The History of the Jubilee

[bracurrie]

Below you will see a posting that is duplicated from another thread that I wrote on this subject:

Chris, Thanks. I want to learn more from that thread. What was its title? While this doesn't relate directly to the history it may help someone who is interested in the Jubillee learn why its so special.

Also, as you may have read from a post of mine that I think I have a resonance issue with my Jub clone bass horns. What if any resonance is inherit with the design or with the factory horns pre and post manufacturing mods.(Aside from the plywood thickness variation problem that resulted in an occasional resonate problem Jub horn mentioned earlier in this thread.) Maybe W.C. will contribute any observations from his Goldens. Also where can I go to find "How to" measure resonance in a speaker system?

The reason why this hf band is broken up in commercial/cinema speakers is due solely to power handling issues of hf compression drivers while used in disco-like environments.

What kind of speaker system output levels need to be achieved in a cinema/disco-like environments?

[Coytee]

What if any resonance is inherit with the design or with the factory horns pre and post manufacturing mods

My understanding is none worth worrying about, especially now that Roy's redesigned the cabinet with the shelves.

[Deang]

I would be more concerned with the resonances/breakup inherently found in Ti diaphragms, which is quite horrible.

All things being equal, and they usually aren't -- both IMD and THD levels drop as well when you go to a three-way design. Each driver is required to do less work, so there is less distortion. This of course presumes that the drivers under consideration are of comparable quality and the filtering is the same.

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/glossary.nsf/root/F77C48111116FFBDC12578B20039968C?Open&term=THD+N

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8538

[mikebse2a3]

I would be more concerned with the resonances/breakup inherently found in Ti diaphragms, which is quite horrible.

All things being equal, and they usually aren't -- both IMD and THD levels drop as well when you go to a three-way design. Each driver is required to do less work, so there is less distortion. This of course presumes that the drivers under consideration are of comparable quality and the filtering is the same.

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neumann-kh/glossary.nsf/root/F77C48111116FFBDC12578B20039968C?Open&term=THD+N

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8538

I appreciate that Dean added this very important disclaimer..!

The fact is all diaphrams regardless of materials will exhibit resonances/breakup and have to be taken into consideration in any loudspeaker systems design. That's why anechoic chambers, test equipment-programs-methods, the training/knowledge of how to set/control all the parameters of test(performed by test equipment and listening test) and how to properly interpret all the data. Loudspeaker Design is a very complex system and cannot be reduced to general statements if valid facts and advancements are what your goal is.

Even in Deans example link of THD N paper is more telling of what happens when you compare a large system versus a small system at the same SPL levels and to many variables are unknown about the two systems to draw any general truths from this paper as well as how these systems would relate to any other loudspeaker system.

General statements serve no purpose other than to confuse and mislead others on the subject that they are referenced to. Examples ie:Horns sound honky, SS amps are edgy sounding, Tubes amps have great midrange with sweet highs and loose bass, etc........... If you have enough real world first hand listening experience then you will know these general statements are false and misleading as a result.

BEWARE: General Statements are useless and unfortunately treated as facts and regurgitated on many forums.

miketn

[bracurrie]

General statements serve no purpose other than to confuse and mislead others on the subject that they are referenced to. Examples ie:Horns sound honky, SS amps are edgy sounding, Tubes amps have great midrange with sweet highs and loose bass, etc........... If you have enough real world first hand listening experience then you will know these general statements are false and misleading as a result.

Amen. What we need to stick to are subjective opinions that are labeled as such and concrete knowledge that is recognized from the quality of its source.

But that's why this is so much freakin fun. There are no absolute answers in something that has at its very source opinions. I will however stipulate that some opinions are better than others.[] And mine are always the best! IMO

[Deang]

@Mike, [Y]

"There are no absolute answers in something that has at its very source opinions."

