alternative designs- why go jubilee?

[BEC]

"who said it wasn't?"

Trey and BobG for two. About any parts for DIY

[IB Slammin]

I am gonna feel so bad for JC and BS Button when we play MSU. No Joke.

But anyway........

WHOLE HOG, HALF HAM, ARKANSAS, by DAMN !!!!!!!!!

[Deang]

Not a problem -- find a banged up pair of KLF-30's and junk the cabinets after you harvest the drivers.

[IB Slammin]

"who said it wasn't?" Trey and BobG for two. About any parts for DIY

At risk of agreeing with Bob on anything, "Thats whats I heard from Trey and BobG also".........I remember because we were standing outside the factory smoking, and I was sweating my ball* off. []

(Bro Mike was inside under air)[]

tc

[bodcaw boy]

There are some great benefits to dual-driver horn rigs. That is not lost on me!

Just 12's - that's lost on me! ;-)

that has become painfully obvious!! []

With that in mind, the Jub's have to totally kick my tail before I change my opinion.

Gentlemen, the question has been posed: will they?

YEP. AND YEP AND YEP. (wait i already did that on another thread) []

pwk thougt that jub was above the khorn that he wanted it to be the next step up from a khorn.

DM

[bodcaw boy]

As far as false corners are concerned I didn't think I had a need to try them until now but if I still had KHorns I do believe I would have to follow the construction of the 60th Anniversary Klipschorn which to me points the way to what would offer some very real benefits/improvements to the Khorn since it offers a stronger and more stable and complete woofer horn as well as to some extent a fully extended and well built false corner could also.

The 60th Anniversay Klipschorn does not have a complete LF horn -- far from it actually.

Ever see this thread?

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/10/401929/ShowThread.aspx

I suppose page 4 is a good place to start.

I understand that the Jubilee is a superior bass horn, I'm not disputing that. However, I believe that all Klipschorns are not created equal. While reports of the Jubilee bottom are consistantly positive -- comments about the Klipschorn bottom are all over the map. I think the primary reason for this is related to the quality/strength of the corner she inhabits. My opinion is that it makes or breaks the bass. Though the Jubilee undoubtably trounces a Klipschorn situated in a weak corner, she probably closes considerable distance when coupled to a false corner similar to what I use -- where LF energy isn't lost through the walls.

uh the khorns are created equal. unfortunately a critical factor was left in the hands of the consumer; making sure that they formed a good seal to the wall. we have documented data of what happens when even a small leak is present about the "sealed edges" of the horn to wall. with the 60th, we took that variable out and made sure that the horn wall was well braced; something that could also not be guaranteed at someone's home.

I mentioned drivers and horns because there is more to a speaker than the bass. One person told me the Klipschorn top is more "musical", another told me the Jubilee top is "hyper-detailed", and another told me they might buy the bottoms but will go three-way. I'm sitting on the fence, mostly because my modded Klipschorns sound outstanding. Naturally, I weigh statements about the Jubilee against what I'm hearing -- not against the stock setup.

[jwc]

Not a problem -- find a banged up pair of KLF-30's and junk the cabinets after you harvest the drivers.

Uh. Looking already. I will make a bold statement here. I would bet the jub would be awesome with drivers somewhat close to the Real drivers. With two sets I have tried in my clone....sounds amazing. I have the Kappa pros back in there and sounding good. Probably not quite as low as the Pioneer 51F but quicker. The Pioneers have total grunt.

This cabinet likes to be right in the corner......come out about 5 inches and there is a loss of bass force.

Will see how a third set of drivers work that are on the way and also have a drone on the way......totally gone nuts. Yes....add audition with the KLF drivers if find sum.

Terry. You have got to be kiddin. You think that MSU will even make any kind of a game vs the Hogs. Man that would be a lousy game to watch.

jc

[bodcaw boy]

I'm not so much replying to this specific post as to the thread.

When I originally made the first post opening this thread, my question/challenge was to think outside the box, in terms of how we approach horn-loaded systems. In particular, I offered up, along the way, two concepts (sub, Khorn/Jub style, with 'satellites' that were two way, and another concept: cylindrical wavefront/omni system). We have seen subsequent discussions debate the relative merits of Khorns/Jubs/Scoops/etc., and alot of discussion on folding. It sort of reminds me of reading the literature of the 1950's again, but with a modern twist. We have found pretty much all the basic ways to fold a horn, and to fit one into a corner. We have some pretty good designs for this. We are treading familiar ground, again and again.

To go back to the original question: what's next on the horizon? I submit that we have tapped out the potential in our present methodology, and our improvements are incremental.

