horn.Don't some of the bigger ones use transmission line bass?
I don't think so. They are mainly reflex but the Westminster is a back loaded folded bass horn.
It is mahoosive, that is a 15" unit in there.
View attachment 72973
Personally I'd prefer to keep bass excursions out of the tweeter's "horn", like some of the more modern Tannoys do with their dedicated woofers.
Don't some of the bigger ones use transmission line bass?
I thought we had a member in Dallas with some 4367's.....
One problem of classic Klipschs is driver mis-alignment, they're not time-coherent (Volti's own Rival is not either by the way):
Turning to the time domain, the Forte III's step response is complicated.
All three drive-units appear to be connected in inverted acoustic polarity, with the tweeter's output—the sharp down/up spike at 3.8ms—arriving first at the microphone.
The output of the midrange unit is the lazier downward spike just before 4.5ms followed by the slow rise of the woofer's output.
The decay of the midrange unit's step smoothly blends with that of the woofer, suggesting optimal crossover design.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-forte-iii-loudspeaker-measurements
This could be easily addressed with a digital crossover or not so easily by moving the horns forward in the cabinet as this would require a redesign of the speaker enclosure and at this point you be better off buying beeter drivers and having someone build a new cabinet for you. I could be wrong but I don't think that analogue crossovers are very good at delaying...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say that significant misalignement could cause some cancellation at the crossover points due to frequency overlapping with too much phase difference.How audible is time alignment?
How important is it, really?
I know it's supposed to drastically improve imaging, but those models that seemed to place it first in the design criteria (Dahlquist, Spica, Thiel) didn't end up dominating the speaker world and taking over everything because they were so self-evidently superior.
How audible is time alignment?
How important is it, really?
I know it's supposed to drastically improve imaging, but those models that seemed to place it first in the design criteria (Dahlquist, Spica, Thiel) didn't end up dominating the speaker world and taking over everything because they were so self-evidently superior.
How audible is time alignment?
How important is it, really?
I know it's supposed to drastically improve imaging, but those models that seemed to place it first in the design criteria (Dahlquist, Spica, Thiel) didn't end up dominating the speaker world and taking over everything because they were so self-evidently superior.
Yes that one's a stunner but I also noticed a couple others, one called Bienville that had very attractive woodwork.Thank you Sal!
I assume you are talking about the one with the wooden horn... which is technically an Oblate Spheroid waveguide. So it's actually among the more geeky types of horns.
Yes that one's a stunner but I also noticed a couple others, one called Bienville that had very attractive woodwork.
I love that stuff, maybe because I've always been so lame at doing anything with wood.
Linn engineers did a demo of their DSP corrections at an enthusiast's show 5 or 6 years ago.How audible is time alignment?
How important is it, really?
I know it's supposed to drastically improve imaging, but those models that seemed to place it first in the design criteria (Dahlquist, Spica, Thiel) didn't end up dominating the speaker world and taking over everything because they were so self-evidently superior.
In my opinion they do, though I can see arguments both ways.
The woofer cone acts as a shallow horn for the tweeter's output, constraining its coverage to approximately the angle of the cone itself. Assuming the crossover frequency is about where woofer's dispersion matches the "horn's" coverage angle, the radiation pattern is probably exceptionally uniform from the crossover region on up. Which in my opinion is very good.
As with just about everything in speaker design there are tradeoffs, in my opinion at least. Personally I'd prefer to keep bass excursions out of the tweeter's "horn", like some of the more modern Tannoys do with their dedicated woofers.
Check this out for a mesurement....
This is a new coax 15 inch driver.
View attachment 73085
Beat that!
There's two ways I know to test this;How audible is time alignment?
How important is it, really?
I know it's supposed to drastically improve imaging, but those models that seemed to place it first in the design criteria (Dahlquist, Spica, Thiel) didn't end up dominating the speaker world and taking over everything because they were so self-evidently superior.
Can you produce other measurements (f.e. THD, IMD, CSD)?
There's two ways I know to test this;
1. Try a Kii Three where you can switch on and off time-alignment at the click of a button with the Kii Control. Do this blind, take notes and check if you can hear it. I thought I could at times, but not reliable enough in my hostile acoustic environment to be certain.
2. Try with a room-corrected software like Audiolense/Accourate and make the same frequency response with and without absolute time-alignment.
I tried this too and think it's easier to hear the difference, but then again it probably should be as you change the timing/phase at the listening position in a pretty severe manner. Didn't try it with near-field speaker correction, though I can and probably should.
Usually I just end up listening to music.
This looks heavily smoothed and still shows what looks like resonances at around 1200 hz and 3khz.Check this out for a mesurement....
This is a new coax 15 inch driver.
View attachment 73085
Beat that!