alternative designs- why go jubilee?

[Duke Spinner]

PS Edit: ...."Felix Pappalardi's"..... Young Rascals.......??????

tc

that was Felix Cavileire, one of the 3 vocalist's...er, Rascal's, if you will ...........[]

[Duke Spinner]

.

[DrWho]

Well fat bass would definetly NOT be like that lousy Jack Cassidy bloke...[][]

(Mas put me up to it...) *ducks*

But seriously, give me some time to come up with some stuff that you guys have actually heard. I know the music, just not by name.

[Duke Spinner]

here, Who...

use Real Player to open

nantucket slieghride.zip

[Duke Spinner]

Well fat bass would definetly NOT be like that lousy Jack Cassidy bloke...[][]

.

that would be Casady , .... Who .......[]

[DrWho]

bah, Casady sucks too []

I don't have speakers hooked up at the moment (too many workshops), but I'll check out the sound bit the next time I'm at someone else's place.

[Duke Spinner]

i can't comment ...

never listened much to Jefferson Airplane/ Starship, etc .....

[Duke Spinner]

....You .....don't have any Speakers hooked up ...????

incredulous ..... is the word......[:^)]

[DrWho]

I know - I'm practically dying here! But I don't have the time to rehookup everything just to tear it down again next week. Busy busy busy - gotta love college. At least I get to mix a few good live shows this week.

[mas]

OK...

I haven't read the thread and I am not exactly sure what you are talking about...

All I caught was the 'Jack Casady sucks' line and them's fightin words!![:@]

And all the while I thought Mike (Doc) was a nice intelligent guy! Boy, was I snowed!

Nobody has replicated the growl and pure melody and drive of his playing...plus the fact that he introduced the electric bass to the melody line in rock. Check out Bless Its Pointed Little Head by Jefferson Airplane or Blows Against the Empire by the J. Starship or Burgers by Hot Tuna. Oh, and watch for Hot Tuna live near you, or if you play, check out the lineups and guest instructors at Jorma's (Kaukonen for all of you culturally deprived folks[]) Fur Peace Ranch clinics in Pomeroy Ohio. http://www.furpeaceranch.com/

BTW, Live At Golden Gate (Park), another live archival Jefferson Airplane recording circa 1969 is out. (LIVE is the ONLY way to listen to the Airplane)

For GOOD bass on current recordings check out Tony Levin with Peter Gabriel (lots of stuff, but the Still Growing Up Live & Unwrapped is quite good as well as King Crimson and far too many supporting roles to mention) as well as Sarah McLachlan (especially the recent Afterglow). It will give your subs a workout.

Still fumin....[8o|] []

And Duke...I thought you were up on the Airplane and Hot Tuna....Hmmm...[8-)]

[D-MAN]

Ok, 'nuff about bass players and YOUR particular preferences! Let's get back to enclosures and the point of this thread (at least in the beginning!)...

The reason for investigating other designs is that each one (if varied sufficiently) will have its own set of attributes. It is a matter of choosing which attributes you want or as in the case of bass players - "prefer".

It's not the same as saying "I want a smooth response", it goes much further than that, like a "smooth response from here-to-here at nn efficiency", etc. Crossover points, the number of crossover points, the footprint size, the desired sensitivity, the maximum SPL, etc.

Saying that one design is "better" than any of the others is quite pointless. It is just different, and has a different set of attributes. No single design does everything. You have to choose your attributes and what you are willing to compromise on in order to achieve them, because there is nothing free in physics.

The Khorn can be taken to the maximum performance it is capable of, and few here (if any) have done that, IMO. The Jubilee comes along and is of great interest in the Klipsch-afficianado community. They are DIFFERENT, each has its attributes. One does not "replace" the other by total sonic eclipse! Different set of goals.

There is something to be said about the intellectual satisfaction of hearing examples of all of the PWK-designed horns, which I have yet to do. But how much of the Jubilee's apparent appeal is based on that rather than its performance. I figure that a good part is the zeal is based on the PWK effect. But that has nothing to do with the actual horn itself. That is a possitive mindset that the listener brings to the experience, not part of the actual technical performance at all. I can't get over that from the "gushing" that goes on here about the Jubilee. Too much emotional predisposition to be analytical, IMO.

I for one, do not hold with dual 12" drivers out-doing a good 15". Now we can argue about what constitutes a "good" driver, but why bother? I have my opinion, and that is all it is. Taking it a step further, if 2-12" drivers are good, then 2-15" drivers would be better, right?

I think the Jubilee is a well-designed horn, but so is the Khorn. I understand the benefits, effects, and drawbacks that each design entails. It is just a matter of choice.

When being a horn "consumer" one has to decide what intellectually is appealing about the design, and THEN one tries to hear examples, does one not? The performance tends to reinforce the pre-determined appeal.

