Paladium v. Klipschorn v Jub

[Chris A]

...Above that range, the K69 has better HF extension on-axis, but the polar response starts to narrow a bit, whereas the K77 is going to have wider polars. The K69 still has lower distortion, ...

Gary, I'm going to pick on Mike's writeup (which is very good, BTW) to emphasize a couple of points:

The K69A driver is very good for the $'s. I think that Roy Delgado will work with you on which driver that you would prefer (i.e., there is more than one that he can sell you). The K-69A's performance mounted on a K-402 horn is head-and-shoulders above that which you've probably heard to date. The K69As will hold the initial price down, and I'd bet that you will be extremely impressed (as will your audiophile friends, and your neighbors).

The K-69A/K-402 setup doesn't have the harshness that some complain with Khorns. In fact, I believe that many folks are using tube gear to tame down the harshness of the Khorn sound. The K-69A/K-402 will impress you with its imaging and image size.

Roy's new crossover settings do make a big difference in the high end relative to the settings used 2 years ago. These settings were determined via anechoic chamber testing and in-room "salt-and-pepper" fine tuning. I've heard both settings, and the new settings are excellent. In fact, they make the difference between the TADs and the K69As sound much more similar.

If you are worried about the non plus ultra of hf drivers (~400 Hz --> limit of adult human hearing), then I'd recommend that you consider something like the TAD TD-4002s, but I'd recommend upgrading later after you've owned the K-69As and have established what you want and what you're willing to afford. TADs are very pricey: their market price is ~10x the cost of the K-69A's.

The beauty of the Jubilee is that it is relatively straight forward to upgrade to better drivers, like the TAD4002...which I think still brings you in cheaper than the P-39F (I'm not sure though).

I'd say--cheaper.by about the price of a pair of new Khorns (based on list prices of Klipsch speakers).

...I think the P39F sounds more inert, but it's definitely higher distortion than the Jubilee and probably about the same as the Khorn.

I might agree with those folks from Missouri (i.e., "prove it") on this comment. The Khorn bass bin is pretty good. I'd like to see TIM of the Palladium bass compared to the Khorn's. I think the real problem is that people are mostly listening to Khorns that haven't been time-corrected. That will affect the perception of distortion of the Khorn bass bin relative to the Palladium.

...the K77 usually craps out somewhere between 14kHz to 17kHz depending on the age.

This is a key point.

Chris

[Coytee]

...the K77 usually craps out somewhere between 14kHz to 17kHz depending on the age.

This is a key point.

I guess this doesn't bode well for my 31 year old K77's with original diaphragms.

[]

[artto]

I've listened to the Jub's and have Khorns. I've listened to both with commercially available recordings as well as my own. I didn't notice much (read any) difference in the low end.

The lower frequencies are highly influenced by the room. Most deviations you hear will be the result of speaker/room interaction as well as what's in the room. FWIW, the room I heard the Jub's in was not anywhere near what I would call ideal, although it did have a large stuffy semi circular sofa which I'm sure was helping to break up some low frequency standing waves. I've heard this same effect (or lack of it) in my own room with/without the large sofa. OTOH maybe the way the Jub projects sound into the room makes it a little less vunerable to speaker/room interaction. I can't say for sure without hearing more than one instance.

The Palladium I haven't heard. But from the design I can't imagine it producing lower distortion bass than either the Khorn or Jubilee. However, that doesn't mean some people won't prefer it.

[Chris A]

I didn't notice much (read any) difference in the low end.

Interesting. When I set up my Jubs in the same corners that the Khorns were in, I first noticed the dramatic change in the soundstage (i.e., the K-402/K-69A performance). My wife, son and daughter noticed the change in bass. They said it was much improved. Their ears are younger/better than mine, but their critical listening experience is much less. I noticed the change in bass performance too, but convinced myself that it was because of the improvement in the top horn.

I.e., I did the one-for-one change in the same corners, etc., and it was a significant improvement. My room is a typical one acoustically.

At the end of the day, I believe that it's the overall effect that's important, not the pieces of the system taken in isolation. People generally consume the whole enchilada, not just the queso...I think some of the experience is related to time-alignment and better performing hf horn/driver. Percussion sounds both deeper and crisper, and the sound image is just in another category from the Khorn.

