ClaudeJ1

But did you enjoy the journey and did you learn along the way?....if so it was worth it I would say. miketn I enjoyed the journey, YES. You are right, Mike. All of my upgrades sounded better than my original Khorns. If someone wanted a short cut, I would recommend putting a K402 on top of a Khorn bin with a modern 2-inch driver, then use a 2 way active network until you can afford a Jubilee bass bin, then sell the Khorns and go with some flavor of Jube 2-way, or a 3-way setup like mine with a Jube bottom. This is assuming that one would just buy parts and not build them. So one should start with the K-402 horn no matter where one ends up, since I went through about 13 horns before I got here.

Perhaps we are getting away from a "purist" Jubilee, which, in my mind, would HAVE to include the bass bin. So either the 3-way passive or active, 2-way passive or active with either the K402 or the K510 Horns designed by Klipsch (Roy Delgado) would fully qualify. That is 4 possible configurations. So I guess with a K402 or K510 top and a LaScala bottom, can they really be called "Jube" since the Jubilee really IS the bass bin. I'm just sayin' If we allow a loose definition of the "jube" part of JubeScala, then mine is as "Klipschy" as any other configuration, I suppose, but I would not be insulted if it's deemed unworthy. Either way, my current setup sonicallyTROUNCES the 2PH3 setup I had with Khorns for over 30 years (exact same thing that PWK had in his living room). But it took me 5 years, losts of big horns and drivers (including MWM woofers) to get here. My advice is: "Don't re-invent the wheel>"

Coytee, You might call mine Jube Scala Clone Hybrid 3-way active/passive with Tapped Horn Sub. LOL

BTW, I only use active on the woofer section, since the K402/K-1133 with the B&C DE-250 Tweeter/QSC Waveguide work so somoothly together, in terms of bandwidth and efficiency, with just a single cap in the front. With low power broad band response of the top end, I can get away with that super simple passive, but the woofer section, much like the Jube needs all the help it can get because it's anything BUT flat in frequency response.

Why would you want to lose the time delay correction between drivers, fine PEQ, and add a reactance to your amplifier's load? Cause it sounds better. In your case, of course but your passive network is not "normal" it's a first class design, cost no object, by the best in the biz. A work of ART with some mucho primo components. Would anyone else on the Forum have access to your schematic and/or parts list? I'm sure they would have to swallow hard, knowing that it's more expensive than the best active devices. Besides, it's arguable as whether or not is sounds better. In your case, the common denomintor is the 8W Single Ended Tube amp. I would be curious to see if an active front end to two sets of your SET amps with all the PEQ and time delays woudn't be better. BUT, knowing you, I would bet that you have already tried that, eh?

Why would you want to lose the time delay correction between drivers, fine PEQ, and add a reactance to your amplifier's load?

My setup is more homemade/hybrid/bastardized JubScala (a term I don't care for), so it doesn't count as much, since I chose a shorter horn (one less fold than Jube bin) with horn sub. That being said, the I'm using the K-402 with the Klipsch MADE driver, the K1133, which goes down to 300 hz. in that horn, so I don't have to worry like the TAD guys about bottoming out their VERY epsnsive diaphragms.....which is why no one else dare to cross this low, but I assure you that in accordance with a comment by Roy in an old thread here, the compression driver always beats the woofer/horn when we are talking transient response, distortion, etc. and not because it's usually 6 db more efficient. I know they cross that 1133 driver with 4th order active bandpass at 400 Hz. in theater, but I get away with first order electrical (plus 3 rd order acoustic) on the low end at home, since I rarely see more than 10-20 MILLIWATTS in that voice coil RMS. So could you call mine a B@$tard Jube Scala? LOL.

It's the ACOUSTIC watt that counts, and very few speakers can do 1 Acoustic watt (115 db?) no matter how many electrical watts are available cheap. Long live horns.

I can lower your output by 3 db by your letting me buy one of those nasty subs from you at a fair price. I'm only trying to help. Besides, in my new place, I no longer have neighbors!!