Where I would be quite interested in hearing a pair of real Jubilees first hand, they would have to totally eclipse all of the corner horns I have heard to date in order to overcome my opinion of 12" drivers, which traditionally serve better as guitar speakers than bass guitar speakers, IMO. Since I doubt that it would be an eclipsing experience, see what I mean? Mindset is paramount.

So if you have already decided, as it were, to search for the elusive "better" speaker, then you are already psychologically set up for the Jubilee as being "better".

It probably isn't technically "better" in all that the term could mean, it's probably "different". But when you're primed for "different", there you go!

DM

[DrWho]

Dana, I agree with most everything except one point...

You CAN determine that a speaker is better than another if you define

ahead of time the "compromise tree priority". For example, efficiency

is one of the most important attributes to Klipsch loudpspeaker design

and is something they try to avoid sacrificing at all costs. Should it

be at the top? Well that's a different subject of debate and every

designer is going to have a different view point - thus why there are

so many different design approaches. The reason I bring this up is

because the Jubilee bass bin has all the same design criteria that went

into the khorn....modern technology is just better and PWK/Roy were

able to come up with something that better fit the compromise tree.

I also don't understand your distaste for dual 12's either. What

quantifiable variables don't you like? I see more motor per surface

area and better HF extension/polars???

And I think the comments about bass guitar are very relevant to the

discussion...what is the actual difference between direct-radiators and

bass horns that are causing the difference in sound? Once quantified,

why not take it into consideration with a new bass bin? I really don't

think it needs to be a trade off (call it my hypothesis if you will). I

know I always referemce differences between Klipsch speakers, but

that's because we're on the klipsch forum and more people can relate.

I've actually had the opportunity to play with all sorts of bass horn

systems...but mostly in the PA arena. There are definetly distinct

sounds that one can associate to the different topologies - and it's

dramatic enough to entirely change one's methods pertaining to mic

choice, placement, and mixing style...

I should note that the only thing I don't like with the Jubilee bass

bin sounds very similar to what I hated with the lascala, but was

"fixed" when proper low frequency extension was provided. I seriously

wonder if what I percieve is just the fast roll-off of the speaker,

unnamed distortions that occur at frequencies below the Fc, or the

hypothesis that the reduction in distortion is removing distortion that

should be there...I can think of very simple ways to test all three, I

just don't have the means necessary to do it.

I fricken love horns (why else would I be a Klipsch fan?), but I can't

ignore my ears either. There is something inherant in the sound that

shouldn't be there...and in the context of alternate designs, I think

some of these noted observations should be addressed. If it comes down

to problems with the source material, then I'll have to change the

music I listen to (not gonna happen), or grit my teeth and go with a

flawed playback system to compensate (and of course that's going to be

a personal decision for everyone).

[D-MAN]

I think we agree.

The point I am trying to stress is that its the expectation we bring to it that alters the listening experience. Predetermined intellectual satisfaction should be a warning sign!

I haven't even touched on context! Ok, Klipsch factory showroom versus my living room... well, even I know which one would win there! and it's NOT my living room! Add to that what I think of PWK and Roy, and now which one sounds better?! Even I would have to admit a bias towards WHATEVER I heard there! If they took a Bose 901, spray painted it orange and put a Klipsch label on it, I would have a HARD time NOT liking it!

I think there is a effective bias to like new experiences in new environments, it fades quickly in your own space... for example, I'm shocked - SHOCKED I SAY - as certain Khorn owners (who will remain nameless but you know who I'm referring to) who are making noises about switching (presumably) to Jubilees. I'm assuming that they have been primed by what they have read here, but not by what they've actually heard in a listening session with the "next-coveted" device... that's my assumption, anyway.

Anyway, I find it interesting is reading the discussions about the Jubilee, and I'm reminded of human nature; as long as it remains somewhat mysterious, it is a constant alure! An aluring siren's call, if you will.

However, familiarity breeds contempt... the one we all end up with in the end.

DM

[Marvel]

And I think the comments about bass guitar are very relevant to the

discussion...what is the actual difference between direct-radiators and

bass horns that are causing the difference in sound?

I think it is not acoustic summing, as Dana mentions, but time delay that is the culprit, and.... searching through piles of files... can't find it... Tom Danley has some impressive data to show this. Or course, I can't find it!

[Deang]

I don't think Dana mentioned acoustic summing -- I did. I may not be using the right words to describe what I'm trying to say. The problem was explained to me by an Acoustics Engineer in a phone conversation a couple of years ago -- and I just can't remember the technical verbiage he used. I'll shoot him an email.

Every design, even the material used for the diaphragm, imparts it's own unique signature to the recorded sound. In the end, there is no "right", only what sounds right or best to the listener. With that said ...

I just see a bass horn as doing the same thing any horn does -- it raises sensitivity and lowers distortion at any given power level compared to a direct radiator. Any argument that tries to support the idea that increased IM and THD products are a good thing is flawed. Cornwall bass is loose and bloated -- this is what I mean by "fat". Turn them up with anything I listen too and the bass lines disappear and fall together. The bass from my Klipschorns doesn't do that. Bass lines are solid and the notes are distinct -- you can hear them even when the music gets busy. The bass is "tight" -- under control. IMO, the one that is "right" is the one that allows you to hear everything the instrument is doing.

