Meagain's at it again

[mikebse2a3]

Well I guess some here haven't read(or read carefully enough) the orginal design paper published in the: Journal Audio Engineering Vol. 48, No 10 2000 October

Especially note the Opening Paragraph and the Conclusion!

If this Paper by Roy and PWK doesn't satisfy some of you then I doubt anything will.

If the statements by the people directly involved isn't proof enough what else can be said?

Most of the guessing in this thread is just a big waist of time and is acheiving nothing but spreading speculation with motives that definitly should be questioned. Most of the ones making the loudest noise here have no facts or are ignoring facts stated in the past.

mike tn

[mikebse2a3]

I think most know I have JCs Jub clones. Well this past weekend I got them going and did a direct comparison with my Lascalas. My Khorns happen to be in an adjacent room, but the test I did was pretty fair since I have a K-77 and K-55 top section on the jubs, and I used the same receiver using speakers a/b to instantly switch back and forth. The jubs at one end of the room, lascalas facing them but at the other end of the room. 37 x18 rectangular...basically empty with an 11 ft. ceiling.

So my comparison was bass cabinet vs. bass cabinet really.

My results are this. Until you hear them together you won't know how they really compare...and it might surprise you. The differences are not what everyone thinks. I would equate 1 jub to about 1 1/2 lascalas at most. It is not anymore than that in my room and on the system I used.

I think what the revelation may be is that big top section some have.....that I don't.

I can also tell you that the Jub clone cabinets I have sound remarkably like lascalas but with more output. They do not sound like my Khorns at all.

I really should not say anymore than this for now....as I have some work left to do on the Jubs.

Sorry but I have to disagree!

If the speakers aren't auditioned in the same room/location then there really is no fair comparison!

mike tn[]

[rigma]

I think most know I have JCs Jub clones. Well this past weekend I got them going and did a direct comparison with my Lascalas. My Khorns happen to be in an adjacent room, but the test I did was pretty fair since I have a K-77 and K-55 top section on the jubs, and I used the same receiver using speakers a/b to instantly switch back and forth. The jubs at one end of the room, lascalas facing them but at the other end of the room. 37 x18 rectangular...basically empty with an 11 ft. ceiling.

So my comparison was bass cabinet vs. bass cabinet really.

My results are this. Until you hear them together you won't know how they really compare...and it might surprise you. The differences are not what everyone thinks. I would equate 1 jub to about 1 1/2 lascalas at most. It is not anymore than that in my room and on the system I used.

I think what the revelation may be is that big top section some have.....that I don't.

I can also tell you that the Jub clone cabinets I have sound remarkably like lascalas but with more output. They do not sound like my Khorns at all.

I really should not say anymore than this for now....as I have some work left to do on the Jubs.

Mark,

I think we all need to be very careful here. I know JC did a great job building the clones. As you may know, I am also building a pair and part of the process was many hours of research to try to make them as close as possible to the real deal. I can tell you that yours have several things that are different enough that, I believe will cause them to sound different than the Jubilee. Now I don't know if that is good or bad but I do believe they will sound different. It just concerns me that people reading this might make a judgment to buy or not to buy Jubilees based on reviews of a speaker that may sound substantially different than the Klipsch Jubilee.

I'm not sure how I will handle discussing how mine sound when the time comes, maybe a big disclaimer at the top of any post stating "These are not Real Jubilees and may not sound anything like them" or something to that effect. Please don't take this in a negative way, that is not what was intended.

Rigma

[DrWho]

If you decide what speakers to buy based on a spec sheet instead of a live audition, then I'm sorry but there's no help for you.

Live audition? I don't recall you mentioning having heard the Jubilee...??? [^o)]

[Parrot]

Meagain:

Andy (HDBRbuilder) had a lot of early inside info on the Jubilee. This should appeal to you:

The plans for the home-version Jubilee when I saw it were to incorporate a vertically adjustable arcing device for the tweeter horn...IOW...you could adjust its aim up and down somewhat...using screw-wheel adjusters at the rear of the mounting of it...and all of this VISIBLE hardware was/is? planned to be gold anodized, etc...for aesthetic reasons...the center finely veneered panel was also designed to be removable and replaceable...so that one could adapt the speaker to changing decor of the room over time....whereas the Klipschorn is "what you see is what you get"!: aesthetic versatility matchpoint, Jubilee!

