Jubilee/MCM thoughts requested

[Decadent_Spectre]

Yes, I am looking into something to replace the SH50's LF section,be it a dedicated mid bass horn or a enitre different system if necessary. What kind of size would the horn be for the 50x50 pattern?

 

I could not find any details on the Klipsch website about the 402MB, do you have any links?

 

A decade of bandwidth out of a horn does seem to be a challenge, I would be interested to hear what you come up with and the results. Any particular reason for sticking to 1" drivers?

 

I think the depth required would be about 36" for a 100Hz horn that is straight, plus whatever needed for the back chamber. Could try to do the extension but I do not have enough knowledge to really want to tinker with things myself, would prefer that a professional do it. Sealed/vented subs are easy, but trying to mess with an existing horn design is out of my league.

 

I just hear it sounding this way, I'm not sure why it sounds like this. With regards to speaker placement I really don't have much choice, just a little bit of room to move it. I have attached a raw measurement I found on my PC, it is a bit old and since then I have made some changes to the room and moved my speakers a bit but it should give you an idea. Left is black, Right is red, both with no EQ, only a HPF, no smoothing. Measured at LP.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Decadent_Spectre

[Chris A]

KPT-305-MF

[djk]

[Chris A]

Dennis, could you describe these - including coverage angles and performance?

[Decadent_Spectre]

djk, please do post a few details and subjective impressions on them.

[Chris A]

I have attached a raw measurement I found on my PC...Left is black, Right is red, both with no EQ, only a HPF, no smoothing. Measured at LP. 

That FR plot looks very similar to a Belle or La Scala placed along a wall. 

 

The problem that I see is still in the band from 40-120 Hz.  This is a difficult band to cover using horns unless you are using something like Khorns, Jubilees, or MWM bins, all of which make good use of room boundaries (particularly corners) to extend their lf band. I've found that TH designs don't sound very good in this band. 

 

Straight horns appear to be prohibitively long--about 8 feet--but you may find a way to incorporate into the room that I've not seen before.  They would likely have to be custom made.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Chris A

[Decadent_Spectre]

Hi Chris, the HPF is actually around 50-70Hz I think, I don't remember precisely. My plan is to put the BC412s on opposing walls, approximately mid way and that position did work well with my DTS10s so I hope that will be ideal, I recall the Welti paper also suggesting this and it does seem to work well. If the 412s are able to deliver in the 100-150Hz band then I might not need anything but in case they do not I started this thread to gather thoughts on how the Klipsch might do for the job. I will fully agree that THs are best used below 40-50Hz, at least that is my take away from the DTS10s but their measurements suggest this as well, something like the Othorns should fare much better but I personally love the sound of a front loaded horn. Straight horns are indeed too long, if they had been an option I would have gotten a custom one that did the job of the BC412s, at this point I think a 100Hz straight horn is probably as far as I could go as I imagine the depth with a rear chamber would come out to about 40-45" and even that depth would be difficult for me but within the realm of possibility.

[ClaudeJ1]

Decadent_Spectre

 

Based on your posted curves, it looks to me like all you need is a subwoofer of any kind, not midbass. I have an older version of the Danley SH46 wit twin DTS-10's. I would never go the BC412 route because it wont go low enough. I'm simply using AUDYSSEY MultiXT/32 room EQ which is available on many Pre-pros and receivers would certainly flatten out your curve. It works automatically between 2.1 for music and 5.1 for movies (Super Heresy surrounds). 

 

Just one OThorn would do the trick for you in a big way.

[Decadent_Spectre]

The BC is low enough for music (at least for my music), for movies I plan to add something below it at a later point, I plan to only use the 412s for music. My preference is in the 60-150Hz range rather than 20-60Hz which is why I opted for the BC412s, otheriwise I would have looked at their BC415 or DBH218LC or perhaps some custom large corner loaded FLH. I do use manual EQ to adjust the curve to taste and the above curve is only a raw measurement, it is not a curve that I use. I have tried the trial version of Dirac and was not satisfied so hesitate to use automated EQs as I get better subjective results with manual tweaking.

