Meagain's at it again

[SilverSport]

so beautiful...must resist...but the light is sooooo beauuuuutiful....

Bill

[bodcaw boy]

so you wanted horns, did ya?

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[sfogg]

Yeah, tough to cover a theater with just that dinky mid-horn.

I think the idea of the three-way is that way you don't have to EQ the ever-loving **** out of the 402 horn to get a good frequency response. But then the Jubilee's whole original purpose in being was to be a two-way. Interesting, isn't it?

You have a problem with EQ? Tell me, how does the midrange of the Klipschorn go out to 6000Hz using a driver that takes a nose dive at 4700, and is almost 20dB down at the crossover point? So, you're O.K. with EQ if it's applied by the horn, but not O.K. with it if it's applied by the network. The problem with the former is that it means poor off-axis response because the horn is beaming at the higher frequencies -- providing the smallest of sweet spots. Probably O.K. in a room like mine. Very bad in a room like yours, especially the way you sometimes like to listen. You'd walk around and you'd hear the treble output fluctuate. You'd hear it too when you sit and get up out of your chair. A CD type horn maintains even dispersion, which translates to a smoother power response, but it just needs a little boost at the top from the network (passive or active).

(Clapping......) Nice response, you nailed it!

Shawn

[sfogg]

"I think the idea of the three-way is that way you don't have to EQ the
ever-loving **** out of the 402 horn to get a good frequency response."

Like
Dean said, you aren't EQing the horn. You are EQing the driver. Look at
the plane wave response of a driver. Guess what you will see?

The driver mass rolls off somewhere above 3-6kHz.

You put the driver on horn A and the drivers response looks the same.

You put the same driver on horn B and the drivers top end is boosted compared to the plane wave measurement.

Riddle me this...... Why? What is one horn doing that the other isn't?

Shawn

[DrWho]

I think one would need to know what a plane-wave measurement is showing first. [] I believe Roy and a few other sources have mentioned that it's the behavior of the driver on an "ideal horn" - but I must not understand very well because I'm yet to see a system using a plane-wave tube for normal playback. It almost begs the question if there are many different "ideal" horn topologies depending on the coverage pattern one hopes to achieve? Heck if I know.

Ultimately I think it comes down to actually using our ears to determine which approach sounds better. No amount of prejudice or conjecture can provide a dependable conclusion.

I think it would be very interesting to see how this discussion would play out if there existed a driver with a flat plane-wave response. It would be much easier to market to the audiophile crowd despite the fact that you are essentially achieving the same thing as an electronic EQ. I can only imagine that EQ is not built into the driver because it doesn't sound as good, or is more expensive to achieve. Everything is limited by the price point so you gotta make the compromises where it matters least.

[mikebse2a3]

"I think the idea of the three-way is that way you don't have to EQ the ever-loving **** out of the 402 horn to get a good frequency response."

Like Dean said, you aren't EQing the horn. You are EQing the driver. Look at the plane wave response of a driver. Guess what you will see?

The driver mass rolls off somewhere above 3-6kHz.

You put the driver on horn A and the drivers response looks the same.

You put the same driver on horn B and the drivers top end is boosted compared to the plane wave measurement.

Riddle me this...... Why? What is one horn doing that the other isn't?

Shawn

Horn " A " is maintaining a constant coverage angle at all frequencies.

Horn "B" has a narrowing coverage angle as frequency increases.

mike tn

[sfogg]

"Horn "B" has a narrowing coverage angle as frequency increases."

Right, horn B is trading dispersion for increasing output as frequency goes up. In a very real sense the horn has built in EQ... just one that varies depending upon where you are in relation to the horn. If you could look at the FR of the horn itself it wouldn't be flat... it would bit tipped up on the high end when directly on axis. Move off axis and the FR of the horn itself would be different.

If one could look at the FR of just the Horn A it would be a flat line. And it would be a flat line when looked at anywhere over its coverage pattern.