[Parrot]

This statement of Andy's from years ago also confirms what I posted in the now-locked thread. The Bad Cowboy seemed to deny it, though.

1. The Klipschorn is a more difficult(ie., expensive in materials and labor) bass bin to manufacture than the bass bin of the proposed home-version of the Jubilee is...from what I have seen(and YES...I gave the Jubilee bass bin a close "builder's eye-view" scrutiny when I saw them...): matchpoint, Jubilee!

[Deang]

I think it's probably true that the intention was for it to replace the Klipschorn as the flagship -- the Klipschorn would still have been in the line up.

Here are the differences between the two-way version of the Jubilee as it's being bought right now and the "finished" version: 1) Textured black as opposed to veneer, 2) K-510 or K-402 with K-69-A driver as opposed to the wood horn and B&C driver.

From a performance stand point, either of the horns being offered are either as good or better than the one we see in the picture with PK. The K-69-A is similar to the B&C driver, but not identical -- which is good thing, not a bad thing.

Selling this setup through a commercial dealer nets great savings. Commercial/Cinema dealerships make most of their money off the installations, and heavily discount the parts to get the work. We should be grateful that Roy and Chuck have a good enough relationship with one their commercial dealers that he is willing to sell the configuration at the discounted price. We're basically getting the setup at the same price as someone like Regal Cinemas would. A fully finished 'home' version would have to go through an extra stage of work, which wouldn't be done by the commercial side of the house in Arkansas -- it would be done by the finishing folks on the consumer side -- the same folks who finish the rest of the Heritage stuff. From there it would sold/distributed using one of the consumer/Heritage dealerships, where the consumer markup index would be applied. At that point it becomes a $15,000 (or more) pair of speakers. The upside is that if enough of us buy them now, we may see a consumer version later. Present buyers would help create the market, and this is exactly what I said would have to happen three years ago. I know all this because I had a nice long conversation with a nice guy named Chuck down in Hope today. Now, I say if you have that kind of money -- then wait it out. I might add that you'll certainly want to see as many as these "bastardized" versions sold as possible.

Performance critics obviously haven't read the JAES article, read most the threads on the other forums, followed all of the threads up in the technical section here, seen any of the plots, and in most cases -- actually heard them. The only thing running amok around here is ignorance.

[Coytee]

Well I guess some here haven't read(or read carefully enough) the orginal design paper published in the: Journal Audio Engineering Vol. 48, No 10 2000 October

Especially note the Opening Paragraph and the Conclusion!

If this Paper by Roy and PWK doesn't satisfy some of you then I doubt anything will.

If the statements by the people directly involved isn't proof enough what else can be said?

Most of the guessing in this thread is just a big waist of time and is acheiving nothing but spreading speculation with motives that definitly should be questioned. Most of the ones making the loudest noise here have no facts or are ignoring facts stated in the past.

Good point Mike!

I'll copy it down (type it out) so those inclined (perhaps Mr. Parrott?) might see/read it.

Opening paragraph: More than 50 years after the introduction of the Klipschorn, a revised low frequency horn for the system is presented, which will return the system to a two way design as originally envisioned by its inventor. How this was achieved is discussed with the support of data and results.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

CONCLUSION

Our first goal was to match the performance of the current low frequency section. Improving the current Klipschorn low frequency unit presents a formidable task. After all, this loudspeaker was the basis and anchor of the company that Paul Klipsch started.

The frequency responses of the current low frequency cabinet and the new low frequency cabinet, shown in figs 9 and 8, show at the very least that the new design matches the performance of the current low frequency cabinet. The design does provide some significant improvements.

Smoother response in the passband

Decrease in second and third harmonic distortion

Very noticeable improvement in the dip between 50 and 120 Hz

New low frequency cabinet having the same footprint as the current one

Increase in upper frequency limit. Klipschs main goal

Folding the horn in one plane to provide a more consistent, defined area expansion for a 38 Hz horn.

