I'm a little jealous freddi. that must sound great. I hope you enjoy it for many years to come. it does look a little squeezed on the end. but I don't think the best response comes out the end. does the 10in. speaker sound like it could actually sound like maybe a 15in. in. might be in there. I would swear my 5in. speaker sounds much bigger than it is. I would pop in a Diana Krall cd and relax. very life like and realistic on voices. and piano, all strings really.
fwiw with the klam10, I thought the 10" sounded more powerful than a direct radiator - I want to re-cut the aperture with a jigsaw but am afraid of screwing it up.
re:many years - don't know - hit 65 - not in very good shape
Don Bunce made a klam10 with Beta10cx using Adire components - he didn't seem impressed - I wonder if the xover had BSC?
- I generally run the tweeter a bit hot in klams
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=hug&m=162797&VT=T
Don's klam10
these klam10 were based on one done by Carl Neuser - its a nice size at around 22" total length
re:many years - don't know - hit 65 - not in very good shape
Don Bunce made a klam10 with Beta10cx using Adire components - he didn't seem impressed - I wonder if the xover had BSC?
- I generally run the tweeter a bit hot in klams
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=hug&m=162797&VT=T
Don's klam10
these klam10 were based on one done by Carl Neuser - its a nice size at around 22" total length
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I wonder if the Oliver MagnaClam which assume was the same as the Karlson AP100 asymmetric projector, was the best shape for a 15" klam (?) the description hinted it was a scaled up version of Karlson's APX (or the Oliver Sound Phase III) 10" klam. The 15" model must had used a K-tube tweeter on a bracket somewhere in front of its Altec 421.
i have one klam15 that's somewhat shorter than the MagnaClam
MagnaClam would be ~1.5X of the Phase3 - according to Karlson associate Alan Weiss,
model AP100 was installed in Radio City Music Hall.
here's my klam15 built by Lapaire along with a Karlsonator6 prototype - both turned out fine
-I'm going to check klam15's system Q and if too low will either compensate with foam blocks
in the rear chamber - or cut off some of the rear chamber.
klam12 may have come out better than klam15 - will have to test with music outdoors this spring
i have one klam15 that's somewhat shorter than the MagnaClam
MagnaClam would be ~1.5X of the Phase3 - according to Karlson associate Alan Weiss,
model AP100 was installed in Radio City Music Hall.
here's my klam15 built by Lapaire along with a Karlsonator6 prototype - both turned out fine
-I'm going to check klam15's system Q and if too low will either compensate with foam blocks
in the rear chamber - or cut off some of the rear chamber.
klam12 may have come out better than klam15 - will have to test with music outdoors this spring
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Re: Oliver Magna-Clam w/ 421 + K-Tube,
I was looking for a way to make a 2-way Klam for my 6" Faital drivers and APT50. I didn't manage to come up with a baffle shape I liked until I went with the two 6" driver in one enclosure as per my draft. Somehow, I feel the Klam should not be square of cross-section, ideally compressed vertically, but certainly not laterally. It made for an awkward way to arrange one 6" and one tweeter and respect the form-factor while having the drivers fire at an acceptable angle. I suppose the Oliver pseudo-coaxial arrangement could work in my case if I wanted two smaller Klams instead of the larger mono unit. Something more to ponder.
I was looking for a way to make a 2-way Klam for my 6" Faital drivers and APT50. I didn't manage to come up with a baffle shape I liked until I went with the two 6" driver in one enclosure as per my draft. Somehow, I feel the Klam should not be square of cross-section, ideally compressed vertically, but certainly not laterally. It made for an awkward way to arrange one 6" and one tweeter and respect the form-factor while having the drivers fire at an acceptable angle. I suppose the Oliver pseudo-coaxial arrangement could work in my case if I wanted two smaller Klams instead of the larger mono unit. Something more to ponder.
