D-MAN Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I'm a bit confused, the Jubilee is intended specifically to crossover HIGHER, not lower. If you are intent on crossing over lower (i.e., below 300Hz), a corner horn is probably NOT your best bet, especially the Jubilee which some have reported lacks low end grunt anyway. The Klipschorn bass bin would work fine with a reduced bandwidth. The Jub would be a waste of potential, IMO. I would look at an Edgarhorn bass horn/sub combo in that case, or something along those lines, some sort of straight horn setup (Edgar's got a 100Hz straight mid-bass horn, etc). The University Classic should also be on your list, it was intended to crossover at 300Hz or below. The University Dean is a corner version. Or the venerable Khorn. But not the Jubilee. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I'm a bit confused, the Jubilee is intended specifically to crossover HIGHER, not lower. If you are intent on crossing over lower (i.e., below 300Hz), a corner horn is probably NOT your best bet, especially the Jubilee which some have reported lacks low end grunt anyway. The Klipschorn bass bin would work fine with a reduced bandwidth. The Jub would be a waste of potential, IMO. I would look at an Edgarhorn bass horn/sub combo in that case, or something along those lines, some sort of straight horn setup (Edgar's got a 100Hz straight mid-bass horn, etc). The University Classic should also be on your list, it was intended to crossover at 300Hz or below. The University Dean is a corner version. Or the venerable Khorn. But not the Jubilee. DM Lacks low end grunt? ...... Jebus what do they want? It didn't lack anything imo. Although you are correct it doesn't seem to be a good fit for what he is looking for as far as where he is trying to cross it at which I don't completely understand because it seems like the Jubilee would not be used to its full potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 I am not planning on using the jubilee bass bin, at least in the near-term. My bin are old fashion scoops (undersized though) with a 18" JBL 2240. They should be good to low 40's/high 30's, which is fine for me. I expect to have plenty of grunt in my 20'x25' room with the music I listen to, mostly rock. I don't expect them to be pretty or elegant, but with proper EQ I expect they will get the job done given my criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I am not planning on using the jubilee bass bin, at least in the near-term. My bin are old fashion scoops (undersized though) with a 18" JBL 2240. They should be good to low 40's/high 30's, which is fine for me. I expect to have plenty of grunt in my 20'x25' room with the music I listen to, mostly rock. I don't expect them to be pretty or elegant, but with proper EQ I expect they will get the job done given my criteria. Do you have any pics ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Off topic. Has someone got a pic of the University Dean? Dana. I can understand your point of principle with the Jubilee being a "waste" in three way crossed over at 300Hz. However, There is more to be desired than just raw low end. The Khorn has the Jubilee beat there IMO. But the Jubilee is all about "Bass Impact" in lack of better words. Now I haven't listened to a lot of Khorns recently but I have listened to the Jubilee in two different locations this year and the bass coming out of the thing is different and very good. It is raw, low, quick bass coming right at you. So I must say that I am more inclined right now to have a 3 way Jubilee vs the 3 way khorn. Sure, there is a loss of what the Jubilee can do in the 300-700 range. Honestly, I will start with 3 way and slowly try the two way option. BTW. I have touched base with one of the "winners" of the 200Hz Bentwood horns via EBAY's First Octave Audio. The winner seems to be very please. He is from germany and comes across as having a lot of experience with compression drivers and horns. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Yes, I actually went towards the punchy-side of things myself. I am just of the frame of mind that 12 inchers just don't have the low end muscle that a good 15 has for low end. BTW my horns are 35Hz Fc and crossover at 600Hz quite easily from a single 15. That is an appreciable bandwidth regardless. I wouldn't want to cross them over any lower than 500Hz, because like the Jubilee, it would dispense with the capabilities of the design. jc, here's the University Dean plans... Dana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 I will post some pics of the bass bins next week. I am still staining them and waiting for the drivers to be delivered. Based on the guidelines I have read they are way to small for an 18" driver at 2'x2'x3'H but were about as big as I could go....though now I am looking at going 40" wide with the K402. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 "BTW. I have touched base with one of the "winners" of the 200Hz Bentwood horns via EBAY's First Octave Audio. The winner seems to be very please. He is from germany and comes across as having a lot of experience with compression drivers and horns." Good new, thanks! I had read of a guy using this horn and 4590 with excellent, i.e. better than his previous ORIS horns. I beleive he is crossing over at close to 200hz on that horn with the 4590. Reading the statements of the Jubilee not sounding very "heritiage", I wonder how much of that is the tractrix vs exponential and further wonder after longer listing tests whether the tractrix sounds is utlimately better or if "something" (likley distortion) is missing when compared to the exponential. I have never heard a 2" exponential and maybe I ruled it out too quickly... Bonus question, "everyone" is telling me that he BMS 4592 (neo magnet) sounds better (more clear) than the same version with ceramic magnet (4590). The price difference is around $115/each and the replacement diphrams more expensive on the neo. Given the same flux rating, shouldn't they sound the same? Is there the possibilty that the flux measurements are inaccurate and the neo actually does have more flux and sound better beause of it? I don't care about the extra size/weight, so what are opinions on the extra value/cost of the neo version. In any case I am having difficulty getting anyone to sell me either BMS driver, including assistance audio, woodhorn, and us speaker. Lots of unreturned emails and phonecalls..