(emphasis added by me)

Of course, this has not been signed and notarized by PWK so it's certainly possible there will be some who will quibble with it's direct comments AND direct implications.

Fret not though... I'm sure there will be some way to twist the above words, all we gotta do is wait.

[]

[Parrot]

Performance critics obviously haven't read the JAES article, read most the threads on the other forums, followed all of the threads up in the technical section here, seen any of the plots, and in most cases -- actually heard them. The only thing running amok around here is ignorance.

Are you fantasizing again? Who criticized the performance of the Jubilee?

[bodcaw boy]

I'm very skeptical that it was meant to replace the Klipschorn. Let's see some evidence of that in PWK's own words. Maybe he said something like that in the original write-up? Anyway, I'm happy that you THINK it exceeds the Khorn by a large margin. There are people who think a Bose Wave Radio is better than a Khorn too.

But the specific "it" I was talking about to Meagain was the 402 horn, which is designed for behind a movie screen placement, and was not a part of the home Jubilee configuration as envisioned by PWK.

As far as not being able to afford veneer, if you can afford a Jubilee, you should be able to afford veneer. Isn't that a bit like buying a Jaguar but not being able to afford leather seats?

awwwww, never let facts get in the way of an opinion.....or is it.....it a fact cause it's my opinion......never can get that straight.....

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

[it was designed to go behind a movie screen, so I'd think that so-called acoustically transparent grille cloth wouldn't hurt a darned thing, and probably improve it.

And also agree on the relatively simple after-purchase veneer possibilities. You couldn't get a much easier situation than that front rectangle.

It was DESIGNED to replace the Klipschorn. It seems that program fizzled a bit after PWK passed away. I think it's a real testament to the capablity of the Jubilee that though DESIGNED FOR HOME USE (bass bin), it's fully capable of working in the cinema environment.

So, regarding what it was DESIGNED for, let's at least get our facts straight? It was destined to become the Klipschorn II but exceeded the performance of the Khorn by such a substantial margin, PWK felt it deserved a name of its own.

I agree that it should be a very simple procedure to apply veneer after the fact. You can also have Klipsch make the factory grills for the side vents ('think $$$") or one could fabricate one themselves or of course, leave them open.

very good coyotee-o!!!!!! you kept the story very accurate but then again, it was only little old me that brought paul's private words to public light........and you know me.........for a good bose speaker..........i just might change the story!!

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

There's an awfully big gap bewteen Roy making an aside and what PWK might have envisaged. I am in no way suggesting PWK was not considering this option. What I would like to hear from Roy is more detail about this interesting concept... and what exactly is a Klipschorn Jubilee? This hypothetical speaker may bear no resemblance whatsoever to the current commercial Jubilee.

sorry......that's what he said.....[:$]

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

There's an awfully big gap bewteen Roy making an aside and what PWK might have envisaged. I am in no way suggesting PWK was not considering this option. What I would like to hear from Roy is more detail about this interesting concept... and what exactly is a Klipschorn Jubilee? This hypothetical speaker may bear no resemblance whatsoever to the current commercial Jubilee.

oh....and by the way.....quit looking at my gap.....

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[Deang]

Are you fantasizing again? Who criticized the performance of the Jubilee?

You had said, "The home Jubilee as envisioned by PWK does not exist. A bastardized rendition can be special ordered..."

Well, I don't know how else to take the latter statement. As far as what PK envisioned, how in the hell would you know? There were lower cost, unfinished versions of most his speakers when he ran the company, it's likely his vision included those of us who wouldn't be able to afford the full blown finished model. As a side note, the Jubilee in his home has a composite version of the wood horn (and black no less).

These are 'Man' speakers Paul, your preoccupation with WAF has me concerned.

[mark1101]

I think most know I have JCs Jub clones. Well this past weekend I got them going and did a direct comparison with my Lascalas. My Khorns happen to be in an adjacent room, but the test I did was pretty fair since I have a K-77 and K-55 top section on the jubs, and I used the same receiver using speakers a/b to instantly switch back and forth. The jubs at one end of the room, lascalas facing them but at the other end of the room. 37 x18 rectangular...basically empty with an 11 ft. ceiling.