I'm guessing the parallel walls may introduce an artifact around their 1/2-wave mode, so this may be of consideration. I suppose if the K-slot starts fairly close to the driver, there shouldn't be too much harm in having a ~square CSA, so I may have to re-think that earlier comment. If nothing else, golden ratio is always visually pleasing.
About that Klam10, what's botched about it? Not sure I see it.
I'll likely go ahead with my 2x6" Klam. I'll move up to 0.75" ply though, but probably the regular stuff, not BB, unless the handy-panel selection looks terrible.
Last edited:
Of all K's - I had a bad experience with a small Klam and a small full range. It sounded terrible - like someone talking from a tunnel and it measured full of resonances. I think the size scale has a lot to do with it - needs to be big of order 12in driver. At 5 in size it acts like a Ktube on a full range.
re:"botched" here's how JL built my klam10 - he was just following CN's spec - I should have calculated the radius needed to swing the full width
I think they may be tricky off horizontal axis due to the depth of the driver vs coupler length plus resonance
Klam10 graphs with old spec B102 "fullrange" (no tweeter - no network)
klam10 above on nose and mic 45 off horizontal axis- distortion 100Hz ~1 watt
klam10 distortion 100Hz, ~ 60 watts
klam10 laying on ground with mic "above" (probably ~perpendicular to the aperture angle)
on nose axis - klam10 vs a ~40 degree klam8
approximate dimensions of klam10
klam8 used in comparison
approximate klam8 dimensions
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I think they may be tricky off horizontal axis due to the depth of the driver vs coupler length plus resonance
Klam10 graphs with old spec B102 "fullrange" (no tweeter - no network)
klam10 above on nose and mic 45 off horizontal axis- distortion 100Hz ~1 watt
klam10 distortion 100Hz, ~ 60 watts
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
klam10 laying on ground with mic "above" (probably ~perpendicular to the aperture angle)
on nose axis - klam10 vs a ~40 degree klam8
approximate dimensions of klam10
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
klam8 used in comparison
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
approximate klam8 dimensions
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
here's the on-nose response of klam10/B102 vs klam8/Sammi50W at 1/6 octave smoothing instead of the 1/24 octave used above
Beta10cx would typically crossover around 2K5 to a 1 inch format compression driver
if one wanted to walk on the wild side a bit, then a K-tube could be cemented to
the CX horn as with this Klam15 where the extended tube was just crammed down a
rectangular horn's throat - this pretty much removes HF from the front coupler and would
probably widen the angle quite a bit in the compression driver's area,
Beta10cx would typically crossover around 2K5 to a 1 inch format compression driver
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
if one wanted to walk on the wild side a bit, then a K-tube could be cemented to
the CX horn as with this Klam15 where the extended tube was just crammed down a
rectangular horn's throat - this pretty much removes HF from the front coupler and would
probably widen the angle quite a bit in the compression driver's area,
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
The Klam10 response isn't too shabby. Ok, so by botched you mean the truncated tip of the radial wings. I though I'd seen other pictures around of Klams built this way - perhaps CN's as you say. I was gonna make my 2x6" Klam this way, I like the looks
and don't think it matters a whole lot assuming the truncation is << than the full slot width.
K-Tube on a cone driver - yeah it pretty much is what a Klam's about. It might not be as graceful as the CSA is rectangular and the slot intercepts the driver's firing axis, but this is done for other considerations than a 1" K-Tube on a compression driver naturally.
My 2x6" design has a ~20" of total "horn" length and 16" of projected slotted length. I'm hoping this will (it should IMO) bring it a notch above "small scale" performance. I just checked this and had not realized, my dimension are fairly ballpark to the Oliver Phase III.
