Woe is he who doubts the virtues of K. Out come the "K" cheerleaders with distracting questions and (more) folklore.
...On second thought, let's not go to Kamelot. 'Tis a silly place.
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail (of sound)
...On second thought, let's not go to Kamelot. 'Tis a silly place.
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail (of sound)
Hey Guys,
I was looking at those Sound Laser Transylvania tube things, as well as the graph that Freddi posted.
Got to casting an eye over some of the various cardboard tubes we have here at work, many lengths and diameters - wall thicknesses. Soooooo, I was wondering what a little fullrange driver like one of the Tang Bands would sound like in such a tube.
It would seem easy to scale up the tube, or is it? Would you start with an 1/8" slot like the small tube, or scale up the width of the starting slot too? What about length? Does the curve need to stay the same aspect ratio, or can it be pulled longer or shorter?
A lot of questions that perhaps don't yet have answers.
Just wondering, thought it might be fun to try. Like a K tube that works from ~300Hz up. What would that sound like?
I was looking at those Sound Laser Transylvania tube things, as well as the graph that Freddi posted.
Got to casting an eye over some of the various cardboard tubes we have here at work, many lengths and diameters - wall thicknesses. Soooooo, I was wondering what a little fullrange driver like one of the Tang Bands would sound like in such a tube.
It would seem easy to scale up the tube, or is it? Would you start with an 1/8" slot like the small tube, or scale up the width of the starting slot too? What about length? Does the curve need to stay the same aspect ratio, or can it be pulled longer or shorter?
A lot of questions that perhaps don't yet have answers.
Just wondering, thought it might be fun to try. Like a K tube that works from ~300Hz up. What would that sound like?
I've made ~ scaled for 6" - -kinda fun w. 4" - maybe somewhat impractical although Robert Reams (Karlson Hypex patent) built a 10" diameter double-slotted tube about 30" long for PA work. here's a k-tube as rear load for Lowther
K-tube rear load
http://www.silvercore.de/index.php?id=35,79,0,0,1,0.
this one = more traditional:
Kloss mini K for 126E
some k8 might be fun and have quite a bit of punch
K-tube rear load
http://www.silvercore.de/index.php?id=35,79,0,0,1,0.
this one = more traditional:
Kloss mini K for 126E
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
some k8 might be fun and have quite a bit of punch
Hi Freddy,
The 'boing' is why TLs are stuffed I suppose, it would be an interesting experiment to add various amounts of stuffing to the inside of the coupler (bet you've tried it already??).
Magnetar,
re: "To put the coupler on the back without the reflex port you'll end up with dipole that has an altered rear firing radiation pattern. I've done this and it can be better in the right situation than just mounting the driver on a board!"
I'm interested in trying this someday too, what was your situation, and how did it affect the rear radiation?
Cheers,
Pete McK
The 'boing' is why TLs are stuffed I suppose, it would be an interesting experiment to add various amounts of stuffing to the inside of the coupler (bet you've tried it already??).
Magnetar,
re: "To put the coupler on the back without the reflex port you'll end up with dipole that has an altered rear firing radiation pattern. I've done this and it can be better in the right situation than just mounting the driver on a board!"
I'm interested in trying this someday too, what was your situation, and how did it affect the rear radiation?
Cheers,
Pete McK
freddi said:
Thanks! Just what I was looking for. I was thinking front loaded, but I'll try it backward, too. =)
He says "The rear sound is not directly to the rear, but at 30 ° angles from the slit."
Do you find this to be true of the tubes?
30 might be where it would plot smoothest - highest F tend to go straight down the pipe -- I posted a few plots of 164 in a rear-load tube at James fullrange forum but pulled it as no interest over there.
FWIW heres a tradeoff of a stock Karlson box with 40 sq.in. vent vs RCA-Fan's v-vent reflex each loaded with the same M151 and mic laying on the ground. (yellow trade iw K15 raised so baffle is perpendicular) with music tracks the reflex cone moves about 2X that of the K. Fb for v-vent ~40 - iron law holds at Kamelot.
K15 and v-vent ~2M ground plane
double checking v-vent inverted
FWIW heres a tradeoff of a stock Karlson box with 40 sq.in. vent vs RCA-Fan's v-vent reflex each loaded with the same M151 and mic laying on the ground. (yellow trade iw K15 raised so baffle is perpendicular) with music tracks the reflex cone moves about 2X that of the K. Fb for v-vent ~40 - iron law holds at Kamelot.