So my comparison was bass cabinet vs. bass cabinet really.

My results are this. Until you hear them together you won't know how they really compare...and it might surprise you. The differences are not what everyone thinks. I would equate 1 jub to about 1 1/2 lascalas at most. It is not anymore than that in my room and on the system I used.

I think what the revelation may be is that big top section some have.....that I don't.

I can also tell you that the Jub clone cabinets I have sound remarkably like lascalas but with more output. They do not sound like my Khorns at all.

I really should not say anymore than this for now....as I have some work left to do on the Jubs.

Sorry but I have to disagree!

If the speakers aren't auditioned in the same room/location then there really is no fair comparison!

mike tn[]

Mike, I auditioned Jub clones vs. Las in the same room. My comments about the Khorns...you are correct. They were not in the same room. However, it was meant to be a general comment about the difference in sound charcateristics between the bins. Not similar at all. I know rooms will make some difference but not make up for what I hear so far.

As I said I will defer futher comments until I have things completed.

Rigma,

Yes I understand what I have are just clones. But I heard Richard's Jubs on 2 ocasions and these clones at both JC's and now my home. I believe them to be close approximations. If the Jubilee bin was meant to sound like a Khorn bin....then JC screwed up......cause it doesn't. It sounds like a lascala.

By the way....awesome job you have been doing. I'm sure they will sound as good as they look. I hope you like the sound of the lascala. No kidding on this point.

[bodcaw boy]

Personally, I can't see how the Klipschorn can be compared with the commercial Jubilee. They were both designed for different environments. I know some have bought the Jubilee for home use and this speaker probably performs quite well in this capacity. But the Jubilee couldn't possibly realise it's potential unless it was installed in a very large room or a cinema. I reckon the better choice for the home has to be the Klipschorn. It was designed specifically for use in this environment...

And as far as aesthetics go, it's a no brainer...

sorry but no....coyotee-o had it right....it was home and it was good enough to take to the cinema market as is.......

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[Coytee]

Careful Roy...there are some that will think I've been coaching you on what to say!

[]

[bodcaw boy]

An incredible waste of time this thread but entertaining none-the-less. I still don't know what the point of the thread was for that matter. It really seems like a case of penis-envy run amok; some are threatened by the larger speaker and some are running around like Bob in the Enzyte commercials.

But...

I find it most unlikely the Jubilee was intended by PK to replace the Klipschorn. I firmly believe PK intended for it to supplant the Khorn at the top of the food chain BUT the Khorn is Klipsch's claim to fame - "So good, we have been building the same speaker for 50 years"; you would have to be the biggest marketing fool of all time to drop it. Such a FUBAR would make Coca Cola's experiment with "new coke" the holy grail of marketing coups.

Only on the Klipsch board would the company and its patrons continue to obsess and speculate about the wishes of its founder. You don't see WalMart issuing statements saying "Sam wanted ya'all to buy more Chinese sheit... Sam intended for us to launch a new niche..."

Its mind-boggling. Evalute the products and buy what you want. You don't need to use PK or God to justify your purchase or your reasoning. Some of you just have to have the latest thing - like teenagers and the latest "in" thing.

sorry....pwk did want to make a khorn ii....but he thought the jub was so much more than an upgrade that he called it the klipschorn jubilee (is there an echo in here like i sound like i am repeating myself?)..........so take it how you want....i will sleep tonight.....and if facts are not your fancy......then proceed.......make it up!!

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

I just don't understand what the big whoop is with the bass bin. I almost can't believe that no one in the world makes a driver that goes up high enough for one of these horn sections.

That said - I've come to the realization that the world is indeed.... deaf.

sorry but it ain't the driver that is the problem.....

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[DrWho]

It sounds like a lascala.

So a bass bin good to 40Hz (the Jubilee) sounds the same as a bassbin that starts dropping off at 100Hz, maybe 70Hz if you're lucky (the lascala)? The difference should be lightyears apart. How do the khorns sound in the same room? What kind of music are you listening to?