alternative designs- why go jubilee?

[Deang]

I understood the story to be the Jubilee was supposed to be the next generation Klipschorn BUT, when they finished it, PWK felt it was significantly superior to the Khorn as to not be an improvement but a quantum leap forward. Because of that, he then decided it needed its own designation other than Khorn.

That doesn't make much sense.

There is no other big speaker on the planet that can do what a Klipschorn can -- almost disappear into a room when tucked away into a corner. Nicely finished and with a reasonably sized top section -- the Jubilee isn't so easy to tuck away. In spite of her shortcomings, the Klipschorn design is pure genius. You wouldn't do away with the Klipschorn after inventing a Jubilee anymore than you would do away with the LaScala because you make a Klipschorn. It makes sense that you start out trying to replace a Klipschorn, and when you get done you realize that even though you pulled it off -- the thing you tried to replace still stands on her own pretty darn good, and manages to do some things sonically as well as from a marketing perspective that "the replacement" can't do. And then of course, how would you go about "putting her down"?

[Coytee]

I certainly don't recall 100% that it's the story...

That said, I DO know how they came up with the name "Jubilee"... anyone else know or care to take a stab? (to further hijack the thread prior to Roy returning)

[]

[sfogg]

"Maybe I'm not explaining myself, I don't know. What I'm trying to get at is if you have 2 cones distorting instead of just one cone distorting, then the distorsion should be twice as loud, no/yes?!"

Twice, no. You don't get twice as loud when you double drivers... you gain 3dB, and potentially another 3dB from doubling the power handling of the system.

"And I am referring to reaching the limits of the drivers, whether it be one driver or two."

And the point you are missing is when you double the drivers you also have more max signal compared to a single driver. Distortion is measured as a percentage of the signal. You have two drivers distorting at the limit but you also have more total signal. Figure our if the ratio of distortion to signal has changed.... at the limit of one driver vs the limit of two drivers.

And that is saying nothing of using dual driver tricks (which might not physically fit in a horn) of doing something like mounting one driver backwards and feed it inverted phase to cancel some of the mechanical odd order distortion of the drivers themselves. M&K does this for example in their subwoofers.

Shawn

[chops]

"Maybe I'm not explaining myself, I don't know. What I'm trying to get at is if you have 2 cones distorting instead of just one cone distorting, then the distorsion should be twice as loud, no/yes?!"

Twice, no. You don't get twice as loud when you double drivers... you gain 3dB, and potentially another 3dB from doubling the power handling of the system.

"And I am referring to reaching the limits of the drivers, whether it be one driver or two."

And the point you are missing is when you double the drivers you also have more max signal compared to a single driver. Distortion is measured as a percentage of the signal. You have two drivers distorting at the limit but you also have more total signal. Figure our if the ratio of distortion to signal has changed.... at the limit of one driver vs the limit of two drivers.

And that is saying nothing of using dual driver tricks (which might not physically fit in a horn) of doing something like mounting one driver backwards and feed it inverted phase to cancel some of the mechanical odd order distortion of the drivers themselves. M&K does this for example in their subwoofers.

Shawn

Hi Shawn,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. That's all I wanted to know. I just forgot about there being "more" signal as well.

And as for the M&K subs, that's why I built my sub as a push/pull as well. []

Again, thanks!

[D-MAN]

In my room at my house, with my electronics, YES, the Jubilees OUTKICK the Khorn by a noticable margin.

They do it at lower levels, they do it at higher levels (db's)

They sound more cohesive closer in and further away (the Khorns sounded better to me if you were 20' back & gave the sound some time to 'meld together'... the sound melds together much quicker with the Jubilees)

[]

Now... when can we expect your arrival so you can hear them for yourself?

Even better idea... perhaps I can get my tape recorder out and simply record them & mail the tape to you?

[6]

There it is! That's what I was looking for!

Why don't you guys come up here instead? I could afford that!

DM

[Coytee]

There it is! That's what I was looking for!

Why don't you guys come up here instead? I could afford that!

DM

You pay for shipping on the Jubilees and we're on the way... oh, they typically get to go first class if that's ok with you.

