Question for Bodcaw Boy (Roy)

[Parrot]

I think if you hit its resonant frequency it'll start vibrating like there's no tomorrow, develop fractures, and break apart. Now you could put it back together again with 200 mile per hour tape, but that would be tacky.

[ben.]

Bill Fitzmaurice's little DR horns lose midbass efficiency when ported. Different animals than the Jub, but I had mine built with ports. I can plug them and the difference in response is not subtle.

[DrWho]

The difference being better when ported?

[Parrot]

Obviously if a speaker is designed with a port, and then you plug up the port, the sound is going to suffer.

[mas]

Being the kind loving and compassionate fellow that I am (cool it Coytee, I can read your mind before you can!), what pray tell, Paul, would you recommend for reducing the suffering of those poor sound waves? I simply hate to think of them suffering!

I ask as I simply have not recovered from the trauma of worrying about the plight of the poor Neoprenes and the Naughas that are being wantonly slaughtered simply for their hides!

[Parrot]

You make a good point. More precisely, the listener is going to suffer because the sound waves are not being allowed to frolic and cavort the way the original Intelligent Designer intended because some clown has blocked the port with a towel.

[mas]

I want to say something in that I see both sides of this too.

Paul Parrot is tired, as a lot of us are, of "some people" who take apart what Paul designed and now Roy designed and getting into "upgrade itus" which is always debatable.. How many times do we see a person new to Klipsch with the following lines.. "I just bought XYZ speaker... (sometimes not even arrived yet..) I know I need to change... x overs drivers rip this out.. do this.. drill into the speaker itself..." the list goes on and on.. I want to say whooaaa there cowboy...... Relax for a bit and just enjoy what you have.

To me it is insane that some do not just listen to what was designed, as it was designed, in your living room for a while. One thing Parrot said that it is so true, too, you can change things with different drivers , different x overs... for a while you hear something different even sometimes pleasing.. But LONG term..... do you get ear fatigue as it grows on you that something is out of balance from the original design? In the end if you want to change it, go ahead. But also understand what your doing along the way too. It is no longer a speaker as designed by Klipsch anymore... And now your into "tweaker hobby dome." LOL

We now have a Jubilee Bottom with a HUGE horn that sounds WONDERFUL.. The problem is on the forum, and to the older heritage crowd is this... This is the completion of a project started by PWK in one era.... and completed by Roy in another.. What or when do we agree it is a heritage product, or a cinema product... or what is it and how/ what is it designed for? We can argue all day long if PWK would approve, but in some ways does it even matter if he did or would ??? The end result is what is crucial here.. We have a new speaker to enjoy!

If we gave it another name.. maybe the pride issue might go away too. There are so many heated debates on all sides.. Should (Klipsch) even allow a speaker for home use, to better the flagship Klipschorn? Make no mistake too, this is a Cinema Line Theater made speaker currently as it is listed... that we are bringing into our home for WOW impressive results! And something this big, is impressive..

Should we ignore what it is... is what it is.??? So few of us have heard it as a stereo pair with different music on over time to even begin to appreciate it too? The debate goes on and both sides have valid arguments. I for one love the idea we have this speaker to begin with. In some way I am sure PWK is looking down on us glad there are purists, too, to his designs but also glad the life of Klipsch and his baby Jubilee is growing up and moving on too. Just my own gratuitous thoughts. LOL.

Just 2 comments...

First: Am I the only one that LIKES the K402 just the way it is! And I would only take a cover/grill off!

Second: Regarding the craze of 'fixing everything'.' One thing I note is that almost everyone looks for a way to 'fix their system.

Wonderful! But the concern that I have is perhaps summed up by a quick 'for what?' and/or 'why?'.

Most are running around simply assuming that there must be a problem and then arbitrarily doing 'stuff' that will supposedly 'fix' whatever it is that they imagine is 'wrong'.

They don't know what the performance was before, they have no measured analysis, and they simply make some arbitrary, but nevertheless enlightened, change and assume that it must be better!

A classic example of this is the proverbial ringing of the midrange K401 horn.

I have never seen an unterminated(mounted) response of the horn compared to a mounted response that indicates a persistence that might be damped. There might very well be a ringing present in the unterminated horn (I would assume there was!). But I have yet to see one that indicats such a problem in a terminated horn. Oh, I have seen lots of frequency responses - most of which exhibit all sorts of room induced comb filtering and reflective nulls. Now, don't get me wrong... and these proper curves (eg cumulative spectral energy 'waterfall' plots) may indeed exist...but I have yet to see one being used in conjunction with so many running for caulk, etc.