An opinion that is based on factual information is not an opinion. If I say a 2" compression driver has 4 times the surface area of a 1" driver and has 10 times less distortion -- I am relaying factual information. Someone comes along and says, "Well, that's just your opinion. In a normal sized room at reasonable volume levels, it makes no difference." Just because someone says something is an opinion doesn't mean it is, and using an opinion to beat back a fact is the best way to get me to vacate a thread. It's been painful staying in this one!

[bracurrie]

@Mike,

"There are no absolute answers in something that has at its very source opinions."

An opinion that is based on factual information is not an opinion. If I say a 2" compression driver has 4 times the surface area of a 1" driver and has 10 times less distortion -- I am relaying factual information. Someone comes along and says, "Well, that's just your opinion. In a normal sized room at reasonable volume levels, it makes no difference." Just because someone says something is an opinion doesn't mean it is, and using an opinion to beat back a fact is the best way to get me to vacate a thread. It's been painful staying in this one!

Thanks for staying with it. Semantics are almost as tricky as speaker design. Its a fact that I don't like to argue opinions. Its ok to try to sway my opinion with facts. At some point either I am an idiot or just plain stubborn. Check with my kids. You and several others that have chimed in on this thread have opinions that I accept as worthy because they are based on the knowledge and experience you have in this field. Its hard to the other noise, but its sometimes entertaining.

There's no accounting for taste. Now excuse me while I go on facebook and argue the politics of religion just for blood sport before the super bowl.

[ClaudeJ1]

The JBL Baby Cheek Tweeters (had them on my Khorns about 5 years ago) are an excellent tweeter from 6K on up and provide much better dispersion angle the ANY midrange horn with any driver, including the TAD. There are several reasons for going 3-way instead of 2-way, and this is certainly one of the main ones, including lower distortion.

And yet PWK and Roy designed the Jubilee with 2-way as a prime goal..!

Next time I talk to Roy I need to ask him how they could have made such a bad mistake..? Maybe Klipsch should hire some of our forum experts to straighten out this gross engineering screw-up...

miketn

Oh, come on, Mike.

PWK's prime goal was to raise the high frequency cutoff in the bass horn to go 2-way with a 1 1/2 inch driver at 800 Hz.on a smaller horn (K 403?)with collapsing verticals to EQ up the hight end, not a 2 inch, like the TAD or K69 on the K402 CD horn which need passive or active PEQ to work right.

Most of us have heard the 3-way vs. the 2-way, and some prefer the 3-way for various reasons. I like the 2 way just fine but the polar plots from ROY clearly show a narrowing at 8 Khz. For many people, that's not a big deal.

Roy creating a 2-way solution was not a mistake, but it gives people a choice vs. the 3-way Jubillee, which is OFFICIALLY in the published Klipsch Cinema catalog. That's not a mistake either.

You're a forum expert too.

[ClaudeJ1]

@Mike,

"There are no absolute answers in something that has at its very source opinions."

An opinion that is based on factual information is not an opinion. If I say a 2" compression driver has 4 times the surface area of a 1" driver and has 10 times less distortion -- I am relaying factual information. Someone comes along and says, "Well, that's just your opinion. In a normal sized room at reasonable volume levels, it makes no difference." Just because someone says something is an opinion doesn't mean it is, and using an opinion to beat back a fact is the best way to get me to vacate a thread. It's been painful staying in this one!

No it hasn't. (think Monty Python argument clinic). LOL

[mikebse2a3]

The JBL Baby Cheek Tweeters (had them on my Khorns about 5 years ago) are an excellent tweeter from 6K on up and provide much better dispersion angle the ANY midrange horn with any driver, including the TAD. There are several reasons for going 3-way instead of 2-way, and this is certainly one of the main ones, including lower distortion.

And yet PWK and Roy designed the Jubilee with 2-way as a prime goal..!

Next time I talk to Roy I need to ask him how they could have made such a bad mistake..? Maybe Klipsch should hire some of our forum experts to straighten out this gross engineering screw-up...

miketn

Oh, come on, Mike.