 

Why do you feel the mid bass is not the problem? I lack speed/definition and punch and as I understand it would be a function of mid bass rather than bass.

[Chris A]

On 9/16/2014 at 1:07 PM, Decadent_Spectre said:

Why do you feel the mid bass is not the problem? I lack speed/definition and punch and as I understand it would be a function of mid bass rather than bass.

Looking at your FR plot:

 

 

That big dip at 190-250 Hz is probably the issue.  How do you have the speakers arranged in your room - are they off the floor and/or out of the corners?  This is also a symptom of a Khorn bass bin not being fitted well into the corners of the room.  I'm thinking that if you can fix that problem, you can focus on the lack of 40-75 Hz band.

 

A reference;

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

They are on top of some dual 21" cabs which are being used as stands (not connected) but they are quite close to the corners, the left is actually a bit more out from the corner than the right. My amp died right when I got it and its taking longer than expected to replace it which is why the 412s are idle. Previously when I was running subs I had tested a flat response down to 15Hz, and after EQ there were no major dips or peaks but it still did not do it, that is why I was thinking it (lack of punch/speed) might be inherent to the SH50s as I was unable to EQ it out.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Decadent_Spectre

[DrWho]

You sure there isn't anything wrong with your speakers? That measurement looks very odd for a few reasons.

I'd love to see a measurement taken right at the mouth torule out any influence from the room.

[diamonddelts]

Jubes vs Danley SH50/60. I've been contemplating on these three for a while now. Very interesting thread.

[twistedcrankcammer]

...here is an account of said speakers used with Epik Empire subs that show how a non-horn loaded sub sounds amazing with them. SM60M with Epik Empires.

I guess that the listener liked a lot of THD in his sub

 

The Epik Empire actually reads better on the graph you posted than the Danley DTS-10 and is considered by many as one of the most musical subs out there. I was just curious why you thought the SH-50 or 60 needed so much help. Here is another example this time of Danley SH-50's with Epik Empires. Quite a few people are running SH-50/60 setups now and I have never heard of anyone needing a Jubilee bin or MCM, that is why I asked. From all accounts I can find, people say these systems are the among the best they have ever heard at any price with just the speakers and a sub. 

 

Back to the original question, Danley SH-50 vs Jubileee, that is very close to what I am interested in as well. Instead of the Jubilee however I am interested in the KPT-942 or KPT 942/4 and the SH-50 and SH-60. Those are the top four speakers on my list when I'm ready to upgrade.

That KPT-904 Bass Bin wont begin to keep up with a standard Klipschorn Bass Bin let alone a TSCM, Jub or MWM Bass Bin. Unless you are at an absolute impasse on space availability, I don't know why you would want to even consider even going to a direct radiator sub box, let alone that particular model?

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

...here is an account of said speakers used with Epik Empire subs that show how a non-horn loaded sub sounds amazing with them. SM60M with Epik Empires.

I guess that the listener liked a lot of THD in his sub

The Epik Empire actually reads better on the graph you posted than the Danley DTS-10...

 

always look below 40 Hz, not above, when assessing subwoofer performance. 

 

EDIT: Above 40 Hz, you're really talking about bass bin performance.  I've found that you typically want to use a separate bass bin from subwoofer due to modulation distortion issues that propagate from the lowest octave and a half of audibility/sensation, i.e., about 15-40 Hz, which of course is directly related to the motion of the driver's cone.  This is the subwoofers' reason for existence: to isolate these issues in the lowest frequency drivers/horns so that generated distortion products will not propagate via modulation distortion to the more audible higher frequencies.

Well there you go, I was looking from 40 Hz to 200 Hz lol. What are your thoughts on the Jubilee vs the KPT-942/4? The reason I ask is I find myself more attracted to the bass region of Chorus ll's and Cornwalls than I am to the LaScala and Khorn. I have a feeling I would prefer the sound of the KPT-942 or 942/4 over the folded horn of the Jube.

