D-MAN

There are some great benefits to dual-driver horn rigs. That is not lost on me! Just 12's - that's lost on me! ;-) With that in mind, the Jub's have to totally kick my tail before I change my opinion. Gentlemen, the question has been posed: will they? DM

in all seriousness dm, thanks for the fun discussion and for making me think!! berryboy roy Me too! - just don't beat me up so much next time! DM

Feet? no feet. Are we talking the same thing here - the V2 is the pic in my avatar. It is a single 15" driver 35Hz bass horn. The V2 is the same size (more or less) as the Khorn bass bin. It is 32" wide by 39" tall. I will go as far as to say, "you haven't heard these yet"... I really doubt that the Jubilee's do anything the V2's don't, but I'd have to build a pair of Jubs to be absolutely sure. I already know that they outperform the Khorn bass bin... I have too many other designs to build first, and 12" drivers don't really interest me at all. DM

JC, I AM indeed looking for a Jubilee "battle of the corners"! If YOU want to build a pair of V2's to compare against your Jubs, I'll send you the plans! Or are you holding out for the dual-15's... that won't be a fair fight! Wanna build one (you mean you aren't tired of building things yet?!) Two reasons for NOT going dual 15's - they are excessively LOUD. The efficiencies achieved are very hard get the top-end to align with. I heard a set of 4 of these "Elephant horns" (pic attached one of my old 1970's horns - still working, too!) single 15's stacked in the 70's and the top-end required 2 mids and several tweeter horns on top. That was (and is) a problem! Then the BMS 4590 comes along with its 113db sensitivity which is understated IMO... which leads me to doing dual-15 designs with modern small Vas drivers. The future has arrived, kids! what took it so long?! DM

Ok, I sent it off today by express mail. Now the waiting begins. DM

Well, don't stop now! Let's escalate! The ONLY thing that a 12" has is a higher mass rolloff. It will have MORE distortion down low, as it has to NATURALLY have MORE EXCURSION to accomplish the task of moving x amount of air due to its cone diameter. Excursion is ALWAYS non-linear. Hence, more excursion=more distortion. Doubling drivers reduces excursion, so less distortion naturally results. As far as 2 -12" moving more air per excursion than a single 15" - granted. But then 2 -15's move more air than 2 - 12's, right? My point. Actually, the historical documentation prefers 15" as being the best possible choice for a given excursion and the comparitive ratio of mass-to-excursion and the amount of air that the cone grabs is better in a single 15 than a single 12. In particular, Badmaeiff and Davis' "How to Build Speaker Enclosures", from the 60's, amongst others. Actually they say 2-15's are the cat's meow because of the efficiencies acheived for a given excusion and the transient response due to mass rolloff is better than a single 18 which is pretty much inarguable. I'll dig around and see if I can find a reference that shows this and try to post it here, but I can't promise... In the case of the Jubilee, we are concerned with a 90 sq. in throat (the combined area) compared to the Khorn's 78 sq. in. throat (the narrower slot notwithstanding). That is a total difference of 12 sq. inches. Now do you REALLY think that there is a massive difference there? The answer is NOT! The real concern is how big is the slot and subsequent channel, which determines the amount of throat distortion you will generate at a given SPL. Which one wins? Probably a wash. The Jubilee, by virtue of dual drivers, which lessens the required excurstion per given SPL would be a lower velocity threw the throat, but this is counteracted by small slots and channels. The Khorn has wider channels - but a narrower slot - which is going to INCREASE reactance initially. This is counteracted by the wider channels, so I figure it's a wash. We could resolve this by calculating the differences in reactance especially at the throat(s), but that is quite complicated, and I'm not quite sure that the result in acoustic ohms would be in regards to the particular drivers. I do know that the Khorn is operating the K33E under more compression than the Jubilee, though, which lowers its efficiency. The difference is that the K33E isn't the "strongest" driver. Better ones are available. Why you guys haven't tried them before contemplating "jumping ship" I don't know. For instance, the Khorn Vb is approximately 3800 cu. inches or slightly under 3 cubic feet. There are a few available drivers that work more-than-satisfactorily in this volume, and can use the throat size (39-78 sq. in). Crossover will require changes, though. But the point is, you aren't "locked in" to a particular driver with the Khorn like you are with the Jubilee. The only point of the Jubilee that the Khorn cannot beat is the crossover point itself. There is only one other design of the same size that I know of that can kick you around AND crossover relatively high compared to the Jubilee and that's mine which uses a single 15 and a 78 sq. in throat! DM

For showing off the system, and in a jazz vein, Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World". Covers the gambit; vocals, orchestral, piano, percussion, acoustic bass. Very nicely recorded. DM

Vibrating back panels represents a loss of acoustic energy that would normally come out as "music" had it not been "sidetracked". I would definitely strengthen and reinforce the back panel to prevent it from vibrating as much as possible. Look what Altec did with the a7/828 cabinet in the end... 2-2x4's! DM 828cabin.pdf