One thing that has come out in this thread is the very present need for measurements. We have designers on this forum who design and design, and we think we are improving, but we rarely have measurements to support this (although we DO have the very important golden ear'd impressions). Somewhere along the thread I picked up a comment about PWK, and his affinity for 'rough curves'. This is a great comment, because it sheds light on our problem: first, we need to measure. Second, we must decide WHAT to measure, and third, we need to figure out what to do when something measures well, but sound's bad, or measures poorly ('rough curves') but sound's great. If it measures good but sound's bad, we're measuring the wrong thing. An example: I saw someone post about a Huygens reflector design style in their folding geometry. That's a conceptually interesting thing- what is its impact? One of the cool things about the Jub style of folding is that (in addition to being a walk in the park to build, compared to a Khorn), it ought to lend itself to direct measurement of the acoustic wavefront (I don't know quite how this'd be done, but, you have direct access to the path in this design, and our measurement technology today is substantially more capable). It would be really interesting to make measurements of just what DOES happen to the wavefront as it propagates through. And the question of whether Huygenian reflectors help or not could be directly answered, among other things. Lacking direct measurement, surely we have indirect measurements that could make such comparisons (e.g., the standards, frequency response, IM distortion, and so on) of the effect of subtle changes to the folding geometry. Indirect measurements ultimately, though, will not inarguably answer the question of what it happening to the wavefront.

But, all this discussion of corner foldings and relative merits...it is rather like the fellow who lost his wallet in the alley, but is hunting for it by the street light, because it's brighter there. We can continue to debate the merits of various foldings and driver combinations and so on, but the original question still stands lurking in the darkness of the alleyway: what will the 'next big thing' be (unfettered by our predisposition to work with what we have and know...)? When I looked at this a lonnnnggg time ago, it was apparent to me that the polar radiation patterns were much more important than we had thought. I ask again: if we are reproducing music that is recorded by a transducer with specific properties, including a very defined polar response, ought we not be also attempting to design transducers that play back with these same kinds of properties?

<playing the cantankerous crank, here>

hey cantankerous crank,

who says that you can interupt this conversation? why you act like you started the thread or something..........................uh......................................you did...[:$]

actually there are other things that our current equations won't allow us to analyze because equations are usually written after something is developed. we do have some things up our sleeves but unfortunately, can't talk about them. suffice it say, i hope, that there are some things to be tried that are slightly different twist to the same lemon.

now can we have the thread back?[]

[bodcaw boy]

I'm not so much replying to this specific post as to the thread.

When I originally made the first post opening this thread, my question/challenge was to think outside the box, in terms of how we approach horn-loaded systems. In particular, I offered up, along the way, two concepts (sub, Khorn/Jub style, with 'satellites' that were two way, and another concept: cylindrical wavefront/omni system). We have seen subsequent discussions debate the relative merits of Khorns/Jubs/Scoops/etc., and alot of discussion on folding. It sort of reminds me of reading the literature of the 1950's again, but with a modern twist. We have found pretty much all the basic ways to fold a horn, and to fit one into a corner. We have some pretty good designs for this. We are treading familiar ground, again and again.

To go back to the original question: what's next on the horizon? I submit that we have tapped out the potential in our present methodology, and our improvements are incremental.

One thing that has come out in this thread is the very present need for measurements. We have designers on this forum who design and design, and we think we are improving, but we rarely have measurements to support this (although we DO have the very important golden ear'd impressions). Somewhere along the thread I picked up a comment about PWK, and his affinity for 'rough curves'. This is a great comment, because it sheds light on our problem: first, we need to measure. Second, we must decide WHAT to measure, and third, we need to figure out what to do when something measures well, but sound's bad, or measures poorly ('rough curves') but sound's great. If it measures good but sound's bad, we're measuring the wrong thing. An example: I saw someone post about a Huygens reflector design style in their folding geometry. That's a conceptually interesting thing- what is its impact? One of the cool things about the Jub style of folding is that (in addition to being a walk in the park to build, compared to a Khorn), it ought to lend itself to direct measurement of the acoustic wavefront (I don't know quite how this'd be done, but, you have direct access to the path in this design, and our measurement technology today is substantially more capable). It would be really interesting to make measurements of just what DOES happen to the wavefront as it propagates through. And the question of whether Huygenian reflectors help or not could be directly answered, among other things. Lacking direct measurement, surely we have indirect measurements that could make such comparisons (e.g., the standards, frequency response, IM distortion, and so on) of the effect of subtle changes to the folding geometry. Indirect measurements ultimately, though, will not inarguably answer the question of what it happening to the wavefront.

But, all this discussion of corner foldings and relative merits...it is rather like the fellow who lost his wallet in the alley, but is hunting for it by the street light, because it's brighter there. We can continue to debate the merits of various foldings and driver combinations and so on, but the original question still stands lurking in the darkness of the alleyway: what will the 'next big thing' be (unfettered by our predisposition to work with what we have and know...)? When I looked at this a lonnnnggg time ago, it was apparent to me that the polar radiation patterns were much more important than we had thought. I ask again: if we are reproducing music that is recorded by a transducer with specific properties, including a very defined polar response, ought we not be also attempting to design transducers that play back with these same kinds of properties?

