Jump to content

RoyC

Members
  • Posts

    2,931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    rjwine@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Latham, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

19,661 profile views

RoyC's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Well Followed Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. I see this one is still going. 🙄 Bill, As I mentioned some posts ago in this thread I did mention that the 4x tweeter is "more compliant"...so in that regard, I agree with what you are trying to accomplish with the PRT tweeter. It rolls off more quickly than the original, yet is apparently more sensitive in the upper frequencies. The 4x's crossover exacerbates the issue. The result can be a subjectively aggressive character in the upper mid/lower high frequencies....most noticeable as the volume is increased. As I mentioned before, some people prefer this to the original character. Unlike what you seem to believe, I don't think its behavior as a drop-in replacement for the 4x tweeter is an indictment of the PRT tweeter as a whole. For the record, I did not add anything to the PRT's "surround". Some material was added to the paper cone to add some mass and try to reduce its upper mid sensitivity, which it did slightly...but I was fully aware that it was never going to make it sound the same as the original tweeter. Knowing that most people were accepting of the PRT tweeter, it was a simple attempt to make it a bit more friendly to my ear, and others who were not satisfied with it. It should be noted that the original tweeter had a similar treatment to the cone's perimeter, which is where I got the idea. Attached is a photo of a nasty old specimen showing where it was applied. Most 4x tweeters had various amounts of it on the cone. It should also be noted that the 4x tweeter has a larger cone along with the softer suspension. Your modifications to the tweeter appear to be thoughtful and neatly done, and I'll be interested in the outcome if they are practical for others to implement or acquire should they prove effective. "What I failed to effectively communicate to RoyC is that if these sound good in my Polks, they’ll also sound good in the 4X, or in any speaker, regardless of the crossover." You haven't failed to "communicate" anything to me. You just haven't convinced me. Roy
  2. Imo, wood glue is a very poor choice for this application. E-6000, Goop, or Gorilla Clear Grip (or some other strong contact adhesive) would be a much better way to go.
  3. Both of them? Just wood glue? All of the KLH 5 boards I've seen were installed with screws and had foam gaskets under them...no glue at all. Roy
  4. I wouldn't be concerned about going to banana jacks as long as you are aware of the need for insulating gaskets to prevent a short through the metal terminal plate. They will also extend further out from the back of the cabinet (if that is something that matters to you). You could also just use inline banana jacks. #8 ring connectors, my preference, will also provide a secure connection and is an easier approach than installing banana jacks. Whatever method you use to connect your speaker wire, it is a good idea not to simply wrap it around the terminals.
  5. Any time. Sounds like you have everything under control. Keep us posted.
  6. Not being defensive or difficult, just thinking that believing impedance matching resistors and your ears are all you need to make the tweeter compatible with two completely different speakers is naive. If nothing else it will be interesting. I think this thread has been sufficiently hijacked with this conversation at this point.
  7. Suitable as a replacement in the 4x, not pair of Polks. No relevance.
  8. Hmmm, I'm sure it will be interesting, but it is hard to see how it will be relevant to the 4x. Impedance is only one parameter. You are proposing using it with a different woofer, different cabinet, different crossover...and conclusions reached based on your listening impressions?
  9. 4 or 8 ohm. Are you installing them in 4x's? What kind of changes do you have in mind?
  10. Hi George, Based on your post, I'm sure you have plenty of sealant on the woofer and mid surrounds. As long as your woofer cones are returning more slowly. There is such a thing as applying too much sealant. The mids' surrounds only need one light application of sealant, which is much less necessary than the supplemental treatment of the woofer surrounds. It is more important to keep the mids' surrounds compliant. The most critical aspect of installing the mids is sealing their sub-enclosure from the rest of the cabinet. The mids originally had white foam gaskets in the space you filled with putty. There should be some kind of gasket material under the entire mounting flanges of all the drivers. Roy PS Great photos, Kent.
  11. The dust cap is original. I agree with Kent. It all looks good from here, including that fancypants capacitor arrangement! 🙂 Not sure of an any upside, but I'm certain they will do the job very well. Roy
  12. Good photo...I don't believe I have ever seen an original AR-9 woofer without the masonite ring. OP probably should post a photo if he is in doubt as to whether he has original or Tonegen replacements(s). It is important not to damage the ring if it is present.
  13. So you have experience using this tweeter in the 4x? What crossover and cabinet changes did you make to accommodate this tweeter?
  14. First of all, we are talking about subjective impressions of a 4x replacement tweeter based on feedback from users, not your opinion of the original AR tweeter. It should be noted that the replacement PRT type tweeter does not have the same construction as the original 4x tweeter...which has a more compliant suspension. The PRT replacement is not as capable in the mid frequencies primarily due to excursion differences. Despite this, a great many users are satisfied with it. It is the difference between this tweeter and the original AR-4x tweeter under discussion, not any flaws (or "distortion") associated with the overall use of this type of tweeter. Secondly, your conjecture as to why AR used dome tweeters is not accurate. It is not uncommon for speaker manufacturers to successfully use cone tweeters in 2-way designs. AR used dome tweeters for the highest frequencies in 3-way models to enhance dispersion and power handling, not because their cone drivers were distorting. Dome tweeters were used only in their more robust 3-way designs, never in their 2-way models. The cone tweeter used in 2-way models such as the AR-6, 7, 8, and 18 is still highly regarded. Obviously any driver used outside of its design parameters can "distort". In the end, we are probably talking about the same thing. We just have a different definition of "distortion".
  15. I disagree. No speaker system (or individual driver) has ruler flat frequency response...so are those departures considered to be "distortion"? The 4x replacement tweeter referred to as "harsh" by some people has been found to be satisfactory others. Earlier in this thread a forum member stated "I actually like the Parts Express replacements". Are you going to tell him he prefers "distortion"? If so, based on what? "Distortion" is usually considered to be something that should not be present such as noise, static, rattles. clipping, etc. I think you are actually referring to frequency response and tonal balance, not distortion. The crossover integrates presumably properly functioning drivers to produce a desired response. There will always be variations and preferences on the part of the designer and the listener.
×
×
  • Create New...