Jump to content

jubilee


bodcaw boy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Regarding live sound....

While I absolutely appreciate a good concert and try to spend about 4 days a week listening to live shows (of which at least 1/4 are unplugged/acoustic), I would argue that a recording need not necessarily conform to the goal of accurate documentation of a sonic event. Mixing is very much an art akin to painting pictures where the artist has free reign to do whatever he/she wishes with the medium.

As such I like to think of the playback chain much like I would hanging a Picaso under the bathroom sink...

Speaking of distortion - anyone know of any speaker that produces less than the Jubilee? Heck, isn't the distortion listed in the JAES article? Hmmm.... [^o)]

I like chocolate milk, but I'm allergic to pollen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: publishing measurements

You guys have missed the boat.

They have been very up front about the measurements. In the JAES article (Delgado & Klipsch, 2000) they provides graphs of the frequency response (and not overly "smoothed" figures) along with distortion measures (2nd & 3rd harmonic distortion when driven at a fairly high level). This is in reference to the Jubilee bass bin, but the Klipschorn is shown also (as their comparison speaker).

I am not sure why manufacturers should feel obligated to post these numbers, since the competition can post "smoothed" figures in response. Besides most folks would not be able to interpret them anyway.

Good Luck,

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Krudet: I hope you take Roy up on his offer to ask away about the Jubs, he will answer all questions. Don't worry about asking something you think might sound dumb, I hold the record for asking him the most dumb questions and it will never be broken. It is not very often that you have the opportunity to ask a principal engineer about his/her product.

6Foot8, I am really looking forward to seeing the photos. I have heard a lot about your system and have always wanted to see the photos. If you take regular ones and need somone to scan them I am sure we can get you hooked up on that easy enough. Heck, your in Fla. right? Just invite us all down and we will take a bunch of photos for ya. Can't wait to see them.

Brother Bill H: I think you are overdue on photos. Unless I have missed them, but I don't recall seeing the sub in your room. If you have not said what xover are you running the Beast.

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Travis,

My daughter broke her camera and now mine has run off. Hmmmmmm . . . . . .

I have powered the Beast in two ways. One using the subwoofer output of the Denon to a QSC amp with the Denon set for 70Hz crossover. The other method was with a Y out of the Audionics preamp to a Crown XTi and the crossover set in the Crown. Both methods were equally EXCELLANT. Roy has again achieved something extraordinary in the Beast.

Have you sent your note to Santa yet??

Blessings,

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understand why these discussions get so heated.

I, for one, think it is obvious that we still are not able to fully measure, and thus specify, what exactly constitutes good (or even accurate) sound reproduction. That we still have a way to go to develop tests and specs that correlate well with what listener's consider good and accurate sound reproduction. That we have a long way to go to even establish what would constitue measured (non-listener-opinion) accurate sound reproduction like-wise is pretty obvious to me.

I think we need a great maveric (like PWK or TA Edison) who is unsatisfied with everything we think we know today and tries (no matter how long it takes) to come up with those sets of measurements of components that correlate, however imperfectly, with good, accurate sound (if those even are related...physchoacoustics ya know).

I remember the days that we were told to focus on THD to tell if an amp was accurate/good, damping factor, etc. (the list can go on forever at this point) have all been presented as the reference. I think it is obvious that a highly complex interelationship between many of the existing (and many of the yet to be probed/tested) variables will be needed to try to predict good/accurate sound. Even then I think it a viable proposition to say that all of this may still not correlate with subjective judgements of good/accurate sound, since we cannot ever agree on what that is. (solo piano live recordings, versus rolling stones studio recordings are two references for reporoduction that seem to ilicit controversy as references, on camp saying only acoustic instruments in live space is valid the other saying what the artist/producer heard in the mixing room of the studio, on and on...ad infinitum).

I cannot yet accept the idea a transfer function (which I see as a black box argument) resulting in one or even a half dozen measureable correlations between signal and source as the complete, reliable reference needed to predict good sound. We need to know more in a macro and micro sense about what is happening throughout the signal chain (which includes both the recording process, room and ear) before we are ready to say "we are done, we can now say the transfer function is correct". Those who think we are already there I think are mistaken, IMHO, YMMV, etc., etc. I respect your opinions, I do not share them.

I wait for further progress on the measurement/accurate reproduction issues from the industry and academic world. meanhile I remain captive to a subjectivist reality; in the absence of objective criteria that I believe realiable to make my decisions, I let me ears tell me what is good/accurate.

Best regards from sunny El Salvador,

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understand why these discussions get so heated.

I, for one, think it is obvious that we still are not able to fully measure, and thus specify, what exactly constitutes good (or even accurate) sound reproduction. That we still have a way to go to develop tests and specs that correlate well with what listener's consider good and accurate sound reproduction. That we have a long way to go to even establish what would constitue measured (non-listener-opinion) accurate sound reproduction like-wise is pretty obvious to me.

I think we need a great maveric (like PWK or TA Edison) who is unsatisfied with everything we think we know today and tries (no matter how long it takes) to come up with those sets of measurements of components that correlate, however imperfectly, with good, accurate sound (if those even are related...physchoacoustics ya know).