Sounds like you prefer slightly bloated, distorted Bass. Everyones hearing is different and your preferences are your own.

Roger

[Marvel]

Roger, Roger...

First time i heard CWs was at Indy, and i thought they were boomy. Nothing is as clean and tight as horn bass. I would even prefer less bass from an LS over a CW.

Bruce

[twistedcrankcammer]

Roger, Roger...

First time i heard CWs was at Indy, and i thought they were boomy. Nothing is as clean and tight as horn bass. I would even prefer less bass from an LS over a CW.

Bruce

Bruce,

Also a lot easier to get MORE of the better less distorted Bass if that is your preference by going active and multi amp and just bumping the power to the sub section.

Roger

[Travis In Austin]

Why must you look down on everything that is compressed? I seriously think you should get out and learn what these other genres are all about. It doesn't need to be your cup of tea, but you can at least learn to appreciate other styles of art for what they are...

Mike,

If the musicians that created the music wanted it to sound more compressed, my guess is that they'd perform it that way. The musicians that I know that submit to their recordings being compressed and processed into oblivion in the name of commercialization are typically more interested in the music selling more copies, but they all--to a person--believe that the sound itself suffers greatly after mastering with compression.

Audio mastering isn't an art form for me - in fact, it always has been and will be an engineering function--"first, do no harm". I've never heard compressed recordings that "sounded better" than the original tracks...but I have heard tracks that were re-EQed and mixed differently that sounded better. YMMV.

Compression is used in every link in the recording chain, for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with loudness. Compression has been around almost as long as tecording. If you take the maximum DR lp you can think of, live recording of a symphony, about 100db DR lets say, and you have to get that on tape with a DR of 70 you have to you compression. So that is the limit of the media that requires compression. Then you had the limits of the broadcast source. What is the DR of AM radio? About 25db? FM?

Mastering for vinyl requires usually requires, but not always, some compression to get it within the bandwith of that medium. Mastering for vinyl is most certainly an blend of art with science and technology. That is why they give grammys out for achievement in that art form. Here is the key, one can tell whether excessive compression is in the recording chain.

Here are a some reasons why compression is used to make a better recording that all occur prior to a mix down tape ever reaching the mastering process:

Reduce the dynamic range of a vocal to enable it to remain present and audible in a mix when competing with other amplified instruments.

Used when mixing both live and recorded material.

Reduce dynamic range of vocalists and other musical instruments that exceed the recording or reproduction capability.

Prevent clipping and distortion in live sound systems or recording chains.

Smooth and balance instruments such as bass guitars with wide dynamic range and large string-to-string level variations, or equalize different brass instrument volume levels.

Reduce sibilance (de-essing).

Produce louder recordings for broadcast.

Even out paging loudness variations due to different announcing voices.

Control the creation of sound. When used in conjunction with microphones and instrument pick-ups, compressors help determine the final timbre by selectively compressing specific frequencies and waveforms. Common examples are fattening drum sounds, increasing guitar sustain, vocal smoothing, and bringing up (punching) specific sounds in the mix.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of recordings that are cut "flat" at mastering because they were recorded and mixed properly. There are some mastering masterpieces and plenty of mastering mistakes, but mastering isn't the beginning and end of compression.

[Chris A]

Thanks, Travis, for resurrecting that post.  Since writing it, I've embarked on my personal remastering journey using Audacity and other tools and now have several thousand remastered tracks under my belt.  Understanding of the dimensions and the nuances of the problem has changed somewhat since then.

 

At that time, I was still at what I'd call my tip-of-the-iceberg visibility on the typical commercial mastering practices.  My real statement then was directed more on the outline of the problem of over compression of music tracks and less on the use of compression for legitimate uses.  I was actually then aware of compression methods being used to get the really big attacks and transients under control at the mixing level, and it's not difficult to see why compression is used there, but in a way that makes a lot more sense and doesn't result in changing the sound from a live presentation (i.e., hi-fi) to something else.  It's that "something else" that I disliked...and still dislike, intensely.