PWK's prime goal was to raise the high frequency cutoff in the bass horn to go 2-way with a 1 1/2 inch driver at 800 Hz.on a smaller horn (K 403?)with collapsing verticals to EQ up the hight end, not a 2 inch, like the TAD or K69 on the K402 CD horn which need passive or active PEQ to work right.

Most of us have heard the 3-way vs. the 2-way, and some prefer the 3-way for various reasons. I like the 2 way just fine but the polar plots from ROY clearly show a narrowing at 8 Khz. For many people, that's not a big deal.

Roy creating a 2-way solution was not a mistake, but it gives people a choice vs. the 3-way Jubillee, which is OFFICIALLY in the published Klipsch Cinema catalog. That's not a mistake either.

You're a forum expert too.

First Claude I know you are very proud of your system and you should be..! And I have no problem with anyone wanting 3-way, 4-way, etc... but as I posted General Statements being posted by many on the forum (I've been guilty myself I'm sure at sometime or another) serves more to confuse and misinform many people intentional or not and everyone needs to be carefull about doing so IMHO.

Claude if you read the AES paper yes an increase in the upper frequency limit from the LF was the main goal met.

Now read very carefully the first paragraph, introduction and background sections..! What was PWK and Roy's primary goal for the systems we now call Jubilee..? answer:..2-way..! No-where does it say what HF driver or horn was to be used to acheive the 2-way system...that came later but the primary goal was clearly to restore the Klipschorn to a 2-way system regardless of what names it eventually was called.

Nothing wrong at all with anyone prefering the 3-way configuration but it's not because of the polar response narrowing that you mention since the K402 and K510 both start narrowing around 8khz in part because of the 2" driver exit dimension(frequency wavelength coming into play) and phase plug design of the driver used.

As far as distortion is concerned I believe it is a mistake to assume that the 3-way is going to automatically have lower distortion. If the 4" diaphram behaves as a rigid piston without breakup/resonances then the increased area resulting in reduced excursion of the diaphram for a given SPL might have an advantage in distortion. The TAD TD4002 test very good in the control of breakup/resonances.

A 2-way system has some real possible advantages in that comb filtering is potentialy less and yes even though the polars begin to narrow around 8khz they change gradually but importantly all frequency have a tighter acoustical center than is possible with a seperate midrange and tweeter's physical spacing allows . The 3-way system with crossover has potential issues with a smooth polar response because of the different horns/drivers and physical spacing potential involved in many systems. The 3-way system also has potential off axis frequency response isues due to varying polar responses due to different horns/drivers and again comb filtering issues in the crossover regions.

miketn

[ClaudeJ1]

Nothing wrong at all with anyone prefering the 3-way configuration but it's not because of the polar response narrowing that you mention since the K402 and K510 both start narrowing around 8khz in part because of the 2" driver exit dimension(frequency wavelength coming into play) and phase plug design of the driver used.

As far as distortion is concerned I believe it is a mistake to assume that the 3-way is going to automatically have lower distortion. If the 4" diaphram behaves as a rigid piston without breakup/resonances then the increased area resulting in reduced excursion of the diaphram for a given SPL might have an advantage in distortion. The TAD TD4002 test very good in the control of breakup/resonances.

A 2-way system has some real possible advantages in that comb filtering is potentialy less and yes even though the polars begin to narrow around 8khz they change gradually but importantly all frequency have a tighter acoustical center than is possible with a seperate midrange and tweeter's physical spacing allows . The 3-way system with crossover has potential issues with a smooth polar response because of the different horns/drivers and physical spacing potential involved in many systems. The 3-way system also has potential off axis frequency response isues due to varying polar responses due to different horns/drivers and again comb filtering issues in the crossover regions.

What you present here is correct. I have not disagreement with it as being factual. I was NOT the one who said it was lower distortion, only better HF dispersion to go 3-way with a JBL tweeter on another poster's Jubilee Clone setup with the oval tractrix horn. I had those tweeters on my Khorns and like John W's "super Khorn" setup, the JBL tweeters sound and Measure WAY better than the K77's I lived with for 30 years.