[]

[jwc]

Maybe there should be a Southeastern Klipsch gathering in Knoxville. Possibly rent out some place. Maybe Mike or Richard would let us scroll though their house to hear the Jubs. How rude am I inviting everyone to somebody else's place..huh?

[Coytee]

Maybe there should be a Southeastern Klipsch gathering in Knoxville. Possibly rent out some place. Maybe Mike or Richard would let us scroll though their house to hear the Jubs. How rude am I inviting everyone to somebody else's place..huh?

oh, earlier in this thread, I invited D-man to your house as well. I think turnabout (by you) is fair play []

Actually, I'm kind of intrigued that for all the attention these things get (for the brand, not to Mike & myself), that more people haven't expressed an interest (with SOME intent) to come here and hear them.

I kind of feel 'pushy', for lack of better word, continually inviting folks over. I don't know how to be more upfront & honest than to invite them. perhaps your idea is a good idea. I'd be more than tickled if someone came here, heard them, walked away awed by them and ordered a pair.

I'd be in support of your idea, even if Mike wasn't (since I can't speak for him).

Plenty of places to stay here, plenty of wood to chop in between listening sessions...

[D-MAN]

You mean you wouldn't be HONORED if I actually showed up?! SHOCKING!

DM

[jwc]

You already invited Dana to my house. I missed that.

Sure you could come to my place. I'm not sure I have anything that exciting to see.

However, I could make arrangements for a MAC and Klipsch Heritage Demo at Georgia Home Theater. The manager and I chat from time to time. He would be overjoyed for a bunch od Klipschters to come to his place store for some real auditioning.

[Coytee]

JC, page 6, response 815326

D-man... Kind of a silly question but why don't you cop a plane to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Atlanta.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You can see/hear/critique JC's homebuilt Jubilee, then skirt up the highway 3 hours and hear Mike's Jubilees on some PP 2A3 amps, then mine on some solid state, mixed with MC-2102 on top?!?!?!?

Between us all, I'm sure we can house you for a night or two and when you get here, you Mike & I can go out to dinner.

Mike's treat of course

I was very generous in offering Mike to pay for it all too []

[TRiv]

For instance, the Khorn Vb is approximately 3800 cu. inches or slightly under 3 cubic feet. There are a few available drivers that work more-than-satisfactorily in this volume, and can use the throat size (39-78 sq. in). Crossover will require changes, though.

DM

Is 3800 cu. inches the known approximate volume of the Khorn rear chamber?

[mark1101]

I understood the story to be the Jubilee was supposed to be the next generation Klipschorn BUT, when they finished it, PWK felt it was significantly superior to the Khorn as to not be an improvement but a quantum leap forward. Because of that, he then decided it needed its own designation other than Khorn.

That doesn't make much sense.

There is no other big speaker on the planet that can do what a Klipschorn can -- almost disappear into a room when tucked away into a corner. Nicely finished and with a reasonably sized top section -- the Jubilee isn't so easy to tuck away. In spite of her shortcomings, the Klipschorn design is pure genius. You wouldn't do away with the Klipschorn after inventing a Jubilee anymore than you would do away with the LaScala because you make a Klipschorn. It makes sense that you start out trying to replace a Klipschorn, and when you get done you realize that even though you pulled it off -- the thing you tried to replace still stands on her own pretty darn good, and manages to do some things sonically as well as from a marketing perspective that "the replacement" can't do. And then of course, how would you go about "putting her down"?

From a marketing standpoint, to me the Jubilee seems more like a next generation LaScala than a next generation Khorn. If you were to put the same squawker and tweeter on the Jubilee as the K and Las have....and then line up all three.....I think most would say the Khorn is the odd man out. The Las and Jubilee being more alike in sonic characteristics (bass speed/dispersion/tonality), and bass horn performance.

That's what I thought at Richard's house. Man...this thing (bass horn) is a MEGA-LaScala, not a Khorn. Although we compare it mostly to a Khorn, I think it's really more like a LaScala.

Certainly somehwere in the middle at the least. Totally loveable.[]

[Coytee]

LaKorn?

[jwc]

Absolutely not....but a KornScala

[Coytee]

Let's not forget the possible use of JubScala...