I remember the days that we were told to focus on THD to tell if an amp was accurate/good, damping factor, etc. (the list can go on forever at this point) have all been presented as the reference. I think it is obvious that a highly complex interelationship between many of the existing (and many of the yet to be probed/tested) variables will be needed to try to predict good/accurate sound. Even then I think it a viable proposition to say that all of this may still not correlate with subjective judgements of good/accurate sound, since we cannot ever agree on what that is. (solo piano live recordings, versus rolling stones studio recordings are two references for reporoduction that seem to ilicit controversy as references, on camp saying only acoustic instruments in live space is valid the other saying what the artist/producer heard in the mixing room of the studio, on and on...ad infinitum).

I cannot yet accept the idea a transfer function (which I see as a black box argument) resulting in one or even a half dozen measureable correlations between signal and source as the complete, reliable reference needed to predict good sound. We need to know more in a macro and micro sense about what is happening throughout the signal chain (which includes both the recording process, room and ear) before we are ready to say "we are done, we can now say the transfer function is correct". Those who think we are already there I think are mistaken, IMHO, YMMV, etc., etc. I respect your opinions, I do not share them.

I wait for further progress on the measurement/accurate reproduction issues from the industry and academic world. meanhile I remain captive to a subjectivist reality; in the absence of objective criteria that I believe realiable to make my decisions, I let me ears tell me what is good/accurate.

Best regards from sunny El Salvador,

Tony

hey tony,

it only gets so heated when one sides claims that no measurements are needed;just enlightenment. and then of course, there are those that only measurements will do. my point was meant for the condescending opinion, trying to be stated as fact, that only ears will get you there. you looking for some guidance from a maverick like paul? he spent $200k on an anechoic chamber to educate his ears; not to take over for the ears; to educate. after all raw muscianship talent can only benefit from getting some formal training. following paul's lead and training, i try to do both.

now as to accuracy, that is another question. what is accurate? paul reverted to making in his own recording because he now knew what was correct as in being there. so this thing about what sounds good to my ears is all well and good but are you being precise in the reproduction or accurate to your ears? frankly i don't care but i don't like it when one starts to condescend if you are not on the right side; usually the side that requires very little be done for the proof.

thought any more about jubs?

in Christ, because of God's grace,

roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy,

As you know, I come down pretty much on the same side of the issue as you do.

I admire PWK, Edison for their "just do it" attitude and thier desire to find out, to push until they could decide for themselves on a given topic. No arm chair quarterbacks those guys! I also have the luxury, as a music enthusiast, to base my decisions soley on my hearing, taste, etc. I have only to please myself. I am well aware of your challenges (and passion) for trying to improve the performance of audio/musical reproduction, I dont envy you one bit. I mentioned I thought that we still are a bit in the dark regarding tools and measruements to help industry professionals like you do that job. I have been impressed by your accomplishements and am sure there are many more to come.

I actually have been thinking about jubs...if you remember I first wanted to experiment with my room correction/electronic crossover (DEQx-based) triamped K-horn with the JBL 2404H substituted for the stock tweeter. I also had a from scratch model drawn up with Altec and JBL components which I eventually abandonded. I suspended my DIY jub project simply becasue I no longer have a wood working shop (I moved to a different house and the shop had to go). I amy still toying with the idea of having the bass bins built for me by local craftsmen but I am waiting for a definitive version of the DIY jub plans to be posted by someone to provide them to the local guys, I dont feel we have consensus yet on what constitutes the "correct" DIY version. I would then have the problem of what to put up top....

hehe the good news is that I am enjoying immensely my largely stock k-horns and my kids (now 11 and 9) are learning to enjoy them as well!

We are gearing up down here for Christmas right now so I want to take this opportunity to wish you (and indeed all my firends onthe klipsch b-board) a very happy holiday season and all the best for the coming new year!

Warm regards, Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony and others,

Can you tell us more about your DEQX experience. I like what I have

read about the unit and am considering trying one, but so far have not

been pleased with active units in my signal chain. Do you feel it

would any negative or positive effects on the micro detail I now have

with my SET/Jubilee system. I mostly listen to Jazz and Blues LP's.

On another note my wife and I went to the "Blue Note Jazz Club" in NYC

Sunday night to hear Bill Frisell, Ron Carter & Paul Motian. In

comparing what we we hearing live

siting directly in front of the stage about 20' back to what we hear at

home with our system. What we agreed on in the comparison was that Ron

Carter's bass(awesome player) and Bill Frisell guitar were very close

to what we achieve at home. The part that is lacking with our system

was the drums of Paul Motian, especially the impact of hard cymball

strikes. I would like to get that attack and decay to sound more live

in our room! Even though we think our system is the best we have ever

had, or heard, I feel this is an area that could be improved. Maybe it

is a room issue, better drivers or electronics etc. or I wonder even if

it is recording related, which I suspect is the most likely?

Opinions would be appreciated.

rigma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rigma,

Have you thought about trying a higher power and higher slew-rate SS amp, just for grins? (No kidding here.) Also, getting driver phase delay corrected may also help, assuming you haven't already tried this (but you probably have done this...).