The K510 works great for JWC, and I heard that top end on a Jube before, just as your have. I PREFER the lower Xover point to the 1133's which I now own and enjoy rather than the the higher Xover point of the 2-way Jube. Not better in all aspect, but different and better for my ears. BUT I chose a 1" tweeter over a 2" (way overkill for home according to Roy and PWK) because I don't have to punch through a 100 foot screen and it has superior dispersion and definitions characteristics over a K69 for the home. Read Geddes and Danley to find out why it's my tweeter of choice also.

IF you can afford it, the TAD totally kills the need for a twetter in a 402, which I know you and many other forum buds here own and enjoy. Awesome stuff and yes, 2-way is superior with regards to what you point out, but there are still trade offs involved. Either choice is good and valid in my book.

BUT if you throw in DOLLARS into the equation, I built my entire SYSTEM for less than the cost of a pair of TADS, which, when you throw in low distortion, high efficiency, micro definition, etc. and you factor in how much I spent, I'm still in the same league quality-wise as anyone here who spent 10X the amount of cash that I spent. but I digress.

My main point before was about CHOICES of Klipsch or Klipsch derived horn setups. All are excellent and way above the other 99% of the general public PWK always talked about. I prefer Roy's top end vs. PWK's, which I'm sure they disagreed about. Roy developed the 2-way after PWK's passing, so it doesn't matter whether PWK would have approved or not. I think Roy's method is superor to what PWK wanted, but that's another opinion beyond the scope of this text.

PS: I also think an MWM (as do many other 3-way/4-way Klipsheads, Mark or Eldon do) bass horn is far superior to a Jube bottom when one uses a subwoofer below it anyhow if space savings or appearance is not your goal (more compromises).

[Chris A]

Also, as you may have read from a post of mine that I think I have a resonance issue with my Jub clone bass horns. What if any resonance is inherit with the design or with the factory horns pre and post manufacturing mods.(Aside from the plywood thickness variation problem that resulted in an occasional resonate problem Jub horn mentioned earlier in this thread.) Maybe W.C. will contribute any observations from his Goldens. Also where can I go to find "How to" measure resonance in a speaker system?

There are two areas to look at: internal bracing of horn fold baffles and geometry issues within the horn itself resulting in impedance bounces.

The first issue usually shows up most strongly in the lowest octave of the horn's response where the most area of unsupported baflles is located. The other issue usually shows up in the higher octaves due to the pressure intensity of acoustic reflections in the throat area of the horn. If you can identify the frequencies of resonance using REW or a test CD to step up in frequency slowly (i.e., an up-sweep using REW and an in-room microphone to record the response), then it may be much easier to identify the problem areas--if the problem is related to the horn itself and not its placement in-room.

If your bass bins are not located in the room's corners (within 6 inches for the Jub bass bin), then the resulting FR of non-corner placement, due entirely to the undersized mouth issue of all corner horns, will likely be perceived as resonances. The solution here is to place the horns in the corners and treat the side walls, floor and ceiling for midrange early reflections in order to regain imaging performance.

The alternative to corner placement: pretty massive EQ to tame the FR peaks, and you mostly have to live with the nulls.

Chris

[Deang]

Mike, with respect: I thought we were dealing with the general idea that the less work the driver is doing, the lower its IMD and THD. It's a rather simple idea, and doesn't involve polars, comb filtering, or anything else. I mentioned, "all things being equal". Is the P.Audio "equal" to the TAD in terms of distortion and FR performance? I think not, for if it were, people wouldn't be dumping that driver as soon as the opportunity presents itself. With that said, if you're using the K-69-A, I believe it to be entirely possible for one to end up with overall lower distortion levels by using a good tweeter and avoiding the region where the breakup modes occur - polars be damned.