Likewise, so many are swapping MF and HF horns out for other models. Now, don't get me wrong. I acknowledge that there can be good reasons for changing devices, but many do so because of a belief that one is better rather than employing any objective measures.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is one thing to clearly identify and to isolate a specific anomaly that one is trying to fix. And then to postulate a specific solution to the problem. And then to employ a valid method of evaluating the effectiveness of the applied 'fix' for the purpose of providing a source of proof of performance feedback. And then fine tuning the procedure as necessary...

If that methodology were employed, I would have no problem with it. Rather, I am a bit bemused by the often willy nilly assumption that to simply change something that provides a degree of emotional relief is assumed to be an improvement...

OK...you can all go back to running about fixing things!

Me? ...I am off to run about like a chicken with its head cut off looking for a problem my solution will fix!

[]

[Coytee]

First: Am I the only one that LIKES the K402 just the way it is! And I would only take a cover/grill off!

I've sent some pics of my naked 402 to Playboy... think they'll publish them?

[]

[Deang]

Pervert.

[Coytee]

Dean: Sent you a PM (and no, it doesn't contain naked pictures of my horn)

[mas]

Gee whiz... could it have something to do with the frequency respose of reflected sound? I mean, would it be an advantage to have the reflections sound similar to the direct sound? Hmmmm....

C'mon man. I had 70 year old church customers that understood the advantage of that.

A pair of Bose 901 would be perfect for you. They tackled that little problem by making all their sound reflected sound.

Ouch!!! []

[mas]

I certainly hope that this gripe is interpreted in the spirit intended. It is presented in with a bit of hyperbole in the effort to emphasize some of the points while perhaps causing a few grins in a devil's advocate role. But the sincere concern and frustration behind the note is real. At least for a few folks!

But what the heck. This may not be the optimal place to air this complaint, but perhaps the voicing of this concern may make a small difference (aside from convincing those few that are not already convinced that I am a terribly dangerous radical ). []

And with all due respect to Trey, this idea that real
response data is not made available to consumers due to their inability
to understand it simply states that the company's perception of their
clientèle is that they are idiots. So, some may not understand them. Both others may! But you wouldn't want to further confuse all of those idiots who might buy our product! And that assumption would make a wonderful(sic)
ad! Either for you or by a competitor! "Buy a speaker designed for idiots!" Or, "Buy a speaker that we
designed for those we assume are both idiots and couldn't understand
the value of a speaker if we provided them with the data!" Or, if you are a competitor, simply add the word "Why" prior to each of those sentiments. Ouch!

Here's a radical idea: Supply the info on the web site for those (albeit few) folks who simply think they know what the data might mean!

And
to endear myself even further with the company store, with all due
respect, the data on the pro-products webpage basically consisting of
sensitivity, frequency response and time offsets are not exactly
sufficient to spec any of the products in any setting.

For example: the Jubilee/535 specs:.

frequency response	45Hz-19kHz +/- 3dB-10dB @ 34Hz
sensitivity	105dB
crossover frequency	400 Hz, 3k Hz 24dB/Octave
coverage angle	Horizontal 90° +/-20° 200Hz-18kHz Vertical 60° +/-20° 500Hz-19kHz

dimensions	78.3" (199cm) H x 98.6" (250cm) W x 57.3" (146cm) D
weight	329 lbs (149 kg)
features	Delay: LF: 0 ms MF: 3.5 ms HF: 4.6 ms

A commercial designer is going to do what with that? A vertical
polar pattern of 60 degrees +- 20 degrees!!? OK, so its somewhere between
40 and 80 degrees! Let me plug that into EASE!

Now I can make assumptions that at 500 Hz the vertical coverage is 80 degrees and that at 19kHz will be 20 degrees, but that just doesn't quite cut it. Especially when I can just make a few clicks (to other professional/commercial vendors) and have complete specs (that we don't understand), including CLF &/or Ease 'libraries' that we can utilize in a plethora of ways to really baffle those stupid consumers! And that is especially true for professional/commercial users and designers.

And since neither
CLF nor EASE specs are available for download, I guess they assume
the professional acousticians don't understand the specs either! And they
wonder why few are spec'ing them?'

Should we also assume that since the market won't understand them, that there is also an assumption that the design staff not need to understand as well? After all, why spend more money than absolutely necessary to design something that doesn't really matter to those stupid customers?

Where are we supposed to draw the line? And it concerns me that you have chosen to orient your marketing to the dumbest consumers.