Dr. Albert Neville Thiele died on October 1, 2012, 91 years old, and 7 years younger than PWK. Thanks to him and Richard H. Small we have the universal Thiele/Small perameters, which took speaker enclosure design out of the cut-and-try/black-art domain to the point where predictable results could be obtained by anyone especially with the right software. Later on these parameters were applied to horn loudspeakers by Small, so horn theory ended with the research at Bell labs in the 30's. Another giant down, but his work carries on! http://www.stereo.net.au/articles/news/vale_dr_neville_thiel (Open in New Window)

That woofer would work fine in a horn. What cabinet will you use with it? Are you trying to replace the Peavey woofers in your SP-1 (what I call a "cheap La Scala"). What is a Snails III?

I disagree. The title is "Best HT Sub for under $1,000. This easily meets the criteria of the original poster, who did not negate the possibility of building vs. just buying. Almost all DIY Tapped Horn Designs will easily TROUNCE most direct radiator subs when you consider price/performance. That includes low end cutoff, low distortion, high ouput, efficiency, etc. you name it. I used to have twin Large VMPS subs with lots of drivers and cones and lotsa watts. They cost way more than $1,000 in total and my LAB 12 TH does a better job, especially in the transient response department and matching the low distortion of an ALL HORN setup. I am biased for good technical and economic reasons. The cost to build my sub was $300, which means I could build another and still have money for a used Crown XTi 1000 with PEQ to drive them.

Not a hijack, but on topic. The easiest cab to build is a tall tapped horn. You mockup is a good one. I have just one tapped horn in my new place to the left of my Front Left channel in a corner and it's flat to 20 Hz. useable to 16 Hz. How long you make the folded internal horn determines the cutoff and you can use a woofer with a resonance of up to twice the cutoff. So if you build the simplest (one fold) 8 foot tall tapped horn, the effective length is maybe 15 ft. with an effective 19 Hz. 1/4 wave cutoff. Two doubles your output and spreads out the evenness. You can find lots of good DIY plans where the design and driver selection is already worked out. You just need to make some sawdust. IMHO, tapped horns are the easiest to build and offer the lowest bass in the smallest cabinet possible......kind of like a bass reflex horn, since both sides of the cone radiate output. You are trading efficienty for amplifier power vs. a hyperbolic full efficiency horn, which would be so HUGE to get flat to 20 hz., which a tapped horn can easily do. Tom Danley, the king of BASS and Tapped Horn innovator uses mostly Tapped Horns for all his designs and commercial installs for a reason.

Well, YEAH, because you have the most interesting stories that we all drool over. Tell us more.

Yes, I sold my Khorns to get MWM's and had fun with them for about 3 years. My Taped Horn sub changed everything. I used to use 2 Large VMPS subs with the MWM, but I don't think they did as well as a single LAB 12 in an 18 foot tapped horn. Too bad I sold the MWM's before I had a chance to try them with a TH sub, but I simply didn't have the room.

You might want to try pulling down about 6 db because it's a pretty high peak. Klipsch's Chief Engineer, Roy Delgado, based on the Hope Anechoic chamber measurements on the LaScala Bass Bin are -7 db at around that frequency, so don't be shy about it. It's not the woofer so much as the inherent peak in the horn. I do something similar to my SP-1/FH-1 bottoms with the Behr 2496, but with a different woofer and measument tools.............but it's right in that range. Also if you make the cut a bit wider, the midrange definition will improve at 499 Hz. where you really need it.

Well, that is good news. I would still like to see some actual curves on that bin, as well as a Hornresp Model of it. It is possible you got lucky with it. But I guess it doesn't matter at this point, as long as the buyer is happy.

Audyssey on my HT receiver (central to my 7.1 and 2.1 sound) picked 70 Hz. into my sub, because there is the least cancellation there. Plus I have some pretty hefty EQ at the low end cutoff of my SP-1/FH-1 bottoms since I'm using an EVM 15 L, which doesn't naturally go quite as low as the Peavey 1504 woofer in those short horns.

