ajsons

Just got a Festool saw from Julie B (that's where the name came from, she's not plug-ugly, though), for a christmas gift. It's time to use it. Awesome tool. No matter where you set the angle of the blade (up to 45), it stays on the pencil line. http://www.festool.de/images/bilder/news/news_3_05/3d_ts75/index_gb.htm TNX again.

Thanks, Maron. (I was waiting for you to post.) I'll keep my guard on. AJ

Thanks, JC. I just wish that I can build them like you do!!!! AJ.

if you draw a straight horn, cut it in half, but reverse the position so that the top half is at the bottom, that's what is going on inside this enclosure design (like a LaScala, but side view), approaching the rear exit, still maintaining the shape of the exponential expansion. Not so simple on the Khorn. The path length differences will happen, on any horn, the best one can do is simplify the folding, and minimize the number of turns. . I stay away from foldings that look like [] the large intestine. I understand the advantages of rubber throating, but there is also no reason why I should not use a straight expansion. Many succesful horn designs use a single flare. It fits nicely on this one, like what I have stated earlier. I drew the plans for the Jub, can do the Jub, like to have a Jub, but I have, I believe 6 15" EV's that are just waiting to be used. I don't want to spend the money on new woofers, when I have drivers I can use. I have also spare mids and tweeters, and the only expense on my part will be plywood and crossovers. On top of that, if you can design one, why not build one that you designed yourself ? You know a lot about theory, you can do it too..... I know about those things that you and Doc commented on. At the other end of all of this is...design freedom... I'd rather do one of my designs. I wanted to do the Corner Belle, but it was stolen from me and was renamed something else.. And the worst part, there is a patent application for it. If you notice, "the man" is no longer posting on this forum. This is not the number one design on my list, just want to prove that "it" can be done. A larger Dean with double 15" woofers? Got the University drivers.. Thank you very much for your interest on this, Tom..

So, looking at what I have versus the Jub, and the Khorn, excluding the driver count, The folding schemes are proven foldings for two separate, ooops, THREE separate speakers, LaScala being the third one. Do you agree, Michael? The Klipsch folding is much cleaner on this, though. the Juliebee still has a channel twist, or a flowpath in two planes (which works great for the Khorn), and the Jub in one plane.. The Jub has a bend, and the Juliebee doesn't, and has a more straighter path. They are both bifurcated, so forget that in the equation. The bifurcated soundwaves on both designs meet at the exit and everything becomes very similar from then on, between the Jub and the Juliebee.. I don't see a big reason not to do this design, do you?

The non-expanding section on the LaScala, really doesn't contribute much, other than provide a 1:1 extension/coupling between two dissimilar flare rates,. and it also lengthens the horn to provide more rear chamber space for the driver.. Standing waves develop when the path between non-expanding 4 walls gets too long.

True and i agree, but the channel twists, or dual-plane folding, works for the Klipschorn, no doubt.. This twist is reduced on this design, and flows with less obstruction on its path.

The Klipschorn though, based on the Jub papers, gets up to 500hz, if I recall correctly. This "cleaner" folding, hopefully, and the Jub-like exit, will bring the response higher. If I get to 700hz, even 600hz, I will be happy.

Doc, That's the first reply with signs of intelligence I got on this thread.[] Now we know why I use the University Classic. Yes, it has limitations, too, but easily correctable. I would like to try this design though and see how far it will go. AJ

BTW, how high does a La Scala go? Look at ALK's suggested crossovers for the LaScala. It's higher on the Belle.

You need to read the Jub papers (maybe again), because it tells you what the mouth's splay angle's role is on freq response on the Jub. .

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, Michael!!!!!!!! The title of the thread says JUBILATING A KLIPSCHORN. Use a Khorn core, and build it with a mouth like the Jubilee. The TSCM DOESN'T have a mouth like the Jub so it doesn't qualify. I think I have applied everything there is on that core to make it get a higher freq response English is my second language, but I think I'm telling this like it is. Now, what folding do you see looking at the SIDE VIEW?.[]

Here's what I have for a TSCM. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the mouths are not close together like a Jub, are they? Unless Klipsch has another version.

The use of the Khorn core....the path is expanding exponentially, so the compression is decreasing as it gets farther away from the throat. Also, the taillboard is now just like the Jub...I don't get it. I changed that core and used full channel reflectors... LaScala core? Now, please take a good look at the Juliebee's SIDE VIEW or profile and tell me which speaker 's folding you see? Remember, the SIDE VIEW, or the one on the right. Think of it as another speaker's TOP view. Here it is.