I think we agree. The point I am trying to stress is that its the expectation we bring to it that alters the listening experience. Predetermined intellectual satisfaction should be a warning sign! I haven't even touched on context! Ok, Klipsch factory showroom versus my living room... well, even I know which one would win there! and it's NOT my living room! Add to that what I think of PWK and Roy, and now which one sounds better?! Even I would have to admit a bias towards WHATEVER I heard there! If they took a Bose 901, spray painted it orange and put a Klipsch label on it, I would have a HARD time NOT liking it! I think there is a effective bias to like new experiences in new environments, it fades quickly in your own space... for example, I'm shocked - SHOCKED I SAY - as certain Khorn owners (who will remain nameless but you know who I'm referring to) who are making noises about switching (presumably) to Jubilees. I'm assuming that they have been primed by what they have read here, but not by what they've actually heard in a listening session with the "next-coveted" device... that's my assumption, anyway. Anyway, I find it interesting is reading the discussions about the Jubilee, and I'm reminded of human nature; as long as it remains somewhat mysterious, it is a constant alure! An aluring siren's call, if you will. However, familiarity breeds contempt... the one we all end up with in the end. DM

PWK's first patent (which he did entirely by himself from the looks of it) was a rear-loader. Aside from the EV licensed versions, PWK did 2 rear-loade designs, this one (which predates the Khorn) and the Shorthorn/Rebel. DM

Ok, 'nuff about bass players and YOUR particular preferences! Let's get back to enclosures and the point of this thread (at least in the beginning!)... The reason for investigating other designs is that each one (if varied sufficiently) will have its own set of attributes. It is a matter of choosing which attributes you want or as in the case of bass players - "prefer". It's not the same as saying "I want a smooth response", it goes much further than that, like a "smooth response from here-to-here at nn efficiency", etc. Crossover points, the number of crossover points, the footprint size, the desired sensitivity, the maximum SPL, etc. Saying that one design is "better" than any of the others is quite pointless. It is just different, and has a different set of attributes. No single design does everything. You have to choose your attributes and what you are willing to compromise on in order to achieve them, because there is nothing free in physics. The Khorn can be taken to the maximum performance it is capable of, and few here (if any) have done that, IMO. The Jubilee comes along and is of great interest in the Klipsch-afficianado community. They are DIFFERENT, each has its attributes. One does not "replace" the other by total sonic eclipse! Different set of goals. There is something to be said about the intellectual satisfaction of hearing examples of all of the PWK-designed horns, which I have yet to do. But how much of the Jubilee's apparent appeal is based on that rather than its performance. I figure that a good part is the zeal is based on the PWK effect. But that has nothing to do with the actual horn itself. That is a possitive mindset that the listener brings to the experience, not part of the actual technical performance at all. I can't get over that from the "gushing" that goes on here about the Jubilee. Too much emotional predisposition to be analytical, IMO. I for one, do not hold with dual 12" drivers out-doing a good 15". Now we can argue about what constitutes a "good" driver, but why bother? I have my opinion, and that is all it is. Taking it a step further, if 2-12" drivers are good, then 2-15" drivers would be better, right? I think the Jubilee is a well-designed horn, but so is the Khorn. I understand the benefits, effects, and drawbacks that each design entails. It is just a matter of choice. When being a horn "consumer" one has to decide what intellectually is appealing about the design, and THEN one tries to hear examples, does one not? The performance tends to reinforce the pre-determined appeal. Where I would be quite interested in hearing a pair of real Jubilees first hand, they would have to totally eclipse all of the corner horns I have heard to date in order to overcome my opinion of 12" drivers, which traditionally serve better as guitar speakers than bass guitar speakers, IMO. Since I doubt that it would be an eclipsing experience, see what I mean? Mindset is paramount. So if you have already decided, as it were, to search for the elusive "better" speaker, then you are already psychologically set up for the Jubilee as being "better". It probably isn't technically "better" in all that the term could mean, it's probably "different". But when you're primed for "different", there you go! DM

While I wouldn't bother re-wiring new speakers (didn't Klipsch use Monster? - I REALLY hate Monster as a company, and that would be reason enough!), still, I'd probably just be too lazy and complacent to actually do it. Yes, I have Kimber silver interconnects. I LIKE Kimber (although VERY overpriced IMO)Very noticable improvement. I even have silver cabling between my mid driver and the crossover! Takes the scratchy copper-wire "bite" out. Those of you who know what that is probably won't argue. You, however, are free to do as you please. DM

When the USPTO notifies me of receipt, I'll give you a peek. I've been waiting on the first patent for over 2-1/2 years now. It is very anti-climactic! DM

It's currently being proof-read. The "next one" is probably best cut by a CNC machine, some of the parts required the computer to calculate the various angles. It literally couldn't be made without a computer! Well, I guess if you had the rest of your life, and nothing better to do, it could have been done anyway, but that's not the point! Probably the reason that we've never seen one like it before. However, now that computer-aided-design software and CNC machines are available AND economical, its time has come! DM