You take a driver that is rolling off on the top end and put it on horn B and if it works out that the horns uneven FR is the inverse of the drivers uneven FR you can get flat response... on axis. Get off axis and the FR of the horn changes so the combined FR of the driver+horn changes too.

With horn A the horns FR is flat. You put a driver onto the horn that is rolling off and the driver still rolls off on the horn. And it does that all over the horns coverage pattern. So how do you get it FR flat? You EQ the driver. Since the horn has constant coverage (flat FR over its coverage) when you make the driver flat through EQ the horn doesn't alter that.

Shawn

[Deang]

Yeah Shawn, I'm a little slow sometimes but it eventually comes together for me. I think we can say that how you get there probably isn't as important as getting there. All shaping of response constitutes "EQ", and I don't think it matters much if you're doing it with a horn, network -- or amplifier. How about moving the speaker around in the room -- is that "EQ"? I think so. I was getting myself worked up over the EQ thing with those horns and figured out I just had to sit down and work through it. Not really hard to understand if you just slow down and actually think about it.

Horn 'B' would be an exponential type like the K-400. It works good because you have a tweeter that you're bringing in below the point at which the horn is starting to beam. To go two-way, you need a better driver -- something that actually reaches up a bit. An RTA would show good response on axis with the microphone, but the in-room power response would be lousy. This would be the combination of axis and off-axis response -- what the ear actually hears. Even if you point the horns directly at your ears, and sit exactly in the right spot -- the uneven power response still makes some people feel like they need to add a tweeter. You see this a lot too with people going two-way with a 511B, which is also an exponential type. So, you want to build a Jubilee, and you want it to be a two-way. You pick out a nice 2" driver -- but now you have to make a choice: 'Horn A' or 'Horn B'. Of course, there are a lot of horns out there, but each can be pretty much pushed into one of those two categories. I mean, it's either a CD horn or it isn't, and if it isn't -- then dispersion is collapsing, and on-axis output is increasing with increasing frequency. One way sacrifices a smooth in-room power response for increased on-axis HF output -- the other way sacrifices a bit of HF extension for the smoother in-room response, which you can fix with the network. I'm all for fixing things with the network.

"Massive EQ"

I like first order filters, but the experts tell me -- they're not steep enough, too shallow, not enough of this, not enough of that. Yet, if you apply the same amount of EQ in a filter to compensate for the driver's natural falling response on a CD horn -- it becomes "massive" EQ -- too much, waaay too much.

[Parrot]

Yet, if you apply the same amount of EQ in a filter to compensate for the driver's natural falling response on a CD horn -- it becomes "massive" EQ -- too much, waaay too much.

It seems to me that we're not getting the full story on the negatives of EQ. Obviously there is a price to be paid for it or it wouldn't matter what the heck components were in any speaker--all one would have to do is EQ the **** out of the speaker and everything would be peachy.

The big mystery is why the Jubilee transformed from a 2-way home speaker to a 3-way behind-the-screen cinema speaker. If the 2-way system being promoted here is so great, why does it need to be a 3-way in a theater?

[Coytee]

The big mystery is why the Jubilee transformed from a 2-way home speaker to a 3-way behind-the-screen cinema speaker. If the 2-way system being promoted here is so great, why does it need to be a 3-way in a theater?

Most residential listening rooms won't accomodate 300 people??

[maxg]

""Massive EQ"

I like first order filters, but the experts tell me -- they're not steep enough, too shallow, not enough of this, not enough of that. Yet, if you apply the same amount of EQ in a filter to compensate for the driver's natural falling response on a CD horn -- it becomes "massive" EQ -- too much, waaay too much."

Funny thing - similar observation here - different conclusion. My conclusion when I ventured into this whole speaker building thing was to choose the best matching drivers I could find and stick with a first order Xover.

I never got passed - the best X-over is no X-over, so, accepting that a single driver solution would not work for me, the minimum possible X-over is desirable. If your drivers are rolling off towards the point you want to cross anyway there is less of an issue with how steep the X-over is.

Just MHO and not directly related to the drivers in this scenario.