[Deang]

That's what I thought at Richard's house. Man...this thing (bass horn) is a MEGA-LaScala, not a Khorn. Although we compare it mostly to a Khorn, I think it's really more like a LaScala.

Finish your Klipschorns in a way similar to the way I did mine, turn them into the room -- and they will sound pretty much like what you're describing above.

[bodcaw boy]

at least you don't have to use your real name....like other Klipsch employees! []

oh, VERY good stuff above! and I so dig that Roy is now quoting Doc. Can't wait to hang wit youse guys at P7!

M- soon to have a Batman logo of his very own.

i haven't said it yet but...................

CONGRATS FELLOW KLIPSCH EMPLOYEE!!

rule number one: trey sucks.....

rule number two: roy doesn't no matter what trey says......

everytime i quote doc, he pays me money.....[]

[bodcaw boy]

GO HOGS!!!!!!!!

AND GO COWBOYS!!!!

[bodcaw boy]

Well, don't stop now! Let's escalate!

okay!!

DM: Wow, Roy is talking to me! To ME! (unfortunately, he's beating me up most of the time!) I'll have to defend myself using every bit of my typical wit and charm...

hey dm! i wouldn't say beatup....how about giving you nails to chew on......

The ONLY thing that a 12" has is a higher mass rolloff. It will have MORE distortion down low, as it has to NATURALLY have MORE EXCURSION to accomplish the task of moving x amount of air due to its cone diameter. Excursion is ALWAYS non-linear. Hence, more excursion=more distortion. Doubling drivers reduces excursion, so less distortion naturally results.

is there only one formula for a 12"?

DM: basically, there is only so much air that a 12" cone can grab, and that means that increasing excursion is the only way to increase the effective air volume. Essentially, the question resolves down to this: which is better, a larger volume of air moving at a lower velocity (15), or smaller volume of air moving at higher velocity (12") for the same relative SPL.

if you are putting that air thru a slot than the slot becomes the "displacer".

As far as 2 -12" moving more air per excursion than a single 15" - granted. But then 2 -15's move more air than 2 - 12's, right? My point.

how about dual 18" or better yet three 12"? we did dual 12" because each 12" had a horn and we just "stacked" one top of each other. there are oh some many more items to consider to help excursion and so many more items to consider other than excursiion...

DM: 18" drivers are not particularily good at transient response due to the amount of moving mass. What they gain ion cone area, they give up with moving mass, simply that an 18" cone of sufficient strength weighs more. This comes back to the ratio I mentioned earlier. The physics of a 15" vs a 12" are that the 15" moves more air/per lower excursion, both highly desirable. The weight of air remaining constant, which is better?

The ratio of moving mass-to-required excursion for a given SPL is best balanced by the 15" variety compared to 18's or 12's. The 15" cone is light enough to handle mid-and-upper bass transients (accelleration), and large enough in area to grab an effective amount of air (so to speak), keeping excursion down, COMPARITIVELY SPEAKING.

got to show you some righteous 18"!![]

Actually, the historical documentation prefers 15" as being the best possible choice for a given excursion and the comparitive ratio of mass-to-excursion and the amount of air that the cone grabs is better in a single 15 than a single 12. In particular, Badmaeiff and Davis' "How to Build Speaker Enclosures", from the 60's, amongst others. Actually they say 2-15's are the cat's meow because of the efficiencies acheived for a given excusion and the transient response due to mass rolloff is better than a single 18 which is pretty much inarguable. I'll dig around and see if I can find a reference that shows this and try to post it here, but I can't promise...

again, are there only one formula for a 15"?? never heard of the book but then again never heard of speakers made from using this book. cook books, in my opinion (again this not fact), get you in the ball park because they tend to minimize and trivialize the importance of keeping so many parameters in balance. paul used to tell me that the reason not many people designed horns, much less good horns, because they didn't want to go that extra 20%.

DM: the point is that the ratio of cone area, typical moving mass, and excursion required at a specific SPL is better (or should I say "more balanced") in a 15" cone vs. a 12" cone, all things being equal.

but can't be equal cause bigger cone requires bigger air chamber so things can be optimized for several parameters.