I recall that impulse and "sizzling" cymbal response is something that Bob Carver tried to duplicate using some really high-end monitors and an unbelievable amount of power in the mid-80s. He was using a pair of scissors to cut a sheet of paper, if memory serves. I don't think he was successful in duplicating the real sound even from a system that would today cost $100K+.

I would also wonder if using some hf acoustic treatment between and above the speakers to absorb rather than diffuse hf energy, but leaving the back of the room (behind your head) "live", i.e., a dead-end live-end mixing room concept. A few unused comforters or blankets arranged on the wall between might be useful for a test.

Regards,

Chris A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rigma, I tried several different amps and topologies and never could get the solid thwack of snare and cymbals like live instuments until I used the Crowns. None of the other amps had enough power is my guess. I tried clearer sounding amps than what I have now but they lacked authority. You may have the best you are going to get right now as far as micro details go. I definitely gave up some detail to get more of a live insturment sound......and the Crown hisses alot too. It's the number one complaint about the XTI's on Crown's forum. The fan drowns out the hiss though ;). As far as the active EQ.......you need to hear it and then decide. It is a great flexibility tool for configuring your system and to learn the sound of EQ, filters, slopes, delays, etc.....and can sound nice.......but the detail and imaging are not like what you get out of passives. My system sounds more like what you'd hear at the Georgia Theater than the audio boutique. That's one way to describe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...but the detail and imaging are not like what you get out of passives."

I don't agree with that. Rigma's passives sit in front of some very serious and wonderful stuff. So, the passives will only sound better if you have some extremely deep pockets to put into the front end.

My noise issue was minimized in a major way after I inserted the Aphex and reduced the input gain.

The number one complaint on the Crown forum about the XTi is the ribbon cable.:)

Have you downloaded the software yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks Chris and Mark. The problem is that I want BOTH micro details and
thwack and tone and timber![:@] I have tried active Crown IQ-USM 810 ($3K
processor) and 300 watts of Crown D150A (strapped in Mono) on the HF but think
the passive and 300B sounds more real. I have never heard a system that I felt
accurately reproduced the attack of a live snare or hard cymbal strike but that
hasn't stopped me from trying.


I am wondering if a TAD HF driver with Beryllium diaphragm might get me closer. The
thinking is that it may allow the lighter mass of the diaphragm to accelerate
and decelerate faster thereby increasing the attack..(decreasing acceleration
time)...Did that make sense? Maybe the recording microphone and associated
equipment can't spike this quickly either[*-)]


rigma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part that is lacking with our system was the drums of Paul Motian, especially the impact of hard cymball strikes. I would like to get that attack and decay to sound more live in our room!

There is a lot of high frequency energy in the upper registers of hhard cymball strikes. One of the things I noted about your configuration was the highs were starting to roll off around ~8kHz-ish. I'm not sure if it's a function of the passives or the amps (possibly both), but I would look to see if you couldn't make any modifications to achieve a more extended high frequency response. The thing you want to be looking for is a capacitance in parallel with the circuit (which might actually be in the tubes you're using...)

I have also found that sometimes slightly rolled off highs can be perceived as a smoother midrange, which is something I've played with in the studio. I've never actually played with it in a home setting, but I would imagine the effect would be the same. I bring this up because I think, for you, there's going to be a tradeoff involved (smooth mids versus cymbal impact).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean, Didn't see the ribbon cable complaints on the XTI.......but I saw a few others. Hiss was mentioned quite a lot......and I have it. I returned my cleanboxes. No more "boxes" for me. I can still try the gain. I'll have the PC connected tonight. Yes I got the software and I built a file with all the settings in it. It should be ready to go.


when I first moved my equipment on to the new system I had all the same stuff except speakers and active EQ. There was a big difference in image and detail....Less. I attributed it to the passives. I have learned since that the K69 likes power and EQ, and I have good detail now. But not like with my old system. When I added the Crowns I got authority. I'm still working on things as you know but I can tell it is almost there. When I A/B with my LaScalas they throw an unbelievable image in comparison. You know what networks those use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 watts of Crown D150A (strapped in Mono)

Yikes, don't bridge amps if you're looking for clarity [:o]

As for the active crossovers....were you able to saturate their inputs? The pro gear is going to require a larger voltage than most home gear operates on, so your preamp would likely need to be cranked up all the way in order to get "a lot of blinky lights" on the input panels. After that, you'll need to attenuate the output way down since your amplifiers probably don't need large voltages to reach their max output either.

In other words, I think you would benefit greatly from an active crossover that was designed to operate at the voltages and impedances of home audio equipment. I think the DEQX might fit into this category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the active EQ.......you need to hear it and then decide. It is a great flexibility tool for configuring your system and to learn the sound of EQ, filters, slopes, delays, etc.....and can sound nice.......but the detail and imaging are not like what you get out of passives.

If I get the Jubs my ultimate plan would be to get a DEQX unit so that I could use my SETH amplifiers for the top section with no hassle, but if imaging and detail are to be compromised by going active, I will surely stay with passives.

Richard, in the last couple of pages distortion seems to be minimized. I like it.

Kudret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...