Chris

[DrWho]

After hearing the Khorn and Jub side by side and then later the Jub and P-39F side by side, I feel fairly confident to claim the P39F has less overall distortion than the Khorn at normal SPL's. The Jub is an order of magnitude better than the Khorn and the P-39F falls somewhere in the middle. I'd love to see the actual measurements though...I'm sure at some higher SPL the Khorn will win over the P39F, but I personally don't listen that loud at home.

FWIW, the room I heard the Jub's in was not anywhere near what I would call ideal

If you're talking about Steve's room, his ETC's are fairly close to textbook actually...

Apart from the ceiling/floor bounce, the ITD is fairly long, and then the decay is relatively smooth apart from a few isolated specular reflections. Here's a shot showing the LF modal behavior:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/9JgMLyfLDPly12jWOGp3eg?feat=directlink

I only bring it up because for a completely untreated room, Steve's is one of the best I've measured. Although, I suppose I could see things sounding way more congested with a room full of people.

[DrWho]

...the K77 usually craps out somewhere between 14kHz to 17kHz depending on the age.

This is a key point.

I guess this doesn't bode well for my 31 year old K77's with original diaphragms.

Aren't your ears more than 31 years old too? []

[seti]

I'm curious what a 402 would be like with the collapsing verticals PWK insisted on.

Why wouldn't it be the K403?

Hmm perhaps your right. I thought the 402 was abit differnt. The 403 has those mumps on the side walls. I guess I'll ask Roy about that but you could be right. I thought it might create a different critter altogether.

[Chris A]

I'm sure at some higher SPL the Khorn will win over the P39F, but I personally don't listen that loud at home.

Mike, you don't have a pair of MartinLogans hiding in a closet at home, do you? [8-)]

That ETC was nice to have. I need to drag out my new laptop, hook it up to my Tascam interface, plug in my ECM 8000 microphone, and run REW on my room. The last time that I was about to do that, my daughter came home and announced that her laptop backlight had died (among other things wrong with the machine she had). So there went my laptop. She called me again yesterday -- guess what--her (actually, my) laptop was dying and she needs a new one. Sheesh. Maybe I need to hide the machine that I'm working on and tell her that my son borrowed it for a while...[8o|]

Chris

[garyrc]

I've listened to the Jub's and have Khorns. I've listened to both with commercially available recordings as well as my own. I didn't notice much (read any) difference in the low end.

• How do you think the Jub and the Khorns compared in the midrange and highs?
• Which crossover network do you have in your Khorns?

[artto]

I've listened to the Jub's and have Khorns. I've listened to both with commercially available recordings as well as my own. I didn't notice much (read any) difference in the low end.

• How do you think the Jub and the Khorns compared in the midrange and highs?
• Which crossover network do you have in your Khorns?

The Jubilees had the 402, and I believe an EV driver, not the K69. My Khorns have stock (and original) AA networks.

The single driver 402 produces a more "seamless", coherent sound IMO. I'm going to try integrating the 402 with the Khorns and Belle first. In my setup the Khorns are running pretty much near or at optimum, so unless I can verify better performance from the Jub bottom in my room, I'm not going there, at least not yet (too many other things that are more important to implement first).

[artto]

FWIW, the room I heard the Jub's in was not anywhere near what I would call ideal

If you're talking about Steve's room, his ETC's are fairly close to textbook actually...

Apart from the ceiling/floor bounce, the ITD is fairly long, and then the decay is relatively smooth apart from a few isolated specular reflections. Here's a shot showing the LF modal behavior:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/9JgMLyfLDPly12jWOGp3eg?feat=directlink

I only bring it up because for a completely untreated room, Steve's is one of the best I've measured. Although, I suppose I could see things sounding way more congested with a room full of people.

Yes, Steve's room. I saw the ETC's you posted and I agree. However, "textbook" doesn't necessarily translate to "sounding better" (as in reproducing the original sound). As I'm sure you will agree, there are aspects of Steve's room that will never allow the sound to come through without colorations such a way, especially in the midrange & treble.

After reading the technical paper on the Jub, from what I understand, it seems that the configuration of the bass horn exit angles has something to do with how the horn loads/interacts with the room. If this is so, then I can see how the Jub would be less critical of less than ideal rooms ~ one of the Khorn's great shortcomings/but also one of its greatest strengths in a proper room - if one takes advantage of it (IMO).