Come on guys!!...What's with the assumption that your potential client base are idiots rather than assuming that SOME (including professional designers) may just understand and have a valid use for them? Please put the full specs on the website for download by those who have a use for them!

OK, I've resigned myself to the fact... Let the sky fall! []

[colterphoto1]

Not to be augumentative, because I DO understand your point, but unless I'm mistaken, according to the specs as listed, the vertical coverage at 19K would be between 40 and 80 degees (60 degrees +/- 20).

For example: the Jubilee/535 specs:.

frequency response	45Hz-19kHz +/- 3dB-10dB @ 34Hz
sensitivity	105dB
crossover frequency	400 Hz, 3k Hz 24dB/Octave
coverage angle	Horizontal 90° +/-20° 200Hz-18kHz Vertical 60° +/-20° 500Hz-19kHz

dimensions	78.3" (199cm) H x 98.6" (250cm) W x 57.3" (146cm) D
weight	329 lbs (149 kg)
features	Delay: LF: 0 ms MF: 3.5 ms HF: 4.6 ms

"A commercial designer is going to do what with that? A vertical
polar pattern of 60 degrees +- 20 degrees!!? OK, so its somewhere between
40 and 80 degrees! Let me plug that into EASE!

Now
I can make assumptions that at 500 Hz the vertical coverage is 80
degrees and that at 19kHz will be 20 degrees, but that just doesn't
quite cut it. Especially when I can just make a few clicks and have
complete specs (that we don't understand) that we can utilize in a
plethora of ways to really baffle those stupid consumers! "

I think Trey's point is that a VAST MAJORITY of customers and readers
(not the select few experts like you guys) would interpret any detailed
polar reponse plots or frequency response curves greatly out of
context, not be able to interpolate them into their own listening
environments, and cause a plethora of confusion. In other words, no real understanding of the real world behavior of the loudspeaker
in each listeners particular acoustical situation, with their musical
choices, with their ears, and their listening preferences could be
obtained by further detailing the measurements in our anechoic chamber.

Have a groovy day- now go back to listening to some music and enjoying your loudspeakers please.

Michael

[mas]

Not to be augumentative, because I DO understand your point, but unless I'm mistaken, according to the specs as listed, the vertical coverage at 19K would be between 40 and 80 degees (60 degrees +/- 20).

...I think Trey's point is that a VAST MAJORITY of customers and readers

(not the select few experts like you guys) would interpret any detailed

polar reponse plots or frequency response curves greatly out of

context, not be able to interpolate them into their own listening

environments, and cause a plethora of confusion. In other words, no real understanding of the real world behavior of the loudspeaker

in each listeners particular acoustical situation, with their musical

choices, with their ears, and their listening preferences could be

obtained by further detailing the measurements in our anechoic chamber.

Have a groovy day- now go back to listening to some music and enjoying your loudspeakers please.

Michael

Thanks Mike.

My point with the interpretation of what was provided is that we don't know. And a 40 degree variance is sufficient to say that even if we understand the specs, we still haven't a clue as to what is happening!

I understand that all do not understand nor have a use for them.

But if you wanted to buy a car and you wanted some information on it and I

told you that it has wheels (17" in diameter), gets gas mileage of 27

+ - 17 MPG, a steering wheel, and a radio with 6 pre-sets. Oh, and

that it is 108" L, 36" H & 52" and weighs 4739.2847563

pounds...Would you buy it? Or recommend it?

[]

But there is no reason not to make them available as a PDF and as plug ins for the various industry standard professional design tools such as CATT and EASE or a CLF viewer. Now we can make a case that there are those that have the tools that don't have a clue [], but still, I know of a few who do! And you can either facilitate them or they will go elsewhere where they can get the data necessary to make informed decisions and to spec other firm's systems for clients.

[colterphoto1]

I do understand your point. Check email please.

does the car come in pretty blue?

[ben.]

The difference being better when ported?

Depends. It's better that way in that I don't have to carry the Tuba24 sub.

The box in question is the DR250. With the ports open the usable response goes down to around 50Hz, so I can use it for 4 string electric, upright bass or small PA applications. It only weighs about 30 pounds, so it's an easy load in/out. It sounds awesome with my little Traynor Bassmate PP EL84 for upright. For electric bass though, I almost always use it with the ports plugged (response drops quickly below 100Hz) and the Tuba24 sub crossed around 180Hz.

Contrary to Paul's uninformed blather, it works well both ways. The guy that designed the thing uses it that way.