[Chris A]

if you're using the K-69-A, I believe it to be entirely possible for one to end up with lower overall distortion by getting out of the region where the breakup modes occur by using a good tweeter

I don't believe many will argue this point Dean. It was the waterfall plots on the K-69-A vs. TAD TD-4002 generated by Mike that convinced me to buy into the TADs, sound unheard. This was a very significant change in performance, IMHO.

However, the newer Faital Pro drivers (i.e., the "200" series?) present themselves as intermediate in price with apparently much better high end performance that I believe that should be a point-of-departure alternative for whether or not you go to 3-way vs. 2-way. I also can't remember the model number of the BMS compression driver that has a ring tweeter (i..e, coaxial midrange and tweeter diaphragms/voice coils) - and the price. I think that this driver will also work given time to EQ it a bit better than I last heard it.

Chris

[Deang]

The BMS coaxial is problematic, and Dennis (DJK) has reservations about it. He has a pair and isn't much impressed. To be completely honest, after years of reading about this stuff ad nauseum - I've decided that unless you can afford something at the level of TAD, I would go three-way. If two-way, I would cross a little higher and use a 1.4" Radian. Aluminum is better behaved and this is clearly evident when you listen. 1.4" has better HF response and with a decent horn, better power response than the 2" varieties. So yeah, for the home, I've come to adopt PWK's view on the matter. IOWs, I would give up uniform power response in exchange for lower distortion, simplicity in set up, and lower cost.

[bracurrie]

if you're using the K-69-A, I believe it to be entirely possible for one to end up with lower overall distortion by getting out of the region where the breakup modes occur by using a good tweeter

I don't believe many will argue this point Dean. It was the waterfall plots on the K-69-A vs. TAD TD-4002 generated by Mike that convinced me to buy into the TADs, sound unheard. This was a very significant change in performance, IMHO.

However, the newer Faital Pro drivers (i.e., the "200" series?) present themselves as intermediate in price with apparently much better high end performance that I believe that should be a point-of-departure alternative for whether or not you go to 3-way vs. 2-way. I also can't remember the model number of the BMS compression driver that has a ring tweeter (i..e, coaxial midrange and tweeter diaphragms/voice coils) - and the price. I think that this driver will also work given time to EQ it a bit better than I last heard it.

Chris

Has anyone tested the Fatail HF200 with Dave's Eliptrac 400 horn? I have seen graphs on the horn with other drivers but not that specific combination.

[bracurrie]

I would give up uniform power response in exchange for lower distortion, simplicity in set up, and lower cost.

My instinct is to agree, but I do not understand what uniform power response means other than it sounds good.[*-)]

[mark1101]

I have been using TAD 4002s for a few years now on my K402s. They have extension right out to 19+K. However, the decision to use a tweeter or not (in my case the K510) really has nothing to do with TADs or K69s.

I have felt all along for years that the 402 does not focus nor emphasize the extreme highs as much as a 510. If you want emphasis up there at the top end then you will need the 510. TADs give you extension but the 402 doesn't seem to power those frequencies with authority.

In my case, to add a 510 with a pair of decent drivers runs between $3-4K because I need another processor and amp. So........I aint doin' it tomorrow,

I don't think TADs are automatically everyone's answer to eliminating needing a tweeter. They are cleaner and clearer sounding and a great driver IMHO.

JWC's K402/K510 top end uses the stock Klispch drivers (1133/K69 I believe)...........and that has some extra crispy top end...........more focused energy up there than just my K402s with TADs.

[Deang]

I appreciate your honesty about that. Many on other forums shell out big dollars for Be drivers and diaphragms, and after a while -- still end up with tweeters. When I heard the three-way Jubilee in Hope, I immediately developed a strong preference for its sound over the two-way. I tried to hide it, but don't think I did a very good job. I think that 1133 is killer.

[Fjd]

Has anyone tested the Fatail HF200 with Dave's Eliptrac 400 horn? I have seen graphs on the horn with other drivers but not that specific combination.

Thread documenting the "Testing the Faital Pro HF200 driver on the Eliptrac400"

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/t/144319.aspx?PageIndex=1