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Does the BMS 4592 really go that low. I checked out that driver at usspeaker.com. The frequency plot for that driver looks like it poops out below 500Hz. The specs say it will do down to 300Hz. Anybody here have personal experience with this driver or any other driver that goes to 300Hz. I already know of the Altec 290 (not 2"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 If you want to cross over low, then that's just the wrong driver to use. I'd use the 4591 with a JBL or Beyma tweeter and call it a day. bms-4591.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 I cancel the question on magnets, sounds like a tube vs. solid state type question. I made my decision on that one. I don't want an extra set of horns and point sources to deal with. If I had to I would go higher and use the 4592, I would choose that over lower with another horn added. This all assumes I can get the right horn with 4592 for good HF. The plots on the BMS driver are on a small horn, which is dictating the cutoff. Yes, there are several individuals (I have sommunicated with some of them to confirm) and a small company crossing them over in the 200's with good results. Earlier in the thread there a link to a product that uses them with a 220hz crossover. I certainly have doubts and don't even know if it's worth it, i.e. I don't know how good/bad my bass bins will sound. My simple view is that if that driver can effectively go that low then why have 2??-500 coming from a bass bin (of any variety)???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 The 4591 looks more appropriate. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Because it sounds better? [][] But seriously, a good "bass bin" should be able to do it with lower distortion and more controlled directivity. I don't see the sense in making one driver cover two octaves while making the other one cover six. Even if you cut the top-end in half, you're still crossing over at 2kHz. Now you've got two crossovers in the middle of everything and no one driver is covering the entire range of any of the dominant instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 The plots on the BMS driver are on a small horn, which is dictating the cutoff. I hadn't realized they used their smallest horn for that plot. Sure enough, mouth size of 9 x 13 with a 700Hz cut-off. I would still be careful. There's really no need to take it down so low, and like Who says -- it probably won't sound as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 I beleive that the low end of the 4592 is the same as a 4591 driver and the difference in measurements is the horn. The 4591 measurements, it does not give the size of the horn, show usable response and acceptable distoration down to around 270hz....which is where many report crossing it over at. http://www.woodhorn.com/BMS/bms_4591.htm I realize that this is blowing a lot of peoples paradigms, but if it IS new technology should it not change our traditional thinking about what a cone handles versus a compression driver??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I beleive that the low end of the 4592 is the same as a 4591 driver and the difference in measurements is the horn... I agree. Sorry for any grief I caused you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Who wants a 40x20 horn? It seems like a lot of numbers are being thrown around without context of the application the numbers were achieved. Like all things engineered it's a classical case of tradeoffs. If you change the dispersion of the horn you also change the frequency response...unless you're going to sacrifice some of the power response. Somewhere mixed in all of that is the distortion of the system which shifts around too - and almost directly linked to that is the efficiency. This is what I was trying to get at earlier - you're simply shooting in the dark by trying to make a good sounding system looking only at the on-axis frequency response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 Dean, no grief. I greatly appreciate everones input and put a lot of weight on your thoughts. Well, enough thinking I just pulled the trigger and ordered the 4592s. Dr. Who, I have not selected a horn yet, that's is my primary purpose for and question in this thread...I am still hoping for the K402 but seriously looking at the 200hx exponential as the fall back. In the meantime, I do have a pair of 400hz (likley more like a 500-700hz crossover) round tractrix to play around with. I am hoping I don't have the same issues as Dman had with the tractrix on that driver....again mine are round As far as off-axis, my room is 20' x 25' and the speakers will be around 15' apart and the listening position around 16'. As long as I get decent responce within 2-3' feet from each side of the listening position sweet spot I will be happy. I have not done the geometry on that, but that's can't be more than 10-20 degrees off axis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Who wants a 40x20 horn? It seems like a lot of numbers are being thrown around without context of the application the numbers were achieved. Like all things engineered it's a classical case of tradeoffs. If you change the dispersion of the horn you also change the frequency response...unless you're going to sacrifice some of the power response. Somewhere mixed in all of that is the distortion of the system which shifts around too - and almost directly linked to that is the efficiency. This is what I was trying to get at earlier - you're simply shooting in the dark by trying to make a good sounding system looking only at the on-axis frequency response. Mike. What is wrong with 40 x 20 horn? The K402 is 36 x 20 at the mouth. This doesn't include the "mounting" surfaces around the mouth which are about 1 1/2 - 2 inches. Explain your point a little more please. Edgar was a fan of the 0.5 ratio of width to height to prevent impedance swings. Much like his "Edgar Midhorn" which was 18 x 9 mouth. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 40x20 is getting rather beamy, which would be good in a large reverberant field. To borrow some terminology I've seen used recently, the typical home listening environment is actually semi-reverberant...meaning wider dispersion is better because it allows you to more easily recover some of the "reverberant" attributes that are lost by the small space. To put it another way, wider dispersion better "fills" the room with sound. But too wide and you really start increasing the Haas effect which will start to require acoustical treatment. Too narrow and the sound is just thin and feels like it's being thrown at you. Btw, I think the K402 is essentially 90x60 from 500-20kHz (Roy's measurements)...how did you get 36x20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.