Phase III had a smooth response perpendicular to its aperture. (I almost think K got the dispersion claims backwards) Some time ago, Silvercore in their DIY section had a two way speaker - the bottom was a 2 foot cube Klipsch La-Scala clone - the top was a reverse load clay K-tube with Lowther. I imagine it sounded pretty snappy. Back some time ago I tried it with a donated de-whizzered FE164 = very nice - there was no damping material at all in the pipe. You can see from the graph trace "behind" the speaker that there was some treble output. Anyhow, can such a thing work with a 90 degree elbow or would the reflections and path be too severe? 24" depth with a straight pipe is fine for some setups - if it could be bent then might work on a baffle.
the woofer below was a 10" butyl surround Pioneer - it did not have the oomph to play the CD's I like - even so, wish it was still available.
the woofer below was a 10" butyl surround Pioneer - it did not have the oomph to play the CD's I like - even so, wish it was still available.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
How nuts is this one?
So I have a pair of 6FE100, as well as APT80, sitting on shelves. The 6FE100 didn't pan out for a BVR I wanted to build, as their suspension is really stiff - even after a solid LF and noise beat-down - yielding higher Fs and Qt than published. A sealed box is the only sane option if I'm to keep things small-ish.
I could use this to play some tunes in mono in my garage and take it outside if I need during the summer to entertain. ~15L of sealed rear chamber makes for Qtc a bit above 1.0 with f3~90Hz / f10~65Hz, 1.5dB hump at 160Hz. Due to the stiff suspension of my units, this box could eat-up 64W of power before exceeding Xmax at any frequency, by which time we're dealing with ~110dB of output above 100Hz - more than enough to ****-off neighbours as the lots are quite small around me.
The whole thing would be 30" long, 13.5" wide and 9" high. The Klam section is 16" long from above (projected K-slot view) , or 21" from the driver mounting "V". Baffle slant is ~24°, shallower than most Klams. I'd expect for it to tune around 170Hz-190Hz if my usual technique applies. The added BP4 action and high Qtc will most likely negate step-loss. The 6FE100 has on-axis response to ~5kHz if the data sheet is to be believed. I'm hoping the K-slot and driver placement (eventual HF interference) will allow to run them wide-open. Depending on how things actually turn out, the APT50 driver on K-Tube will likely be crossed-over anywhere between 3kHz and 6kHz. APT50 should hopefully keep-up SPL-wise, as the dual 6FE100 will get a sensitivity boost from running parallel at 4ohm. I've never used a K-tube on them. I could always use a PVC Y-coupler to use both driver on the one tube.
The draft shows 0.5" ply, perhaps better move-up to 0.75" though.
I've half a mind to build this thing and put the unused drivers to work.
That's very nice, IG81!
I was thinking something similar, sort of like a 'Synergy Klam'.
I have a couple of questions.
1. Shouldn't the pipe be longer in order to 'transport' the highs safely
out the klam's opening? (as seen in one of freddi's pics?)
2. Can you mount one of the woofers in reverse, and make it a push-pull?
(I tried the push-pull orientation in xrk's 'KaZba' mini and it cleaned up the sound very nice)
That's very nice, IG81!
I was thinking something similar, sort of like a 'Synergy Klam'.
I have a couple of questions.
1. Shouldn't the pipe be longer in order to 'transport' the highs safely
out the klam's opening? (as seen in one of freddi's pics?)
2. Can you mount one of the woofers in reverse, and make it a push-pull?
(I tried the push-pull orientation in xrk's 'KaZba' mini and it cleaned up the sound very nice)
Thanks!
I though of a Unity/Synergy type setup, but I don't want the extra level of experimentation for now. I also wanted to give a bit of restriction to the midbass in a slightly different scheme. If I didn't need the 6FE100's to play midrange into the 3kHz range, I'd probably have done a PPSL in there, but this would limit the output to ~500Hz going by plenum depth ¼-λ.
1. Possibly. As drawn, it may radiate enough, but this will best be determined empirically IMO. OTOH, I don't want too long a tube as it might introduce response anomalies.
2. Possibly, again.
This will depend out things balance out, meaning tonal balance. I'll likely lose some upper-midrange from the front chamber, so I might want everything the front of the cone has to give. Again, it'll be trial and error I suppose.
After my 'Hypercube Klam' was unsuccessful(my experience is identical to your description here), I had another go at a mini Klam using the same 2 inch driver, and it sounded better. But it still didn't sound as good as I figured it should.