[DrWho]

However, "textbook" doesn't necessarily
translate to "sounding better" (as in reproducing the original
sound)

I disagree...if for no other reason than that
which defines "textbook good" is the result of many years of
psychoacoustical research by several different people that have been
doing this for longer than I've been alive. Of course it helps that my
own personal experiences have completely jived with that research too.
I used to always say that I would forever be an artist first and an
engineer second, but the more I learn about engineering, the more I
realize just how powerful the engineering is when in the hands of
someone that is both artistic and an engineer. It's for this reason
that I get really on edge when people want to flippantly discount the
science.

I
might add though that "textbook" is not just one single target
ETC...just like a ruler flat frequency response isn't necessarily the
goal of good system design. There is just so much more at play so you
gotta balance several different variables. Understanding the ETC and
its impact on the perceived behavior of the system allows one to target
an ETC for a desired type of playback. For instance, the ETC for a
studio should be very different than that for a home audio system. And
even when looking at home audio systems, I personally prefer a shorter
decay time whereas I'm sure other prefer it to be more dragged out. I
think a lot of that has to do with the source material.

As I'm sure you will agree, there are aspects of Steve's
room that will never allow the sound to come through without
colorations such a way, especially in the midrange & treble.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm curious what specifically you're thinking of...

After reading the technical paper on the Jub, from what I
understand, it seems that the configuration of the bass horn exit
angles has something to do with how the horn loads/interacts with the
room. If this is so, then I can see how the Jub would be less critical
of less than ideal rooms ~ one of the Khorn's great shortcomings/but
also one of its greatest strengths in a proper room - if one takes
advantage of it (IMO).

Changing the splay angle was an
attempt to keep a coherent wavefront up to a higher frequency and extend the HF corner. The
problem with the Khorn splay is that it fires the sound along the sides
of the wall instead of toward the listener (and moreso as you go higher
in frequency), so then it acts like two different acoustic sources and
introduces comb-filtering in the polars. While the Jub doesn't
completely get rid of these effects, the different splay pushes them to
a higher frequency...which is why I think Roy chooses to xover at
around 450Hz instead of 1kHz (even though the bass bin is technically
good to 1kHz).

In addition to the improved polars, I think the
biggest advantage to the Jub LF is the fact that it has about 20dB less
distortion over the majority of the passband. It's actually better than
the JAES makes it out to be because both speakers are being fed with
13V for the measurement, which means the Jub LF is a good 4dB louder.
Distortion is an exponential beast so lowering the drive level of the
Jub LF to match SPL would make the distortion comparison even more in
its favor.

Improving the polar response is better for both "perfect" and "less than ideal" rooms because it reduces the amount of confusion between the direct and indirect sound and allows for a flatter perceived tonal balance across quick transients to smooth lyrical passages...

[Chris A]

but the more I learn about engineering, the more I realize just how powerful the engineering is

Not taking sides here since I wasn't there. I just wanted to highlight this comment...it's pretty important.

I find that there are things that we sometimes hear but find difficult to put into words. However, that doesn't mean that we can't address those areas using engineering. I'm not into subjectivist arguments, only that we as people tend to have trouble verbalizing what we sense.

Jub LF is a good 4dB louder.

I actually wasn't aware of this magnitude of difference. Thanks for that one. If you look at the internals of the khorn bass bin and the Jub bass bin, I don't think that it's that difficult to visualize why. Look also at the expansion rates on each fold of the respective horns, and the fact that the Jub Bass bin is basically a two-dimensional expansion, whereas the Khorn uses a 3-D expansion. The asymmetries .of expansion probably play a role in the distortion figures, along with several other factors, including the thermodynamic properties of compressing air in the throat region.

I think the biggest advantage to the Jub LF is the fact that it has about 20dB less distortion over the majority of the passband. It's actually better than the JAES makes it out to be because both speakers are being fed with 13V for the measurement, which means the Jub LF is a good 4dB louder. Distortion is an exponential beast so lowering the drive level of the Jub LF to match SPL would make the distortion comparison even more in its favor.

When making products that tend to eclipse existing product lines in performance, I find that the inventor tends to soft-pedal the differences in order to keep from alienating an existing client base.

For instance, the ETC for a studio should be very different than that for a home audio system. And even when looking at home audio systems, I personally prefer a shorter decay time whereas I'm sure other prefer it to be more dragged out. I think a lot of that has to do with the source material.

There is an excellent discussion of mixing room vs. living room acoustics in Toole's book. He goes on to say that most mixing engineers candidly prefer the "live-er" environment, but that they tend to continue to rely on current practices (i.e., dead mixing rooms) even though they will admit to their own personal preferences. I thought that was a very interesting discussion.