[Horatio]

D-Man, I enjoy reading your stuff!

I agree that the goals need to be clearly defined, when we talk about new designs, or even mods. And we are in a very subjective arena, much like the tasting of wines. Both areas can be made amenable through the application of science, but in the end, it is the emtional experience we're after.

On the use of dual 12's: dual 15's wouldn't be better; the reason, I would submit, that the 12's were used is that their mass roll off is always going to be further up the range than a set of 15's. This is part of how the upper bass region was dealt with.

I have been reading the stuff that Dr. Who has written with great interest, too. This is bringing me back to consider the speaker system as the inverse or compliment of the microphone setup. There's a lot tied up in this statement, as it goes to how many mics and how they're set up and mixed, for starters. In the 1980's there was a great deal of discussion in audio circles about Deutsche Grammaphone's then-prevalent technique of multi-mic'ing, vs. the relatively minimalist approach of Telarc's. The sound of the recordings was astonishingly different, with the Telarc recordings almost always more pleasing from a sonic illusion perspective (performance considerations aside, now). The point of this is, all of it matters: the microphones used (frequency and polar response), their quantity and location, how they're mixed, and what the recording engineer is listening to when sweetening this. The end result is going to sound different on every system EXCEPT the recording engineer's. Even on the recording engineer's system, the sound is going to be different than that experienced in the hall by an observer. Unless great care was used in mic choice and location, and the objective was to re-create the observer's experience.

Since most mics are omnidirectional, shouldn't our speakers be so? I know that the fans of Magnepans and the electrostatics (any dipole radiator), and the Ohm Walsh series (omni) like their setups because of this sonic illusion. The trade I make is on the superior sensitivity, transient response capability and utter dynamic range of horns; in MY mind, THESE parameters are more meaningful: they are more powerfully emotive for me. And yet, when I hear a set of Magnepans, I think...hmmmm: if I could get that with my horn setup, that'd be nirvana.

So, this leads me to another suggestion on alternate designs: the omnidirectional horn. Also not new: If I recall correctly, Hilliard did an omni (well, cylindrical wavefront) horn system for a World's Fair in the 1930's. I'm thinking something altogether different than Hilliard's though (that one was comprised of many exponential horns arranged in a cylindrical coverage pattern). Suppose we make ring radiator: maybe an electrostatic element, or something like a Heil element (anyone recall the 1980's SpeakerBuilder article on a DIY Heil?). And we couple this to a horn that is axisymmetric: an omnidirectional (well, almost) system. Then, we use a folded, downward firing woofer to get the bass (to take advantage of the acoustic resistance offered in this arrangement). Hmmm... wonder how that would sound?

[colterphoto1]

These last 6 or so posts are some of the best reading I've done on the Forum in a while. Think I'll go back and hit them all again. Great points guys. I especially appreciated Dman's arguement of the PWK effect and Doc's rebuttal, if you could call it that.

Very enlightening- thanks!

Michael

[Coytee]

I for one, do not hold with dual 12" drivers out-doing a good 15". Now we can argue about what constitutes a "good" driver, but why bother? I have my opinion, and that is all it is. Taking it a step further, if 2-12" drivers are good, then 2-15" drivers would be better, right?

You guys (like usual) are having a FAR more esoteric conversation than I can participate in so I won't even try.

That said, when I ordered mine, during the wait time I began to second guess myself. I wondered if what I heard, is what I heard (while in Hope). After all, how can two 12's compete with a 15" woofer?

I emailed Roy about that very thing. He made the comment that there is more surface area for the two 12's so they had to move less. That created less distortion.

Simple answer for a simpleton like me. I took it at face value and now they're in my living room.

All I can say from a real world perspective is those two 12" woofers DO (IMHO), step all over the single 15" in the Khorn (having had both in same room).

better? different?

works for me

[]

[Coytee]

Whoo hoo... I just participated in an esoteric thread!

[D]

[Horatio]

Less distortion: yep, that's also a byproduct of using 2 12's: the cone area goes as the square of the diameter (factoring the pi/4 out of the picture), so, looking at a 15": 15^2 = 225, whereas 12^2 = 144, but, there are two, so: 144+144=288. So, 2 12's give (288-225)/225 * 100% = 28% more cone area over a single 15.

So, two 12's give not only the upper bass extension that the Khorn was lacking, but can do it with less cone motion (for a given SPL), and so, with less distortion.

The issue concerning their use in Jubilee is not so much their contribution to lower overall distortion, or to obain lower bass; one could use a single 18" driver to do this, distortion-wise (inasmuch it will have 12-13% more cone area than 2 12's), and could drop the low end response if the horn could be made larger. The issue is getting the extension in response at the high end, so that better handling of the midrange could be accomplished. THAT is why they're being used in that design.