The History of the Jubilee

[Deang]

I could have sworn I said that if Iain liked them that they must sound good, so I have no idea what you're talking about. You have the bumps on the horn story wrong too. There's a lot of nonsense in this thread. Am I supposed to apologize for being right?

[ClaudeJ1]

so I suggested that he go three-way -- which isn't exactly a bad idea considering what I'd heard down in Hope when Roy fired up the three-way version.

I was equally impressed when I heard the 3-way, which is why I own it now, in slightly better cheaper form.

Claude is yours passive or Active 3 way?

Both. I use one cap on the tweeter, one cap on the mid, and the woofer section goes through a Behringer DCS2496 for a 50-320 Hz. band 4th order Linkwitz-Riley a 140 Hz,. fairly wide cut (like a LaScala) with a 65 hz boost at the low end. The rest is room EQ'd via Audyssey Multi EQ via my receiver, Sub is fed from center out on receiver at 60 Hz Xover between it and mains.

Get this. The mid and tweet are fed from the L and R amps on my 7.1 Onkyo and only use about 10 Milliwatts typically. The woofer section uses a cheap 6 Watt/channel chip amp. at usually about 25 milliwatts. My TH sub usually get about 1/4 watt from a 200 W amp. I usually listen to about 80-85 db at these low power levels with about 8x this when I "crank" at 93 db very rarely.

[ClaudeJ1]

Yeah I agree the K-402/K1133 and K510/K69 is my favorite top end of anyhing I have heard so far. This was clearly evident when we listened to them at JC's house a couple years ago. We listened to the 403 w/b&cde82, 402 with various drivers, 510, 402/510 also several of the tractrix top hats one from Greg Roberts, one from Gothover or Alk. This was all on top of JC's killer tractrix bass bin. The 402/510 combo just sounded better than anything else that was there. That was alot of work rolling through those horns but at the end of the weekend we all wanted to hear that combo again.

Well, I'm headed in the same direction as JC, except my bass will go lower and cross to the mid lower than his, as does my sub. But he loves funk, so "m sure those twin double 18 subs of his take care of business just fine for music.

My setup works for both music and movies. It's 7.1 or 2.1 depending on whether I put a CD or Blue Ray in the player.

[mikebse2a3]

I could have sworn I said that if Iain liked them that they must sound good, so I have no idea what you're talking about. You have the bumps on the horn story wrong too. There's a lot of nonsense in this thread. Am I supposed to apologize for being right?

Darn facts will get in the way of a good story everytime..!!![]

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

Based on some of these post I just have to ask:

Why did PWK bother with the Jubilee LF...?

Why in designing the Jubilee was his main goal to acheive his orginal goal for the Klipschorn ie: a fully horn loaded 2-way reproducer..?

miketn

[Deang]

Edit: never post on four hours of sleep.

[ClaudeJ1]

Based on some of these post I just have to ask:

Why did PWK bother with the Jubilee LF...?

Why in designing the Jubilee was his main goal to acheive his orginal goal for the Klipschorn ie: a fully horn loaded 2-way reproducer..?

miketn

Absolutely, and it' can't be done well without buckets PEQ, of in the bass and treble section (passive or active), unless one uses the "collapsing verticals" the 403 as part of the EQ, while getting narower treble coverage above 6 Khz.

But I do think Roy's solution is better that PWK's........namely the 402 with PEQ vs. the smaller horns. The bigger the horn, the better the horn, all other things being equal(ized).

[Deang]

EQ on the bottom is rather modest and isn't any more than what the Klipschorn requires.

[ClaudeJ1]

EQ on the bottom is rather modest and isn't any more than what the Klipschorn requires.

Depends on the Xover point to the top end. More if you cross at 800 Hz. to a smaller horn.

[seti]

EQ on the bottom is rather modest and isn't any more than what the Klipschorn requires.

Depends on the Xover point to the top end. More if you cross at 800 Hz. to a smaller horn.

That was a suprise to me when I started messing with the DX.

I also played with xover point between 400-850 this last weekend and the voicing isn't quite right the higher you go even with eq. Being able to listen in real time as you make changes to the xover is very educational.

[Chris A]

Being able to listen in real time as you make changes to the xover is very educational.

[Y] Yes, this is something that a believe a lot of folks miss using only passive crossover/balancing networks, and I think that those folks that haven't used active crossovers have missed a really big deal.

If you want to hear different crossover points, steep slope filter effects, time alignment, and overall speaker balancing changes (via the active's PEQ filters), and even help to protect your drivers (limiters, etc.) then all these changes are at your fingertips - immediate A/B comparisons, no additional cost, and also have stable performance even if you are using your speakers for heavy duty...as in very loud...service. It also allows you to make driver and horn changes at home and get VERY, VERY close to having balanced/well-implemented changes, that you can change again at any time.

As you might can tell, I'm not in the passive crossover camp. The advantages of good active crossovers far, far outweigh any perceived disadvantages relative to passive crossover networks, IMHO. In addition, the newer active crossover units from EV, Ashly, and others are exceptionally high quality devices with 105+ db dynamic range, and in other technical performance areas. And you can reuse your active crossovers with future speakers without having to pay for another crossover network. The price of these new high quality units is now getting down to below the cost of good quality third-party passive crossovers that are custom-designed for specific speakers.

I notice that many people discount the effect of driver/horn time alignment until they hear it corrected for their horn-loaded speakers. You get the ability to step through different time alignments to your heart's content with active crossover units, and the effect I've found is big even crossing at 400 Hz and aligning a horn-loaded bass bin with a horn-loaded midrange. The same thing goes for bi-amping and tri-amping - the effects on SQ are really positive changes for speakers with complex input impedances, like Klipsch Heritage, especially the Khorn.

