Jubilee - D.I.Y. drawing project (work in progress)

[Neandertal]

Current (April 4) plan veiw of the LF bin. This is the design using the 5"x9" driver slots in the motor board. Does this look like what you folks believe it should appear?

Bert

[Neandertal]

Here is the motor board with a 12" drone. This is a work in progress. I still do not have a good idea of what the drone is doing. Need your imput folks.

Bert

[Neandertal]

Here is the motor board in it's most simple form. No drone and the drivers centered. Easy and well balanced but does cut the A-B throat distance to a value less than that of the reference numbers.

Bert

[WMcD]

Hmmm. No one actually said PWK was the inventor. And actually no one said Klispch was the assignee.

If one wants to find that our they'd have to check the records of assignments. The assignee will appear on the patent document if the assignment took place before issue. But that is not always the case.

Gil

[sunnysal]

one thing I forgot to mention, it looks in the article like the jubilee had double thickness on the front panel...don't forget to show that (1 & 1/2") front panel thickness. tony

[Neandertal]

Hello again,

Gil...I patent searched the following names and words:

Klipsch

Klipsch, Associates

Delgado (co-author on the Jubilee paper, Delgado was noted in patent #5,000,286; "Modular Loundpseaker Design")

Hope, Arkansas

and a few others

If the Jubilee is patented in any form it would not have been by PKW, Delgado, Klipsch and Associates, Klipsch Audio Technologies, or any combo of the Klipsch name.

Bert

[dragonfyr]

Trey, does that mean we can't start our our company selling these things even if we relabelled them "Klutz" speakers??

Just playing!

I too have been intently waiting for JUST this thread! Now, if Trey could just get us one to 'look' at!

[WMcD]

It is interesting to look at USP 5,898,138 and the assignment at reel/frame 010360/0506.

For good or bad I can not here give legal opinions on much of anything. Part of that is because of an agreement with my employer and the other part is common sense, including that I don't represent any client's interest.

Best,

Gil

[D-MAN]

Gil, what? You can't give legal advise?! We ain't armchair patent lawyers?!

I am of the opinion that the Delgato patent (he owns it, but COULD license others to use it, or even sell it, however, the patent would have an assignment applied in such a case) features and is particular to an opposed driver/passive setup feeding a unitary throat. The patent is particular and does not specifically apply to the Jubilee, unless an opposition of the driver/passive is employed, which could be done, but is not particularily practical. The question is, if the Delgato design was "straightened out" (i.e., non-opposing) like the Jubilee throat, would the patent still apply? Not according to the claims, which is the part that matters, but studying them will tell one way or the other.

Also, there are other related approaches, here's one (Hook, 1989) with a reflexive porting (not a passive).

Note that in both cases, the actual DESIGN of the enclosure is what is patented, i.e., all of the parts that make it up, not the concept behind it. You cannot patent a concept, you can only patent that which embodies the concept in a physical manner. You can also patent a method for making the product, but you gotta have the product as the result of the method, too. For instance, you can patent a METHOD for separating DNA, or refining flour, or mixing paint, but the only patentable PRODUCT would possibly be the paint, if it was a new formula, etc. Flour, of course, pre-exists and DNA is not an actual manufactured product, so these are not patentable. Nor can you simply change a pre-existing product by changing its color, for instance, and calling it new (this is called an OBVIOUS change and is not patentable).

Patents have to either be:

1) new designs that expand the current art,

2) an improvement on an existing product,

3) methods that result in either of the above

In the case of methods, an improvement could be justified in the form of easier to manufacture, faster production, less expensive, less waste, etc.

DM

[Neandertal]

Hello again folks,

I hope we are not yet finished with this effort. No response, ideas, or input for a few days.

Have we hit a brick wall or are you folks doing "detailed research" and will provide outstanding data for us to bask in?

Anyone close to Hope, Arkansas that could visit Mrs. PKW and research (spy) on the Jubille?

Trey.....any offer of helping us? Any "formal" response at all from Klipsch Audio Technologies?

Trey...does Klipsch WANT to sell the LF bin to the general public in any volume?

Anyone want to discuss the driver hardware? Network ideas?

I will produce drawings of the board cuts (including angles) after it becomes obvious that no changes will be made to the "final" design.

Bert

[sunnysal]

I think the thread got off on a patent tangent...as far as I can tell the details left to decide are:

1. 2 drivers and a drone-cone or not...

2. the layout and dimensions of the motorboard slot...

3. the drivers to use in the bass bin...

we have not really tackled the horn and crossover I suggest that be left for other threads...

Personally I think we should try to recreate the article's bass bin, that had two drivers and no drone, right?

regards, tony

[D-MAN]

I for one would forego the passive. Seems like a side track to me. It ain't in the PWK/Delgato article, so its an add-on. Being a purist, I would go with the PWK version.

That being said, your plans look good to me. I would go with those as posted above...

I would also make flush-mount access panels both top and bottom.

Big-DNFAY went with the Pioneer 12" drivers from patrs express for his Jubilees. Check out the Jubilee thread by him in Updates and Modifications.

DM

[dragonfyr]

GREAT work so far!

Pardon my ignorance, but is the Jubilee that is pictured with Paul the same as the KPT-535 LF bin (sans veneer of course! It's hard to make Polane look like much other then, well... black. But I suppose it could be tinted lime green...just a thought!)