[bodcaw boy]

It's probably tough to build an argument that extending the response of a 50Hz horn by 1/2 an octave isn't a good thing. Roy might want to say it would have made the Jubilee a better LF horn but he's too chicken to say it out loud. I'm more curious about what the trade-off is. There's no free lunch, and you can forget about ribs -- you don't get something without losing something.

hey deano,

it's about the same tradeoffs as a sealed system vs a bass reflex system....with a twist....for some reason, distortion tends to stay low.....

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

Something bad happens if you apply too much EQ to the lower end response of a folded horn, but right now I just can't remember what that is. Roy?

actually it not that bad to add eq although remember that the horn is basically another 12 db/octave high pass filter and so you would have add quite a bit and of course, move the diap more and then our old friend distortion shows up. the fiend!!! i almost rather have poo poo show up than him!

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

Pervert.

but deano DOES want to know what issue that will be.....of course, for the articles........you know intelluctual and all that......

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

[bodcaw boy]

I certainly hope that this gripe is interpreted in the spirit intended. It is presented in with a bit of hyperbole in the effort to emphasize some of the points while perhaps causing a few grins in a devil's advocate role. But the sincere concern and frustration behind the note is real. At least for a few folks!

But what the heck. This may not be the optimal place to air this complaint, but perhaps the voicing of this concern may make a small difference (aside from convincing those few that are not already convinced that I am a terribly dangerous radical ). []

And with all due respect to Trey, this idea that real response data is not made available to consumers due to their inability to understand it simply states that the company's perception of their clientèle is that they are idiots. So, some may not understand them. Both others may! But you wouldn't want to further confuse all of those idiots who might buy our product! And that assumption would make a wonderful(sic) ad! Either for you or by a competitor! "Buy a speaker designed for idiots!" Or, "Buy a speaker that we designed for those we assume are both idiots and couldn't understand the value of a speaker if we provided them with the data!" Or, if you are a competitor, simply add the word "Why" prior to each of those sentiments. Ouch!

Here's a radical idea: Supply the info on the web site for those (albeit few) folks who simply think they know what the data might mean!

And to endear myself even further with the company store, with all due respect, the data on the pro-products webpage basically consisting of sensitivity, frequency response and time offsets are not exactly sufficient to spec any of the products in any setting.

For example: the Jubilee/535 specs:.

frequency response

45Hz-19kHz +/- 3dB-10dB @ 34Hz

sensitivity

105dB

crossover frequency

400 Hz, 3k Hz

24dB/Octave

coverage angle

Horizontal 90° +/-20° 200Hz-18kHz

Vertical 60° +/-20° 500Hz-19kHz

dimensions

78.3" (199cm) H x 98.6" (250cm) W x 57.3" (146cm) D

weight

329 lbs (149 kg)

features

Delay:

LF: 0 ms

MF: 3.5 ms

HF: 4.6 ms

A commercial designer is going to do what with that? A vertical polar pattern of 60 degrees +- 20 degrees!!? OK, so its somewhere between 40 and 80 degrees! Let me plug that into EASE!

Now I can make assumptions that at 500 Hz the vertical coverage is 80 degrees and that at 19kHz will be 20 degrees, but that just doesn't quite cut it. Especially when I can just make a few clicks (to other professional/commercial vendors) and have complete specs (that we don't understand), including CLF &/or Ease 'libraries' that we can utilize in a plethora of ways to really baffle those stupid consumers! And that is especially true for professional/commercial users and designers.

And since neither CLF nor EASE specs are available for download, I guess they assume the professional acousticians don't understand the specs either! And they wonder why few are spec'ing them?'

Should we also assume that since the market won't understand them, that there is also an assumption that the design staff not need to understand as well? After all, why spend more money than absolutely necessary to design something that doesn't really matter to those stupid customers?

Where are we supposed to draw the line? And it concerns me that you have chosen to orient your marketing to the dumbest consumers.

Come on guys!!...What's with the assumption that your potential client base are idiots rather than assuming that SOME (including professional designers) may just understand and have a valid use for them? Please put the full specs on the website for download by those who have a use for them!

OK, I've resigned myself to the fact... Let the sky fall! []

oh mas mas mas......(which in spanish means "more"......how appropriate),

the specs are for comparison. believe it or not, and hold on to your britches........(we have polar data, ease data, ease programs and we help the cinema guys layout auditoriums with these...) and we only supply them to those that actually use the products....sorry more, er i mean mas.

have a blessed day,

roy delgado

ps at least i didn't have to pull out the dictionary this time.......next year's resolution.....i promise to use 1/3 less words.....i promise to use 1/3 less words.....i promise to use 1/3 less words.....tap tap tap (heels).......