<playing the cantankerous crank, here>

hey cantankerous crank,

who says that you can interupt this conversation? why you act like you started the thread or something..........................uh......................................you did...[:$]

actually there are other things that our current equations won't allow us to analyze because equations are usually written after something is developed. we do have some things up our sleeves but unfortunately, can't talk about them. suffice it say, i hope, that there are some things to be tried that are slightly different twist to the same lemon.

now can we have the thread back?[]

[bodcaw boy]

I guess I could contribute on this too. I did hear the Khorns at Richard's and my house, and then the jubilees back at Richards.

I still have not heard the Khorns I have make anywhere's near the bass I heard come out of the same speakers at Richard's house. I attribute the vast difference to me using 60 watt tube power, and Richard using over 100 watts of s/s power. Yeah, the rooms are different and all, but the sound difference I'm talking about is pretty large.

I have a s/s amp setup in an adjacent room in my basement running my LaScalas and that system too puts out way more bass than my Khorns running on tubes. It's nowhere's near as musical, but it puts out bass.

But.....the Khorns go way lower. Lower is the key here in my opinion. I could simply add a powerful s/s amp and change the whole game....and still have it go lower. I'm pretty sure of that.

actually, a curve comparing the curve in the same setup and environment showed that the jub and khorn have with a hz or two the same low end cutoff.

I also think it is not fair to compare the Jubilee to a Khorn. You are talking about a speaker system designed for a theater compared to a home speaker. The Jubilee has a much harder hitting bigger sounding bottom end...way more bass output. It doesn't seem to be even close from what I heard. The jubilee will simply bowl you over without much effort.

actually the jub was designed for home that just happened to work in a theater.

But...I hear my Khorns play lower in my house. I'm sure of that.

I gave Richard's Jubilees a rave review somewhere in a thread on here, and I also said in the same thread I wouldn't be selling my Khorns. I still feel exactly the same way.

Two excellent speaker systems that sound different and were built to sound different....and too many variables in my travels and between our houses to make much more of a comparison.

[bodcaw boy]

I again don't think the Khorn or any of the heritage speakers need to be in the same class as the jubilee. That cinema setup has no noticeable sound characteristic of Heritage stuff. Is sounds awesome and sounds different. There are a lot of variables that make this conclusion.

If the Khorn was to be "replaced" with the Jub......

pwk just ran out of time. the jub was supposed to be the top of the line of the old line as it was known back then. he had plans to revamp the old line (remember, paul and i designed a tractrix horn for the hf of the jub) but God took him home before that was done. i or no one else was going to the change the old line and so when it was renamed the heritage line, the khorn, ls and heresy stayed unchanged. the old corny was brought back as close as possible to the old verison.

[bodcaw boy]

Chopsy .....

Noooooo..... Polite way to say this

ifn' ya wanna Debate these answers

YOU need to start from a Genuine landed technical background....

because what you propose is happening here ....Re: doubled distortion component

is laughable to a first year Engineering student

Well that's all fine and dandy, but doesn't explain anything.

So Dukey, do tell me what's going on then. I'm not trying to start a fight or get into name-calling, I'm just trying to find out information.

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?!

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

2 hands clapping is NOT as loud as 2000 hands clapping.

chopsy dukesy.....

i like it when you guys get so chummy.....[{]

[bodcaw boy]

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"?

sorry deang,

sense or not, that's pretty much the way it went down.......[]

[bodcaw boy]

"who said it wasn't?" Trey and BobG for two. About any parts for DIY

how many you want? i got some....

[BEC]

Roy,

I would take a four or so depending on the price.

Did you mess with those tweets yet?

Bob Crites

[jwc]

Wait a minute. DIY parts still available?

[DrWho]

lol, poor jw!

I think Roy just wanted to see if the other drivers worked [][]

[DrWho]

rule number one: roy sucks.....

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

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

So does that mean you get to pay me money everytime I quote you too?

Btw, picking on poor college kids isn't very nice! [][][]

[Horatio]

Hey Bodcaw boy:

Thanks for your inscrutable response! I will look forward to the next Klipsch Co. developments.

And yes, you can have the thread back (as if I took it in the first place...[]). I see that my work here is done [].

This HAS been a great deal of fun to read, and I have a much better appreciation for the extraordinary level of interest, competence and knowledge of the folks posting here. It's really a rare thing to find this much interest focused on horns, especially today. Outside this list (and maybe the Asylum), it's a bit like wandering in the wilderness.

Thanks guys!

H.

[Coytee]

This cabinet likes to be right in the corner......come out about 5 inches and there is a loss of bass force.

Interesting. As it happens, I emailed Roy about this very issue since I've pulled mine out from the corner.

My email to him asked (and I've truncated it)

"Hi Roy, another question for you, this one a bit more relevant to me. Is the Jubilee designed to be "tight" in a corner like the Khorn or is it able to be more freestanding?"

His response back was:

in a corner certainly helps the bass response but pulling them out doesn't make much difference because of the wavelengths we are talking about. you would have to be on the order of a foot or so on each side before something showed up or actually, went away.