 

I still believe that most of that changing of the overall sound of the music mostly occurs at mastering time, but I've encountered many remastering instances where the individual voices in a stereo music track have obviously been pre-processed at mix time to be more compressed than other voices within the same track at the same instances in time within each track.  In this sense, I see the mastering function as a way that musicians use as a last chance way of rescuing mix-down screw ups...to put it not so lightly.  In this sense, I can see why most musicians view the mastering process as magic and a way of saving or salvaging badly produced mixdowns to still have value--such that the mastering engineers become heroes to rescue the work that has been done up to that point.  I can clearly understand why they think that.

 

I also see a lot of moral rationalization by those involved of all these commercial music production processes.  A deeper cultural issue that I've seen is that there is this feeling in the industry that recordings can be fixed--and must be fixed.  That's the problem in a nutshell.  I've found that recording problems really can't be fixed, but merely disguised. 

 

Compression at mastering time is like the standard bearer of all things evil from most peoples' view nowadays (for those that have any understanding of the subject at all) and I believe that these now notorious compression practices catch a lot of the heat because of that.  Compression used to excess is not the root issue, however, only a tool in the hands of those that has been used to "fix" things.

 

I will assume that you can agree with me that poorly mixed tracks can never be made into great recordings, only mediocre ones at best--some of which might sell millions to those that have absolutely no understanding or taste in what they are buying.  This is what I'd call the "beer consumer" music buyers.  They really don't pay very much attention and probably really couldn't tell you if you switched their brand of beer with another brand as they're drinking.  All they really care about is brand names and perhaps the temperature of the beer (equated here with "loudness" of the finished music tracks ...with louder being better by default).  This is also analogous to that population of whom PWK would call "the 99% that don't own his loudspeakers".  If it sounds like the mp3 tracks ripped from Tor downloads that wind up on their iPhones playing into earbuds, it's good.

 

And I've found that the taste of the beer has deteriorated rather dramatically since 1991.  It didn't really taste that good in 1991, to be honest. 

 

One way that I was made aware of the state of things was by observing my kids talking about the state of commercially produced music...what they themselves referred to as "crap"...in the early 2000s.  They actually prefer the music that I grew up with--in terms of fidelity.  Go figure...

 

Chris

Edited November 5, 2015 by Chris A

[Decadent_Spectre]

Time to bump an old thread....

 

Since my previous posts I have added 2 JBL cabs to the setup for a total of 4x 2226Hs in ported cabs. Currently the setup stand something like this -

 

SH50s
JBLs
BC412s
DIY sealed using 21" drivers

I've measured, I've tweaked/EQed but for the life of me I can't get the sound I want, as such thinking of the Jubilee, again. Thinking of mating the Jube to the SH50 and not the full Jube speaker. The JBLs while nice are not quite there. A response chart of the Left SH+JBL+BC412 is attached at LP with no smoothing, the BC and SH has EQ the JBL does not. Was taken a while ago so its changed since then as I keep changing things. The sealed 21s are not in the graph as I do not use them for music (I prefer it that way). Everything was aligned in time with no dips.

Through most of the range I don't lack output and 100-105db is still my usual listening (the below 40Hz range could use some reinforcement) and output is not what I seek, more the ***right***  "tone", "warmth" and "punch". FR is one aspect but theres more to consider such as the power response at LP and there does not seem to be a lot of published data on the Jubilee and perhaps I simply don't know enough about the response I seek? I'd note that my quest is subjective, not objective, whatever gets me there. If it has a 10db peak/dip I am fine with it. As evidenced by the graph I am more interested in the mid bass and mid range, less so in the HF which I roll off.

 

My question is, will the Jubilee give me that tone/punch? Like before a demo remains out of the question, the dealer informed me that a Jubilee has never been imported into India. Or should I continue to try and work with the JBLs? If so does someone have a suggested response curve to try?

 

Also out of curiosity what is the difference between the K402MF and K402HF? Are measurements available for these?