Are the 535's available via any pro/commercial dealers (I can't find them in the DFW area!

If not, is there anyone who would enjoy trying to ferret out additional info on the 535 LF bin? I'm game...

Oh, and one more off the wall question...

Does anyone recall the old pro straight base horn used for sound reinforcement? I recall the 'look' and trying to haul one around, but I can't recall the model. And might anyone have construction details on that unit or any of the other Pro W boxes?

Thanks!

[formica]

The Pioneer drivers are the same ones djk seems to recommend as the closest match to the PWK paper. The KLF-30 woofers are available from Klipsch parts but are more money.

If I were building them, I'd prefer the drone version since they are for home use where bass extension is more important than (edit ) complexity . I realise that this is the missing piece of info here that can stall the project, and how much of benefit there would be is beyond my knowledge.

later...

Rob

[D-MAN]

The inclusion of a passive will increase the compliance (the compressability of the air in it) of the back chamber somewhat. However, since it is feeding into a horn throat (i.e., resistance), the effect will not be as drastic as one feeding into the atmosphere.

This theoretically could lower the Fc of the enclosure a couple of Hz. However, it WILL increase efficiency, no doubt!

But it will NOT effect the overall low Fc of the horn! That is fixed.

So you are playing with lower freq. response INSIDE of the natural bandpass of the horn. About the same as changing out drivers, in other words. With alot more time and expense in my opinion.

So it won't actually go lower, but it will be more efficient.

DM

[formica]

----------------

On 4/7/2005 5:58:45 PM D-MAN wrote:

So you are playing with lower freq. response INSIDE of the natural bandpass of the horn. About the same as changing out drivers, in other words. With alot more time and expense in my opinion.

----------------

Very true... i wasn't thinking in "horn" speak. Kinda like using a K33 versus a K43 in the same LaScala cabinet.

I can see why you'd just drop the unknown PR part, given most of the other values and dimensions are established. Still wonder why PWK felt it was benefical enough to include it... as he could have adriver with any desired specs manufactured??

Rob

[Klewless]

D-MAN,

No doubt about your sharks. But when they splash their waves against the walls, man what an effect!

Everybody,

Why not build it with a removable motorboard? If we really got clever I'd bet we could design one where the entire front panel could be bolted onto the doghouse. Sort of having your cake and eating it too!

[Tom Adams]

----------------

On 4/8/2005 7:02:50 AM Klewless wrote:

D-MAN,

No doubt about your sharks. But when they splash their waves against the walls, man what an effect!

Everybody,

Why not build it with a removable motorboard? If we really got clever I'd bet we could design one where the entire front panel could be bolted onto the doghouse. Sort of having your cake and eating it too!

----------------

Going one step further....

Could not the driver slots in the motorboard be made "adjustable" with some sort of sliding shutter arrangement in order to tweek the final dimensions of the slot? Especially if the motorboard goes from a 2 driver to a 2 driver + drone configuration.

Just a stoopid thought.

Tom

[D-MAN]

I am thinking that it goes against PWK's stated preference for and past experience with the front-loaded horns using sealed back chambers in his publications and patents. It's practically his trademark when it comes to his horn designs.

And now, he RECANTS on his last horn design? Not a word anywhere from PWK on using a passive radiator in a horn throat.

And then the DELGATO patent. Could explain the silence, I guess.

DM

[1BigBore]

Greetings Good Folks;

I have been looking into the design of a Jubilee Klone based on the JAES Oct. 2000 document that was so kindly posted on these forums. I am not so well versed in the deeper aspects of theoretical design, in fact, I feel pretty good getting this far. I have looked at the fine work by Neandertal and others and I can understand a good bit of the Graphic parts of it, but I am a little baffled (excuse the pun) by some of the dimensions. Not that I think that they are wrong, but how they were derived, other than the stated tracing of a scaled drawing.

I looked at the JAES document and saw a statement that said the height of the horn would need to be only 0.482m (or 1-7) in height. They then went on to talk about desired height for proper listening and stated that two drivers would be required.

So far I am with you. The paper starts to define horn area at four points along the centerline of the horn. I can understand length and area. At the first point line length 0.0, the area is stated to be 0.029 sq.m. or 44.950 sq. in. After this I start to get a little foggy. The next point along the center line is 0.209m at 0.069sq, m. (106.95 sq. in.) Great, that I understand. Now, at point C the length is 0.741m with an area of 0.075 sq.m. (116.25 sq. in).

The problem that I am having is I do not know if the third point is measured from the origin or the previous point? The same goes for the last point. I am sure that there is some clue or standard practice that I am missing on that one.

Not being one to let common sense stand in my way, I have wasted several lunch hours at work trying to come up with a modified idea on the Jubilee theme. There should be some .pdf files posted with this text. The design stays as close as I could come to the original design, but with the idea that it would be for only one driver. My main concern was moving them up stairs to sit beside the TV. Think of two of these units for each side. I am working on a way to have them attach in an acceptable way with the upper horns and crossovers in a third box. I have not gotten that far yet. Also, I have not tried to build this design yet either I kind of wanted comments good or bad, because this will be my first speaker project since the old Speaker Lab units I built in college.

Thanks for your thoughts.

1BB

J_Box_Dwg_p1.pdf