[artto]

However, "textbook" doesn't necessarily
translate to "sounding better" (as in reproducing the original
sound)

I disagree...if for no other reason than that
which defines "textbook good" is the result of many years of
psychoacoustical research by several different people that have been
doing this for longer than I've been alive. Of course it helps that my
own personal experiences have completely jived with that research too.
I used to always say that I would forever be an artist first and an
engineer second, but the more I learn about engineering, the more I
realize just how powerful the engineering is when in the hands of
someone that is both artistic and an engineer. It's for this reason
that I get really on edge when people want to flippantly discount the
science.

Let me assure you that I would be the last to flippantly discount science. However, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks that any knowledge included "science" is abolutely conslusive and is completely believeable (as in there's no denying) is sadly mistaken. That kind of notion implies that we have all the facts, and that we can calculate them, account for any and all known or unknown variables, and then interprete them correctly.That is pure fantasy!

The textbook of today will be very different from the "textbook" of tomorrow. I guarantee it. And, not to be nasty, but I too, in fact, have been involved with this for longer than you have been alive. If there's anything I've learned from all of this, it's that we are not measuring everything. Not because we don't necessarily know how, but because there are still things we don't even know "what" to measure. If it were that simple, and correct, there would be no arguements.

You say that you measured "textbook" ETC in Steve's room. If that is so "perfect", why don't the Jubilee's sound better in Steve's room than some old Khorns do in mine? I hear some characteristics in the 402 that I believe, are an improvement over the two-way top the Khorn uses. Does/will this compensate for the room acoustics? I think NOT! If two amplifiers can "measure" the same, and sound different, and two speakers can "measure" the same and sound different, certainly two rooms that "measure" the same can sound different. Let's take that one step further. If two amplifers can "measure" tthe same, yet the one sounds better than the other...........My conclusion is not everything is being measured. We don't know everything.

[Chris A]

Well, I guess we all understand each other on that subject. Peace, brothers.

We don't know everything.

True,, but how you approach the issue at this point makes all the difference in the world. You can use mysticism or engineering--your choice.

You probably can guess what I'd choose. []

Chris

[DrWho]

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.

And, not to be nasty, but I too, in fact, have been
involved with this for longer than you have been alive

So are you actually employing the latest methods now?

If that is so "perfect", why don't the
Jubilee's sound better in Steve's room than some old Khorns do in
mine?

Who said they don't?!? [][]

But
seriously, Steve isn't limited to 0.0001% of the source material in the
entire world...are we blaiming the source material for what is really
the speakers?

It's no secret that I've never been a huge fan of how khorns
sounded, but until I head the Jubilee, it really had me wondering if
accurate playback should really be the goal...I guess when you lower
the distortion by 20dB and remove over 10dB of variation in the power
response that the goal of accuracy actually does sound much better.

Or
is there supposed to be some other unknown property that makes higher
distortion and crazy style tonal imbalance more accurate to the source
material? I'd really like to know what that is cuz then we wouldn't
need as big of horns.

My conclusion is not everything is being measured.

My
conclusion is that the person in that scenario doesn't know how to
accurately correlate the things that can be measured. Is there any
significance behind pointing out that two different amplifiers with the
same case dimensions sound different? Why point to other measurements
that don't have anything to do with the differences being heard? To
take it a step further, I'd like to see some specific examples where
two pieces of gear measure the same using every modern metric, but
sound different. I have absolutely zero doubt that such a scenario does
not exist.

[artto]

Well, I guess we all understand each other on that subject. Peace, brothers.

We don't know everything.

True,, but how you approach the issue at this point makes all the difference in the world. You can use mysticism or engineering--your choice.

You probably can guess what I'd choose.

Chris

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I'm from the mysticism side of things. I'm one of the few kooks who actually built my room around the Khorns and the house was chosen because it could support at least the minimum size and proportions to properly support such a speaker system. No mysticism involved at all. Just some simple math []

Acceptable room if:
1.1*(W/H) < (L/H) < 4.5*(W/H)-4
2.0	2.8	4.0

[Cornman]

Great discussion guys, Im loving it. Seriously, great info. [Y]

[garyrc]

No mysticism involved at all. Just some simple math

Acceptable room if:
1.1*(W/H) < (L/H) < 4.5*(W/H)-4
2.0	2.8	4.0

Hi Artto.

Does this procedure select the same room proportions as being good as Bolt's contour? Is there an overlap? Do they disagree?

Where did you get the formula?

[shake777]

Good info and great avitar.