Jub Mid Question

[luvmykhorns]

So i have a question about the Mid in the Jubilee believe it's the k402 horn not sure on driver i've read k-1132, k-1133, and k69 i would assume the horn is the same just diff drivers.

My question is, could someone tell me how good the horn sounds lets say in comparison to the khorn top end. also i assume i have to contact klipsch direct to get a pair of horns w/driver. any clues on how much and if you can just get the horn no bass bin.

Thank You

Dusten

[Guest " "]

You can get the horns/drivers alone.

Using them requires some planning.....some xover planning and/or going active with the associated amps.

The bass bins you plan on using is also a consideration since the combo is commonly crossover at 500hz and the Khorns have trouble reaching that high.

Basically there are valid configs' that you need to fit into.

[luvmykhorns]

You can get the horns/drivers alone.

Using them requires some planning.....some xover planning and/or going active with the associated amps.

The bass bins you plan on using is also a consideration since the combo is commonly crossover at 500hz and the Khorns have trouble reaching that high.

Basically there are valid configs' that you need to fit into.

Ok... thats helps me out, 500hz shouldn't pose to be a problem does anyone know the price or should i just call up Klipsch tomorrow? also i'll do a search, but if anyones bored and wants to throw out there input i'm going to be searching about comparisons of the CP-25 and the JBL-2404H

[Islander]

The Jubilee is a 2-way speaker with no mid driver, although there is a 3-way theatre version. The Jubilee bass bin has two 12-inch drivers and the tweeter is a K69 driver mounted in either a K402 (very large) horn or a K510 (not so large) horn.

You can also approximate a Jubilee with a JubScala, which is a Jubilee tweeter, with either 402 or 510 horn, mounted on a La Scala bass bin or complete cabinet. It's not a full Jubilee, but it's more compact and less expensive.

In either case, you'll need two amplifiers, since the Jubilee is designed to be bi-amped.

As for the comparison with the Klipschorn mid and high, the Jubilee tweeter is a big step beyond, especially in clarity and detail.

[DrWho]

The K69 with 402 horn takes all the great aspects of the khorn and gets rid of most all the negatives. The Jub LF makes the 2-way possible, but it's really the HF that nails the percieved performance. Being able to cross so low really opens up the options with what one can do with that top section. So what exactly do you have in mind?

[luvmykhorns]

Well.. I thank you guys for the input here, now I'm understanding that the Jub just has low and high ranges although the whole audio spectrum is still encompassed.

Would it be wrong to utilize the K69/402 combo as a mid though and throw in a nice tweet such as the CP-25 to cover the higher frequencies.

I would like to have the mids cover from either 500hz or 600hz up to maybe around 8khz and then let the tweet carry on from there or would you recommend sending a bit more sound to the K69/402

I do plan on a Bi Amped setup, and have been thinking active xover, but i like passive more

[Islander]

The K69 is a tweeter, so you could go with 402 horns for your midrange, with the drivers they're usually supplied with, and use 510 horns for tweeters. Here's info on the 3-way Jubilee. I believe there is only one of them in home use. All the others are the 2-way models.

http://www.klipsch.com/products/details/kpt-jubilee-535.aspx

[Coytee]

You've gotten good comments here.

Price wise, you might expect to pay 'about $1,000' USD per horn (K402 & K69) delivered to the lower 48. I'd expect it to be different with one of the larger drivers (midrange)

I'd suggest you try it with the K69 since as Pat says, the K69 is the tweeter driver for the 3-way Jubilee (and he's right again in that there is only one person using a 3-way Jubilee in a home environment, all others are 2-way.... well... at least for factory purchased units)

If you tried the K69 as your tweeter and didn't like it, you could always add the other unit, no??