Speakerfritz, you missed the whole point of this design. The goal of this, as shown on my first post, is to bring the mouths of the Khorn inward like a Jub, reduce the splay angle which was proven to increase the high freq response. I also used full-channel reflectors, (Bruce Edgar suggests that, too, for SK modifications) and arranged the tailboard pieces to reflect the wave more effifciently. The paths inside are more direct towards the rear exit and don't bend like the Khorn, which will also help. All done to increase the high freq response. Exactly, which part of the design will cause this to lose quite a bit on the top end? Help me out and I'll do the design change. Mounting the access cover and driver is not the problem, it's the panel outboard of the access, which must also be removed when changing drivers. The path is too tight to allow removal of the driver. The pair that you built in 1986, did it look like a pair of Jubs when finished , with the mouths closer to each other? You must be the first one then to "jubilate" (or jubilize) the Klipschorn. If it didn't, then you built a larger Khorn clone. Not this one. Please post a picture of that pro-line speaker. TNX. AJ

Tom, It's actually 'longer", 65 inches, compared to 55 (?) inches on the jub, but most of the difference in length is at the throat end, because of the difference on throat sizes (78/90). It is a little 'longer" at the mouth end, and larger, as shown. The "forum jubilee" (reverse-engineered version) says it is 55" long, I got 57+, I think it depends on how you measure it at the turn at the tailboard. I have a copy of the juliebee 'development' drawing that shows the expansion versus length, but my scanner went OOC this a.m. Will try to get access to a working one. The mouth area was measured from an imaginary perpendicular line to the center of the path, not at that angled line at the mouth, otherwise that will be a number larger than what it really is. Plz check the front sheet posted earlier. I am at work now, and unlike Edgar, I don't have boring days at work, have to crank out drawings for government contracts. I'll try to answer the easy questions, if you don't hear from me, it'll be tonight. The dashed lines below belong to the Jub. The expansion was checked at five different points during drawing development, before the first 90 degee turn, halfway inside, at the rear exit, after the rear exit or beginning of final exit, and at the mouth itself. Have fun and have a nice day. AJ :

The driver access opening is 7 inches. I think the K-33 is about 6.5. Using any driver deeper than 7 is do-able, but will require more work The flare rate is 38hz, exponential. I know someone will suggest a rubber throat, I thought of it too, that I'll do it if it will simplify construction. Not on this one, though. Every thing fits like a glove for a 38hz. Like my size 8 shoe up in Da.... Daddy's closet. I'll try to do a 40hz version, maybe I'll need it there. I have no doubt that this design can go down to 40hz, the question that remains is, will it go as high as a Jub for a two-way? Personally I will be happy if it gets up to 600-700hz. I really prefer three-way, but that's a completely different subject, just personal preference, let's not discuss it here, please, thank you. I will appreciate inputs, suggestions, ideas to improve this design. (Duke, my friend at the patent office says he will take a good look at patent applications coming from Seattle area. ..and any horn designs similar to this that may have a name like The Bothellian, or Jambalaya or V4, V5 ). Gil, please let me know what you think. Thank you all in advance. AJ

Last drawing. Here's the problem, not a big one. And I need suggestions, ideas, etc. etc. Driver access requires removing the panel outboard of the access cover. IOW, panel E (left) must be removable. I thought of using a piano hinge between pieces E and F, and securing E using wood screws to a 1 x 1 poplar. Maybe somebody has a better idea.

And for those who might think that this is another La Scala with an extension, ( i will not mention any name)......[] This is SHEET 4 OF 3, BTW. []

Here's one with a Hartsfield (I'm showing off now).

Comparison with the Jub.

Here's a comparison with the Khorn. (These drawings were done 1:1, full-size, plotted to fit on 8.5 x 11 paper).

The rear chamber is 2.7 cubic feet, 2.8 if the unused spaces are made usable.. I'll explain the angles of the tailboard pieces later, if the question arise. PrestonTom, I hope this answers your concern about the mouths' splay angle.

Inside, the similarities with a Jub end, the paths follow the Khorn, although straighter. The initial path is narrower, the channel twist is still there, but not as severe. I'm posting the sheets with the parts callouts, to make it convenient if you want to make a comment on a certain part. The parts count is less, and there is only one part (and its mirror image) that has compound cuts, part N.

It was obvious that some surgery is required on the SK to jubilate it.So, here's what I came up with. This enclosure can be built to look just like a Jubilee, the dimensions are pretty close, and can easily be mistaken as a Jub, until one notices the driver access is not on top, or the bottom. (It is 2.5 inches deeper). Here's the front sheet of the drawing set. Please note that this has not been built, so disregard the frequency response statement, that still remains to be proven. Also, the driver chosen is not a Klipsch, but an EV, because that's what I have, but a Klipsch driver can be used. FOR SOME, THIS IS STILL, PLUG UGLY. Sorry, I can't fix that.