K15 and v-vent ~2M ground plane
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
double checking v-vent inverted
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
IMO, a Karlson enclosure is an ideal 'party' configuration for a bass driver🙂
Btw, I was wondering if there might be other useful 'slot' profiles than the standard exponential opening toward the bottom.
Btw, I was wondering if there might be other useful 'slot' profiles than the standard exponential opening toward the bottom.
"Another K-Coupler that was on the market is the model "The Tube" (pic 3 & 4) This construction represents the purest form of the K-Coupler for the mid/high range.." : KKoppler
IB is good configuration for a bass driver...😀
Last edited:
here's an 8" driver coupler built by an internet friend employing a tube made of wood veneer for better damping than metal and pvc. John Karlson used an internal open end waveguide tube by 1965 with his "X15" speaker
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hey Freddy!
I forget, do you have any K15 polar plots to share out to at least 2 kHz?
GM
hi GM - -sure don't - it would be something to do - I'd have to hook up a measuring rig and run cords outside then measure at different heights while rotating the cabinet
In the meantime, can you do maybe an in-door ~250-2.5 kHz sweep ~ 1m away by walking around it approximately 5-6" above the top of the speaker if a turntable and tripod mounted mike is too much hassle? Just trying to get an idea of what shape, Fc a WG perched on top needs to be.
GM
GM
Comparing Karlson and TH
Recently added my 2-cents on the subject
HERE
My ancient Karlson 15 in shiny red-maple formica, mentioned in link above, had a Philips (Norelco) 12 inch driver with a whizzer cone. Later, added a T35 Electrovoice horn tweeter.
My tough criterion for reproduction is that you could be fooled in the next room into thinking "the real thing" was in your music room (like Burden tried). Any honest audiophile will admit it has never happened to them ever (OK, small exceptions for flutes, when you are drunk, if you are an engineer with insufficient understanding of the influence of ego on judgment, etc.).
By that "down the hall listening" criterion, I gotta say, my old Karlson could sound like a cello like nothing I've ever heard since.
Ben
Recently added my 2-cents on the subject
HERE
My ancient Karlson 15 in shiny red-maple formica, mentioned in link above, had a Philips (Norelco) 12 inch driver with a whizzer cone. Later, added a T35 Electrovoice horn tweeter.
My tough criterion for reproduction is that you could be fooled in the next room into thinking "the real thing" was in your music room (like Burden tried). Any honest audiophile will admit it has never happened to them ever (OK, small exceptions for flutes, when you are drunk, if you are an engineer with insufficient understanding of the influence of ego on judgment, etc.).
By that "down the hall listening" criterion, I gotta say, my old Karlson could sound like a cello like nothing I've ever heard since.
Ben
Last edited:
Later, installed Stephens Trusonic 15 inch woofer with 20 Hz resonance (one of the great woofers - make me an offer for it). Wonderful bass for organ music.
Speaking of which, there was some interest in Karlson's for electric organs - you know, Hammond kind of things. It was more like an instument - with those lively resonances - than most "New England sound" Acoustic Research flat speakers.
I suppose a speaker having its own voice is anathema to tastes today. Unless you love the Bach cello suites.
Speaking of which, there was some interest in Karlson's for electric organs - you know, Hammond kind of things. It was more like an instument - with those lively resonances - than most "New England sound" Acoustic Research flat speakers.
I suppose a speaker having its own voice is anathema to tastes today. Unless you love the Bach cello suites.
Last edited:
Well said that man, especially the latter half of the second sentence. We are so far from reproducing a musical or any other reality. This is why very good hi fi set ups sound so different from each other. They all focus on differing aspects of the musical experience. Good argument for being drunk, like.
I hate to rain on parades. Everyone is free to enjoy whatever aspect of this hobby that they like, and any design or design philosophy. But me personally, I disagree with so much that was said earlier and some of what was just plunked down on this revived old thread.
First off, Ron E is hardly a troll... fyi.
Everyone hears differently, and I suppose that for almost any speaker there is some combination of room and gear that makes it sound good - whereas the same gear to me might be adjudged to sound like doggie poop in other situations. Having said that, the K-slot models and measures like a "bad horn". Nothing more. It is going to have dips and peaks, and you might mistake some of that sort of harmonically related up and down for some sort of new "clarity" - like on a cello perhaps?
The ultimate goal for a system is to reproduce the sound of the recording without imparting a "personality" or other variation. Admittedly this is a lofty goal that can't actually be reached since every speaker system inherently is going to have a range of compromises.
The key (if there is one) is to have a really good understanding of the acoustical and psychoacoustical consequences and results of all of these compromises and degrees of compromise and then choose wisely amongst them in your system design. Of course this statement implies that we all have complete freedom and choice, and that is not true due to real world CA$H constraints - but within everyone's personal limitations those choices still exist.