[mark1101]

I use the K402/K69 combo from 500 to 5000, then a tweeter out to 20K. Although I'm in the minority, in my opinion the K69 lacks high end extension. This is just my opinion but it is based on a lot of listening tests and comparisons to other Klipsch speakers in my own system and in my own home. So, I run the K402/K69 in a 3 way configuration and use the same crossover points as Klispch does on the 3 way MCM system which is closet to what I have. The tweeter I use is the CT-125 (Crites). It is a very good match in timber for the combo I have and provides better high end extention than the K69 (again in my system and by my ears). What I feel I give up is a little in the area of coherence. I always thought the 2 way sounded more "together". But in the end it sounded like the high end just wasn't there on familiar music so I went 3 way and used a tweeter.

[Deang]

Technically, the K-69-A is a midrange driver -- it's EQ'd to be a tweeter. Attached is the raw response of the driver attached to the K-402 horn.

JUBHFRAW.pdf

[Deang]

As you can see from looking at the plot, even if you go three-way, you're going to have to apply EQ to even out the response, unless of course you consider +/-12dB between 500 and 5000 to be acceptable.

Attached is the plot after EQ is applied. The plot is for the passive EQ, which consists of traps in the network to pull down the large peaks.

JUBHFNET.pdf

[Islander]

Although I'm in the minority, in my opinion the K69 lacks high end extension.

You may be right, but since my ears seem to lack some high end extension, the tweeters' response sounds fine in my system...[H]

[DrWho]

As far as the HF extension...the directivity is constant so what you don't see is that the power response is mostly flat (except for the few peaks there in the middle). So if you compare the behavior against another system that is beaming the polars to gain on-axis sensitivity, then the K402-K69 without EQ is actually putting the same amount of energy into the room (it's just not focused on-axis). Using EQ to bring up the on-axis response actually increases the total amount of energy put into the room. The significance here is that without the constant directivity, there is too little HF information sent out into the room - we want both the direct on-axis sound and the indirect off-axis sound to have the same tonal balance.

To look at the raw on-axis response and proclaim it a "squawker" isn't looking at the full picture.

All that said, going 3-way poses the problem of being able to match the polars to the tweeter. And even if you can get near identical nominal coverage, you still have to deal with the tweeter being physically placed somewhere around the K402, which makes it really hard to get the sound to gel...not to mention new and different distortion characteristics which will mess with the timbre. Going from the bass bin to the tweeter is already dramatic enough...the last thing we need is a huge discontinuity right in the middle of the midrange (where our hearing is most acute too).

So with all that in mind, the K402 with K69 is actually good to 18kHz, which you'll find is on par with the K77 and K79 tweeters. So if you're satisfied with the highs of the original Heritage, then there's no reason you shouldn't be satisfied with the K402-K69 combo.

Now if you're not satisfied with the HF performance, then a better alternative would be to use a better driver than the K69. The HF limitation is due to the driver, not the horn....so if you put a driver that can go higher than 18kHz, then you're going to achieve better HF performance. You might look into one of the TAD drivers, or you might also look into some of the newer (and more expensive) drivers from B&C. The cost increase for the better driver is gonna be about the same as doing a proper 3-way - but the advantage is no loss in cohesiveness (and arguably the sound should improve throughout the entire passband, not just the highs).

In my opinion, the CP-25, CT-125, K77, K79, or any other similiar flavor tweeter is not gonna be a good match to the K402. I wouldn't go with a JBL2404 either. But if you do decide to go 3-way, then I would highly recommend going with the K1132 driver on the K402 instead of the K69.

Also, I feel that the K69 has better highs when mated on the K402 versus when mated on the K510.

[Islander]

Now if you're not satisfied with the HF performance, then a better alternative would be to use a better driver than the K69. The HF limitation is due to the driver, not the horn....so if you put a driver that can go higher than 18kHz, then you're going to achieve better HF performance.

A few weeks ago, I found a forum of guys who use pro audio drivers in their home systems, and one guy who appeared to know what he was talking about commented that the horn design is the crucial thing. His thought was that a great horn will sound good with most drivers, while a mediocre horn will sound poor no matter what driver you attach to it. He also mentioned that compression drivers nearly always need lots of EQ.