Chris

[bracurrie]

Being able to listen in real time as you make changes to the xover is very educational.

Yes, this is something that a believe a lot of folks miss using only passive crossover/balancing networks, and I think that those folks that haven't used active crossovers have missed a really big deal.

I heartily agree. If you are happy with the factory settings, so to speak, then by all means spend your time and energy elsewhere. If however as many of us are want to do, we quite enjoy the exercise of control and the ability to tweak. I would argue that the factory setup is probably great for the speaker in an ideal room, but as many great speaker manufactures included the ability to tweak the level of output from one or more of the drivers in the cabinets, you most probably do not have an ideal room, or ideal playback material.

Hence the intrigue of the Jubilee, choice of HF horn/driver and the flexibility of active crossovers. As my father used to ask in the middle of a challenging building project where many choices had to be weighed with several variables, "Are we having fun yet?".

[Deang]

I would argue that the factory setup is probably great for the speaker in an ideal room...

The factory setup is designed to get the horns, drivers, and crossover working together in a way the math says they'll work best. If you want to tweak, you can use tone controls and/or room treatments. It's statements like these that simply show how many here don't know the first thing about loudspeaker design.

[seti]

Being able to listen in real time as you make changes to the xover is very educational.

Yes, this is something that a believe a lot of folks miss using only passive crossover/balancing networks, and I think that those folks that haven't used active crossovers have missed a really big deal.

If you want to hear different crossover points, steep slope filter effects, time alignment, and overall speaker balancing changes (via the active's PEQ filters), and even help to protect your drivers (limiters, etc.) then all these changes are at your fingertips - immediate A/B comparisons, no additional cost, and also have stable performance even if you are using your speakers for heavy duty...as in very loud...service. It also allows you to make driver and horn changes at home and get VERY, VERY close to having balanced/well-implemented changes, that you can change again at any time.

As you might can tell, I'm not in the passive crossover camp. The advantages of good active crossovers far, far outweigh any perceived disadvantages relative to passive crossover networks, IMHO. In addition, the newer active crossover units from EV, Ashly, and others are exceptionally high quality devices with 105+ db dynamic range, and in other technical performance areas. And you can reuse your active crossovers with future speakers without having to pay for another crossover network. The price of these new high quality units is now getting down to below the cost of good quality third-party passive crossovers that are custom-designed for specific speakers.

I notice that many people discount the effect of driver/horn time alignment until they hear it corrected for their horn-loaded speakers. You get the ability to step through different time alignments to your heart's content with active crossover units, and the effect I've found is big even crossing at 400 Hz and aligning a horn-loaded bass bin with a horn-loaded midrange. The same thing goes for bi-amping and tri-amping - the effects on SQ are really positive changes for speakers with complex input impedances, like Klipsch Heritage, especially the Khorn.

Chris

I'd also like to try an Ashly as I really liked what I heard at JC's a few years ago. I have always felt that active and passives have their places. I do see the benefit of biamping especially with the crossover in the line stage. I'll experiment with the actives for a while longer. I still have a few things to try. Soon I am going to listen to all my passives and actives in one day. This will be very interesting.

[bracurrie]

I will take the bait.[]

I would argue that the factory setup is probably great for the speaker in an ideal room...

No, the factory setup is ideal to get the cabinet/horn, drivers, and crossover working together the way the math says they're supposed to work.

Yes, I know nothing about speaker design. But to my pea-brain, if you are not designing the speaker to work in the real world, all the design choices won't help you if the speaker doesn't perform in its intended environment.

[Chris A]

Soon I am going to listen to all my passives and actives in one day. This will be very interesting.

One of the "big holes" in the audio electronics market right now is an integrated preamp (that can handle audio and video) combined with an active crossover, such that the extra D/A, A/D conversion can be eliminated, thus effectively eliminating passive or outboard active crossovers altogether. I haven't seen one of these yet, and especially not for multi-channel systems (e.g., 5.1, etc.). Handling all bitstream conversions (digital domain) and separating into bi-amp or tri-amp output channels would be a nice capability to have for higher-end multichannel systems.

Another approach is for active crossovers to accept digital inputs instead of analog-only inputs like all the active crossovers that I've seen to date, e.g., an HDMI input channel to the active crossover(s), and HDMI output from the preamp. Complete immunity from noise and analog transfer issues is the holy grail, IMHO.

Chris

[bracurrie]

Check out my new thread "Are we having fun yet?" I couldn't agree more. But you also need quality processing. IMO only available at a reasonable cost with a Mac.(computer that is.)

[Guest " "]

here is the newer design with 'shelves' in there as supports.

ah...yes...and thats how I would do it if I were going to include a passive radiator.

[Deang]

I would just add a passive radiator.

[dtel]

I will take the bait.

I would argue that the factory setup is probably great for the speaker in an ideal room...

No, the factory setup is ideal to get the cabinet/horn, drivers, and crossover working together the way the math says they're supposed to work.

Yes, I know nothing about speaker design. But to my pea-brain, if you are not designing the speaker to work in the real world, all the design choices won't help you if the speaker doesn't perform in its intended environment.

Well what kind of room should they be designed for small, large, furniture, treated or not, the questions are unlimited.

What they do is use a anechoic chamber which is dead quiet no echoes to affect anything, to get ideas as to how to design crossovers to make the drivers sound as correct as possible. Done like this the speaker is preforming close to perfect technically, any changes in sound is from the individual rooms or equipment used which is already a factor with any crossover. Doing it like this gives a steady consistent baseline to work from.

Of course just gave a rough idea, I wasn't trying to be specific with any of it. And they do have a room setup for listening which is treated to be like an average room, it's not all just done by computers and charts, it's a starting point.

This pic makes look small it's not small.