Then it dawned on me, wouldn't the klam, with the driver positioned more internally than the normal K boxes, would exhibit more of the bandpass characteristics?
And with bandpass, such as synergy horn midrange, doesn't the rear chamber has to be sealed or very small in order to provide enough 'compression'?(not sure if that's the right terminology, but...) to project sound through some obstructions?(port holes, karlson wings, etc...)
So I figured that's the reason my second klam was better sounding than the first(smaller rear chamber by luck). And so I made the chamber even smaller. Almost like a sealed back woofer - and it started to sound great!
I guess a cheap driver like that with high qts will require smaller rear chamber than low qts drivers with q's in say~ 0.3~0.4 region.
So I really hope that you have another go at the Klam, xrk971. And if you can, crack the Karlson Klam for us this time!
Thanks!
I though of a Unity/Synergy type setup, but I don't want the extra level of experimentation for now. I also wanted to give a bit of restriction to the midbass in a slightly different scheme. If I didn't need the 6FE100's to play midrange into the 3kHz range, I'd probably have done a PPSL in there, but this would limit the output to ~500Hz going by plenum depth ¼-λ.
1. Possibly. As drawn, it may radiate enough, but this will best be determined empirically IMO. OTOH, I don't want too long a tube as it might introduce response anomalies.
2. Possibly, again.
Thanks for the reply, IG81.
How is your project coming along?
I am a big fan of the PPSL concept, and I have thought of putting a PPSL manifold in a Karlson bass setup(Klam, K-15, Metro-15, etc...)
But I didn't know whether putting a bandpass device inside a bandpass device would work or not, so I put the idea aside.
But after reading your post, I started to think about it again, and I am leaning towards 'why not?'. So I'd like to know what are your thoughts regarding the matter.
And also, when I wrote PP on my other post, I meant standard PP, not PPSL.
So it would be a matter of just flipping one of your drivers. What do you think? Will it have influence in the upper frequency output just by making it PP?
Thanks for the reply, IG81.
How is your project coming along?
I am a big fan of the PPSL concept, and I have thought of putting a PPSL manifold in a Karlson bass setup(Klam, K-15, Metro-15, etc...)
But I didn't know whether putting a bandpass device inside a bandpass device would work or not, so I put the idea aside.
But after reading your post, I started to think about it again, and I am leaning towards 'why not?'. So I'd like to know what are your thoughts regarding the matter.
And also, when I wrote PP on my other post, I meant standard PP, not PPSL.
So it would be a matter of just flipping one of your drivers. What do you think? Will it have influence in the upper frequency output just by making it PP?
I kludged together a Klam over the weekend, but for only one driver, no K-Tube. ~10 liters sealed rear chamber, 24" total length, with ~11.5" of it the Klam aperture. The driver is rear-mounted a bit like an Altec A7, with cone constriction and 45° side panels leading into the Klam mouth. I briefly tried it with an APT80 on top. The high system Q and bandpass gain make for strong output around 150Hz-300Hz IIRC the measurement I did. Whenever I'm within a few meters of it, it sounds terribly boxy, but that goes away when I back up. I could only get ~20 feet from it in my basement. The high sealed f3 makes for not much bass considering the bandpass gain. It might sound decent with more power and outside at a distance of 10 yards or more, don't know if I'll try this anytime soon though. It probably won't cut it for my intended use as a shop speaker. I'm building a 20L sealed box to house both 6FE100's and one APT80 to play in mono. I have an unused National Overture chip amp (I forget which chip exactly, ~15W IIRC) that I will bridge to drive it. I'll probably just pick up a cheap tuner for a source at the thrift if I can find one, or just use my Sansa Clip Zip. I also built a 10L sealed box for a single 6FE100 to compare and kludged a "good enough" crossover to APT80 consisting of a single inductor and capacitor meeting around ~4-5kHz. I have a bit of a BBC-dip going on as well.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.