Now if we could just come up with a bass bin that went a little higher a first order filter in a 2 way design would be a whole lot easier.....

[anarchist]

Umm, larger setting required greater dispersion? A guess of course but I am eager to be corrected and learn something in the process.

I have a problem with the need for an EQ too although Dean's rationalization seems quite compelling.

My question piggybacks off of Paul's though - why not just buy Bose 901's and employ a better EQ? It seems we are trading better design for band-aid fixes.

Correct me now. I am sure I am missing something.

[Parrot]

The big mystery is why the

Jubilee transformed from a 2-way home speaker to a 3-way

behind-the-screen cinema speaker. If the 2-way system being promoted

here is so great, why does it need to be a 3-way in a theater?

Most residential listening rooms won't accomodate 300 people??

So? What difference does it make to a listener whether the highs are coming out of the horn with massive EQ to get it, or out of a tweeter?

[mark1101]

This is an interesting discusion about horn types and their effect on freq. response.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. I thought that most audiophiles around here denounce the use of EQ....and even tone controls. Now....it's obvious that networks, driver/horn combination selections, active crossovers.....they are all ways to EQ a system....and we see a lot of people here getting into using this stuff more and more.

So is the opinion changing? What about using the dreaded equalizer (graphic or parametric) to achieve a flat response in a room? Is that still a bad idea?

I use a dbx eq in my system. Depending on the music playing it's either in the loop or not. I have used an eq for probably 25 years.....less since I got into better equipment....but it's still there and on every once in a while.

[maxg]

Mark1101,

If you believe in syergy between components then you could easily argue that any choice attempting to match items together in a system is a form of equalization. Further, any rearrangement of placement can be viewed in that light.

As for specific electronic equalizers I dont think parametric units ever got quite the negative reaction graphic equalizers did. I would suspect that, in the main, it was a simple case of not enough adjustments available. A 5 band graphic equalizer, for example, it probably not going to improve the sound beyond the negative impact of inserting it into the system in the first place.

[rigma]

Dean,

I am building Roy's passive design for the Jubilee.

I was planing on buying the laminated core inductors from Madisound for most. What do you think of them? Any other suggestions? I promise to update the pics on the site this evening.

Rigma

[DrWho]

I see a lot of people claiming that CD-EQ is bad sounding...I wonder how many of them have actually heard it in action? Or are we all just employing our audiophile dogma because we've already reached nirvana?

I suppose there are some valid concerns about the phase rotation of filters....but one of the most interesting things about filter design is that you when you match the Q's in opposite amplitude, the system sums to no phase change. In other words, any degredation of the sound by the naturally rolling off of the CD horn gets perfectly cancelled by the filter that compensates for it. This link doesn't come right out and say it, but it's what it's talking about:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/Pole_Zero_Analysis_I.html

[sfogg]

Dean,

"One way sacrifices a smooth in-room power response for increased on-axis HF output -- the other way sacrifices a bit of HF extension for the smoother in-room response, which you can fix with the network. I'm all for fixing things with the network."

And fixing it in the network/crossover most likely allows for a better match. If you try and match the EQ in the horn to a driver you may or may not end up with a flat response on axis. If the horns dispersion starts narrowing to soon or to late for the driver the EQ the horn provides won't be exactly what the driver needs. You will end up with a dip or a bump in response. If you put the EQ in a network/crossover you can place it exactly where it is needed.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"The big mystery is why the Jubilee transformed from a 2-way home
speaker to a 3-way behind-the-screen cinema speaker. If the 2-way
system being promoted here is so great, why does it need to be a 3-way
in a theater? "

My guess.... power handling.

Shawn

[sfogg]

Max,

"As for specific electronic equalizers I dont think parametric units ever got quite the negative reaction graphic equalizers did. I would suspect that, in the main, it was a simple case of not enough adjustments available"

Certainly that, and simply because people misused them. When you add a device that lets the listener alter the sound it gives them more rope to hang themselves with.

Shawn