In the case of the Jubilee, we are concerned with a 90 sq. in throat (the combined area) compared to the Khorn's 78 sq. in. throat (the narrower slot notwithstanding). That is a total difference of 12 sq. inches. Now do you REALLY think that there is a massive difference there? The answer is NOT!

slots are not the only thing going on here. how about the design differences in the woofers themselves, the loading of the back air chamber, the path length differences, the discountinuities in the expansion, etc, etc.

DM: the Khorn not being annulled and the Jubilee being annulled, for instance? The throat reactance of the Khorn vs. the throat reactance of the Jubilee? Naturally, the Jubilee would win on that account. The point I was making was an overall THROAT AREA comparison between the two, excluding other considerations such as slot size.

The real concern is how big is the slot and subsequent channel, which determines the amount of throat distortion you will generate at a given SPL. Which one wins? Probably a wash. The Jubilee, by virtue of dual drivers, which lessens the required excurstion per given SPL would be a lower velocity threw the throat, but this is counteracted by small slots and channels. The Khorn has wider channels - but a narrower slot - which is going to INCREASE reactance initially. This is counteracted by the wider channels, so I figure it's a wash.

you ought to read the aes paper. distortion reduction was actually quite significant. and it isn't really all that much to do with narrower or wider; area is key.

DM: I have read the AES paper. I was referring to throat distortion specifically. Throat channel dimensions (related to but not exclusively, to "slot" size) certainly has alot to do with throat overload distortion. The point I was making was that the Khorn, having LARGER throat proportions, comparitively, is theoretically capable of less throat distortion per given SPL.

Now as to whether you are attributing the lower distortion to the ratio of area of cone vs. area of "slot" and the 1:1 ratio of throat proportion with the slot, being a better value in the Jubilee vs. the Khorn, then your point is well taken.

We could resolve this by calculating the differences in reactance especially at the throat(s), but that is quite complicated, and I'm not quite sure that the result in acoustic ohms would be in regards to the particular drivers. I do know that the Khorn is operating the K33E under more compression than the Jubilee, though, which lowers its efficiency.

actually more compression, increases efficiency until you start to distort the air movement.

DM: In general priciple. However, the point I was making was that the Khorn, of course, is not fully annulled (undersized Vb) and is operated with a slot far below the size required for maximum efficiency. Annulled driver(s) tend to operate with greater efficiencies due to less reactance down to the horn's Fc, below which, the fall off is more exagerated (compatitively).

The difference is that the K33E isn't the "strongest" driver. Better ones are available. Why you guys haven't tried them before contemplating "jumping ship" I don't know.

better how. pulling out one parameter and upsetting the balancing act and then introducing a different parameter upsets the other parameters. ask those who took a la scala and put a k-43 in. it is a "stronger" driver but only in certain areas. as doc's posts say, it's all about compromise.

DM: Indeed.

Non-Klipsch drivers most likely would require a widened slot. The main point of what I'm saying is that there is a great deal of sonic differences in drivers. The main physcial limitation of the Khorn is the available Vb. Try an EV EVX-155 (annulls in 3030 cu.in, max efficiency w/52" throat. However, new crossover required.

This assumes, of course, that the Khorn is still operated in its "normal" bandpass. If you want to increase the crossover point, then changing drivers, ect. isn't going to help. I'm talking about getting it to "kick" and otherwise "punch" on the low end, the only thing it that could be improved, IMO.

The only point of the Jubilee that the Khorn cannot beat is the crossover point itself.

actually, there quite a few others.

DM: Yes - increased power handling, lower distortion, better phase response, increased upper frequency response. It certainly sets some standards. I'd love to hear one.

P.S. Roy, why isn't the 12" Jubilee driver available from Klipsch for DIYers? That could get the Jubilee more well known, which would help Klipsch CO. in the long run.

who said it wasn't? trying order a k-31 thru customer service but first let me remove the threat label from your name or cops will come to your house if you call customer service.... [] i will look for the part number.

DM

in all seriousness dm, thanks for the fun discussion and for making me think!!

berryboy roy

Me too! - just don't beat me up so much next time!

DM