I have heard and do own a system that merely puts music into a room, the speakers seem to be somehow taking up space and so why are they there??
It tends to get back to the recording and the soundfield of the recording. Is it perfect, no. Will it surprise you and/or make you think something is in the room with you? It certainly can and has. Do most speakers do that? Not that I have seen.
Could a K-slot speaker do that? I'd be completely flabbergasted if it did - maybe for one particular recording that fell precisely into its "sweet range".
For that matter the Onken enclosure - much more of a reasonable design idea imo - I have never heard "to good advantage".
These are both older design ideas from the 50s - both without much real design theory or concept behind them. Interesting ideas for the day, but largely eclipsed by newer designs with technical clarity behind them, imo.
Martin J King's TQWT was mentioned earlier in this old thread - his design is not only modern it is based on advanced mathematical analysis, not guessing. These older designs were guessed at.
Older horn designs by contrast did have a strong technical basis in Webster's equations. Newer horn designs go past that point and use some newer math to "solve" the problem.
And steve, truly high quality "hi-fi" set ups tend to converge in terms of sonics... think of it conceptually as a "cloud" of particles around a center point? If this cloud represents "all" hi-fi systems, most of them are pretty far out and away from that center point, so there is a big fat wide and big band of stuff out at the "mid-fi" strata - moving in towards the nucleus, less and less dense.
The good part is that as a DIYer, for not that much $$ and some smarts you can get pretty darn close in to that magic center point! Aim there. <--- my advice.
Enjoy, no matter what you build, but I'd suggest keeping a realistic appraisal in mind regarding what it is and the results...
😀
_-_-bear
PS. and if it turns out that the Karlson turns out to be the best thing ever, I'd be quite happy to revise my thinking... fwiw.
First off, Ron E is hardly a troll... fyi.
Everyone hears differently, and I suppose that for almost any speaker there is some combination of room and gear that makes it sound good - whereas the same gear to me might be adjudged to sound like doggie poop in other situations. Having said that, the K-slot models and measures like a "bad horn". Nothing more. It is going to have dips and peaks, and you might mistake some of that sort of harmonically related up and down for some sort of new "clarity" - like on a cello perhaps?
The ultimate goal for a system is to reproduce the sound of the recording without imparting a "personality" or other variation. Admittedly this is a lofty goal that can't actually be reached since every speaker system inherently is going to have a range of compromises.
The key (if there is one) is to have a really good understanding of the acoustical and psychoacoustical consequences and results of all of these compromises and degrees of compromise and then choose wisely amongst them in your system design. Of course this statement implies that we all have complete freedom and choice, and that is not true due to real world CA$H constraints - but within everyone's personal limitations those choices still exist.
I have heard and do own a system that merely puts music into a room, the speakers seem to be somehow taking up space and so why are they there??
It tends to get back to the recording and the soundfield of the recording. Is it perfect, no. Will it surprise you and/or make you think something is in the room with you? It certainly can and has. Do most speakers do that? Not that I have seen.
Could a K-slot speaker do that? I'd be completely flabbergasted if it did - maybe for one particular recording that fell precisely into its "sweet range".
For that matter the Onken enclosure - much more of a reasonable design idea imo - I have never heard "to good advantage".
These are both older design ideas from the 50s - both without much real design theory or concept behind them. Interesting ideas for the day, but largely eclipsed by newer designs with technical clarity behind them, imo.
Martin J King's TQWT was mentioned earlier in this old thread - his design is not only modern it is based on advanced mathematical analysis, not guessing. These older designs were guessed at.
Older horn designs by contrast did have a strong technical basis in Webster's equations. Newer horn designs go past that point and use some newer math to "solve" the problem.
And steve, truly high quality "hi-fi" set ups tend to converge in terms of sonics... think of it conceptually as a "cloud" of particles around a center point? If this cloud represents "all" hi-fi systems, most of them are pretty far out and away from that center point, so there is a big fat wide and big band of stuff out at the "mid-fi" strata - moving in towards the nucleus, less and less dense.
The good part is that as a DIYer, for not that much $$ and some smarts you can get pretty darn close in to that magic center point! Aim there. <--- my advice.
Enjoy, no matter what you build, but I'd suggest keeping a realistic appraisal in mind regarding what it is and the results...
😀
_-_-bear
PS. and if it turns out that the Karlson turns out to be the best thing ever, I'd be quite happy to revise my thinking... fwiw.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.