If you use a Behringer 8000 microphone (or the quiv. from Parts Express) input "C" you can time align the two automatically. Sounds to me like you picked some good Xover points. I like 80 Hz.. because it's in tune with THX standards. I checked out Jan Didden. Thanks for the tip. I'm only using the DCX for the woofer section, so I don't need all those mods, since it's the least critical band in terms of "sound quality"............"the midrange is where we live"--PWK, so I keep that one passive with the super fast and quiet outputs of my receiver amplifiers. Believe it or not, I'm driving the FH-1 bins with a Radio Shack 3A 13.8 volt (car battery voltage) power supply hooked up to a $25 Lepai amp. with the Tripath 2020 Chip. It's quiet and sounds very good to my ears. Since the cutoff of the 402 is 300 Hz. acoustically with a 3rd order rolloff, I use an electrical 1st order (single capacitor value) on the Klipsch 1133 driver, which rolls even below 300 hz. So I'm doint a 4th order L-R on the DCX at 320 Hz. This would NOT work for you in a huge venue, whereas in my 80-85 db home listening in the sweet spot, those woofers only see about 25 MILLIWATTS. Adding a 20 db peak on recorded music (classical being the most dynamic), it's .025 x 100= 2.5 watt PEAKS.

Sounds like a great opportunity. I highly recommend the Behringer DCX 2496 as an affordable EQ for the SP-1. You can bypass the passive network and got to higher slopes and 4th order Linkwitz-Riley over 3 channels with it. since you will have the Peavey 1504 woofer in it, your setting my a little different, but there is the 140 hz. peak to pull down, even it that is all you do for the bass section, it will greatly improve the perfomance. You can then cross the treble horn at 500 instead of 600, because of the steeper slopes, and PEQ up a bit at 15 Khz.. The result of just this will amaze you. All you will then need is your 2 octave bass extension from the subs and you are all set until you build more stuff.

Eminence makes a 15" LAB Driver but it's about $120 more. Same Xmax but larger cone area means greater output, not lower response, which is a function of the Tapped Horn Length. Making the cabinet 3" taller would increase the size of the entire horn. I could model it but I'm really busy right now, so it will be a while.

So did you try different drivers in the 402? I went the other way a while back and tried the 402 vs. JBL 2360A and the 402 had a smoother curve. I can post that later.

I think 4 of these would easily equal a DTS 10, except it would cut off about 5 Hz. higher. You are right about build simplicity for a MULTI-FOLD design. If you made the box 8 feet long, you could do a single diagonal piece to make the horn and it would be way simple yet, with only 7 pieces, which is how the design began, I think.

If you only need to get to 100 Hz. then just build Volvotreter's conical bass horn for the EVM-15L (or B )woofer, which you can find on Craiglist all the time since musicians routinely fry them. You can get them reconed and they will be like new for about $100 each. Bruce Edgar, doing D.B. Keele math highly recommends these woofers as the best for bass horns above 60 Hz. because they will go up past 600 easily on the right bass horn design. All the R&D has been done already and the plans even have a 1:1 template and panel layout if you can get to a printer/plotter with large roll feed......try a blueprint shop. Plus it's all metric, which, I'm sure a fellow Canuck can easily understand. My version is just about 1/4 meter longer, with a rectangular throat of the same area and a rectangular, larger mouth, so it goes a little lower. But his has the perfect back air chamber for that woofer (important). Don't substitute woofers either. don't screw around with other woofers, you will be dissapointed. You can cross Erik's version at about 80 Hz...........I was going for 60 on mine because of the TH design I have. You gotta match it up to your Tapped Horn Sub. Conical_77Hz_Midbass_1.0.pdf

Here are the assembly dimensions I used as derived from the original document. I used pocket screws and built it on the "A" piece, then screwed the bottom on. I marked everything out in pencil on A first. Don't bother with any access panel like in the orignator's photo because the woofer is easily accessible from the mouth, making things even simpler. If you want to save money, you can build it out of MDF, which would take the costs down to the $200 range, including the Eminence LAB 12 driver. Although I have not modeled it, you could add about 3 inches to the height, and get the more expensive LAB 15 Driver, which would double your output, but I think it's better to build TWO with the 12's and put them in the best spots in the room to solve bass problems. 2 or 4 subs is better than one, so spread out the room anomalies. If you build the "inner U" rectangular piece separately (J, H, and I), it is the only piece that is slightly tilted at the smallest piece of wood K near the throat. Otherwise, everything else is squared up. Only 11 pieces of wood to cut and assemble for killer perfomance. How cool is that!! Tapped Horn Assembly Dimensions.pdf