Nothing wrong with that buy! looks like a good deal. I had tube power amps (push-pull 6550's, 60w per). There really is not a noticable sonic difference with power amp topology IMO. But the tube-pre was a different story. That's where the bang-for-the-buck is! Get a good one, and you won't be sorry. DM

Mike is right on the money! How do you "know" what its supposed to sound like? That is a nasty little problem we all have to deal with. I think about it alot. Here's my opinion on the subject: We have to judge it based on the OTHER elements of the response, how well the ambience is presented, other instruments (drums, piano). If THEY are presented in an acceptably "realistic" manner, it can be ASSUMED that the bass is also being presented as "accurately" as the others. Naturally, you wouldn't compare cymbals with bass lines, but if the soundstage is presented in an acceptable manner, both the cymbals and the bass will take its appropriate place in the overall soundstage. This includes not being exagerated (or sticking out) from the whole, as well as not being covered or suppressed, etc. Accuracy is also related to being stable in the soundstage, in position and depth, etc. It is, at best, an estimation of accuracy. We make it daily. But we can never be "sure". DM

Since PWK invited DIY builders to try the Khorn when it first came out and invited their feedback, I thought I'd do the same. Seems like a good example to follow. Like I said before, this design was intended as a rear-channel for my corner horns, which share aspects of the same design. Based on the performance of the corner horns, which is good enough to be of some commercial interest, I figured I'd better do the next thing - a free-standing version, and protect it as best I could from others making money with it without my permission. That's why I applied for patents. Also because that's what PWK did, like I said, a good example to follow. Further, and possibly the most important, I wanted to prove that I could do it all myself. It's a substitute - sort of like building them without the saw dust, although it seems like alot more work! Total investment for this design on my part $500 so far. Every 3-1/2 years, you have to make another payment to keep the patent (should it ever issue) alive. Seems like a reasonable investment (so far). I'm confident enough that others would like to own these that its worth the time and money it takes to protect them. You can take that for whatever it's worth as far as performance is concerned. The design presents some unique capabilities that are naturally traded-off with other things. It's selecting your tradeoffs that count. Whether you think I have selected the 'right' trade-offs is another matter, as with all things audio. You'll have to build a pair to find out for sure! I'm betting you'll agree with me and I put 500 bucks and alot of time on it. You guys are going to soil yourselves when you see the next one! How's that for a teaser?! DM

No.

It will be wider in bandpass on both ends than a stock LS, depending on the port frequency and driver used. It will also go higher than a ported LS, due to the nature of the throat configuration. Efficiency is about the same (K33E or Bob Crites), but that depends on the driver used. Crossover slope should be at least second order, third would be better, and of course, extreme slopes are desirable. I would go for around 800Hz. It is intended for throat sizes of 39 to 78 sq. inches. If you put a Kappa 15 LFA in it, for instance, it will kick your tail from here to Sunday. It is a 1/2 space design, just like the LS or Belle. Same size mouth as LS/Belle. Send me an email.

Here's a footprint comparison between mine and a LS...

Both Duke and Who are right on the money. Both effects are occuring. The mid energy is being absorbed/dissapate faster due to its wider dispersion pattern and frequency wavelengths. Temp and humidity could alter this quite a bit and its closer to the ground. Check this website out... http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavhom.htm DM

Well, points taken. Unfortunately, it is a desert out there. There ARE no choices. In a monopoly, you get to dictate... DM

Check this out, looks like a commercial version of a djk-modded LS, doesn't it?! Here's the website: www.azzolinaaudio.com Mine has a smaller footprint. Any DIYer's want to build a pair? Want feedback, suggestions on the plans, and could use some pics of the build. That's the price you have to pay! DM

Khorns are subjected to this unfounded complaining more than others exactly because they do rely completely on the room to propagate correctly. On the subject of EQ, I eschew anything in the signal path that doesn't need to be there. In the case of the complainers, yes - by all means, EQ the daylights out of it, if it will SHUT YOU UP! Sheesh! Do not be futher crappin' on my horn gig! DM

I would go for finding better drivers than attempting to making mediocre drivers sound "better" by hacking up the cabinet. There are many examples of ports in horn throats. However, these won't work in the Jub design because the throats are too short. That means porting to the corner channels is an alternative. Building an extra throat as posted above would have to be done at build-time, of course. There are inherent problems associated with that particular approach. First, phasing, second, the single-throat back-wave portion is too small for the horn channels, so you are gaining a little, but its not going to be that efficient, anyway. IME, it seems like a lot of work for little return, and I would go as far as guessing that it probably hurts more than it helps. Doing it right would be a pain, as you would need (best case) 4 throat sections, not three. However, you could retrofit ports into the side channels, and if you don't like it, cover with panels, and you are stock again. This would let you experiment and decide whether a redesign is worth the bother or not. I would port to the side channels in the non-expanding part, and forget a drone-cone or front-port which would alter the throat configuration and is non-reversable. See the attached patent drawing for porting into the channels. DM