[luvmykhorns]

Now if you're not satisfied with the HF performance, then a better alternative would be to use a better driver than the K69. The HF limitation is due to the driver, not the horn....so if you put a driver that can go higher than 18kHz, then you're going to achieve better HF performance. You might look into one of the TAD drivers, or you might also look into some of the newer (and more expensive) drivers from B&C. The cost increase for the better driver is gonna be about the same as doing a proper 3-way - but the advantage is no loss in cohesiveness (and arguably the sound should improve throughout the entire passband, not just the highs).

Hmm i've never heard of B&C there, How much better are they compared to the klipsch drivers. I'm thinking maybe 2-Way would be interesting, if i could get that high end extension to 20khz

[PrestonTom]

Mike (Dr Who), Which (higher priced) B&C drivers are you referring to, I might be interested? A stock "replacement" for the K69 driver was a B&C 75 (I think - and I don't think these are still available).

The TADs would be fun, but they are quite expensive.

-Tom

[DrWho]

http://www.bcspeakers.com/index.php?sez=1&categoria=4&id_descrizione=46&prodotto=174

They're $600 a pop from US Speaker:
http://www.usspeaker.com/homepage.htm

[Deang]

I personally don't consider the B&C drivers to be any real step up over the driver Klipsch is using (the P.Audio BMD750). All of the titanium 2" drivers (regardless of manufacture) behave similarly. All of the supplied plots by the manufacturers show their drivers in the best possible light, and no two are measured on the same horn -- and there appears to be a good deal of variation between drivers of the same make and model as well. At any rate, if you look closely at all the plots and compare them, you can see how much alike they are -- they even all have the little peak at the end, which I think is caused by a resonance. Anyways, one might need less EQ with one over another, but you are still going to have to apply a liberal amount of EQ. Relatively simply to do with active setups IF you have a way to accurately measure and know what you're doing. As far as superior extension in a two-way configuration goes, I think all of the 2" titanium drivers fall a little short. They all show useable response out to 18kHz, but I'd bet the farm that only half of them can do it and none of them sound like it -- by that I mean -- like the way a tweeter sounds in a three-way.

I've spent quite a bit of time on the Lansing site and those guys swap drivers around like some people swap tubes. Even the much lauded beryllium diaphragms aren't without their own issues and you'll find some dropping back to Ti or Al. If I were going to try it as a three-way I would probably move away from the alloy diaphragms.

http://www.bmspro.info/index.php?show=item&usbid=10281&id=54367

[Don Richard]

As far as the HF extension...the directivity is constant so what you don't see is that the power response is mostly flat (except for the few peaks there in the middle). So if you compare the behavior against another system that is beaming the polars to gain on-axis sensitivity, then the K402-K69 without EQ is actually putting the same amount of energy into the room (it's just not focused on-axis). Using EQ to bring up the on-axis response actually increases the total amount of energy put into the room. The significance here is that without the constant directivity, there is too little HF information sent out into the room - we want both the direct on-axis sound and the indirect off-axis sound to have the same tonal balance.

To look at the raw on-axis response and proclaim it a "squawker" isn't looking at the full picture.

A lot of people freak out when they find out that a constant directivity horn requires EQ. Not to worry, however. In this case, phase is corrected as well as frequency response. Don't worry about the additional power delivery caused by EQ blowing the driver - there is simply not enough energy up there to cause problems. Same with any added harmonic distortion - it will be well above human hearing range. In the case of the k-402 & k-69 graphs that were presented it seems that most of the EQ was done on the low end anyway.

[Deang]

In the case of the k-402 & k-69 graphs that were presented it seems that most of the EQ was done on the low end anyway.

With the passive, the lower end is pulled down -- with active the upper end is pushed up.

To look at the raw on-axis response and proclaim it a "squawker" isn't looking at the full picture.

I didn't say it was a squawker (which is really used to describe a horn). You don't have a "full picture" until you get a horn and start fiddling with the response to make it do what you want it to do. The only picture I care about is the one showing it dropping like a rock where midrange drivers normally drop like a rock -- it ain't a tweeter until you add enough correction so you can call it one.