Jubilee comments/discussion continued.

[mikebse2a3]

Mike - we've hijacked a thread here, so this is perhaps not the best place to get into a long response, so I'm going to keep this short.

I respect what you're saying, but I disagree with a lot of it.

The rabid response from Jubilee owners is the reason why I've kept quiet about my experience. My experience with Jubilee ownership has been mostly positive, and I do think they are better than Khorns for the most part. I love listening to my Jubs, there are just things about them that I'm critical of, just like we all are critical of certain elements of the mighty Khorn. It's o.k. to talk about the shortcomings of the Khorn, but mention one little criticism of the Jubilee and 500-word emotional responses follow.

Well I don't know about this Greg. Anytime opinions about shortcomings of speakers is mentioned on this forum you'll get responses from I agree to no this is what's wrong but unfortunatly alot of the responses are based of unfounded/unsupported opinion and uncontroled listening situations and ......facts be dam.

Give me a break "rabid responses" reacting to bad/misleading information is wrong and trying to get the facts out is wrong? Believe me if it wasn't for the fact that I know better and some people actually do benefit from correcting the bad information I would have given up spending valuable time trying get accurate information on the forum.

So what would you do Greg when you know the info people are being given is simply wrong or unfounded for who knows what reason?

Since when has anyone including Roy claimed the Jubilee is perfect?

How many discussions have there been where misleading information, unfounded opinions have been used just to argue on the forum and thus we are not really able to develope an open exchange on the subject of the Jubilee on the forum.

So you own Jubilee's. I for one would be very interested in what you think!

Could you describe what your setup is like so I understand better were your opinions are coming from.

I'm critical of the way Klipsch as a company has abandoned the advancement of the state-of-the-art of designing fully horn-loaded loudspeakers. If the Jubilee really is that great, then why doesn't Klipsch put it in their product line up, one step up from the Khorn? I think this is exactly what they should do.

"Slapped together" IS a bit harsh, but we ARE talking about products made for movie theaters.

When I said digital processing, I was mostly talking about the equalization needed. Can you think of another well-known speaker that needs equalization to make it sound right? I can, I'm just not going to say it here. It's not how PWK EVER designed a speaker.

No Paul used his collasping vertical polar angle of his horns to EQ the best he could at the time. Compression drivers have to be EQ'd whether its by collasping the horn or compensating for it in the drive voltage supplied to the system. The problem is using the horn to do it means the Power response delivered into the room is uneven and varies over the systems frequency range which in reality adds to unpredictable colorations from the loudspeaker/room/listener integration.

So now we can easily compensate for the compression driver's response with digital compensation and maintain even polar responses into the room. This means the on axis and off axis responses more closely matches for a less colored more accurate room/speaker/listener integration.

So if you want to talk about advancing the art of loudspeakers, digital processing is the next frontier and it will be an important part of the cutting edge of sound reproduction for now and the future.

As far as "it's not how PWK Ever Designed a speaker" Don't sell PWK short! I believe he was a man whom once shown a proven better way was open to that change. (for example changing from exponential to tratrix horn technology)

It's not how WE buy them that's the problem, I agree, it's a great way to buy. It's how so many others are not able to buy them that is the problem.

Good post Mike, maybe we should start another thread. But I'm scared!

Greg

Don't be scared![]

mike tn

[DrWho]

It's o.k. to talk about the shortcomings of the Khorn, but mention one little criticism of the Jubilee and 500-word emotional responses follow.

People get emotional about defending the khorn too [] (implication that everyone gets defensive when they 'think' they have the best).

Can you think of another well-known speaker that needs equalization to make it sound right?

Just about everything prosound/studio speaker is intentionally using equalization these days. 20 years ago, the pro sound industry was just as reluctant to the idea....

I find it very interesting all the observations made about how the consumer industry technology is about 20 years behind the pro industry...especially in light of the newer products and approaches we're just starting to see.

Equalization used in the wrong manner is absolutely horrid sounding, but there are times when it is actually a better solution.

Anyways, I would be very interested in a discussion about the shortcomings of the Jubilee....however, I think it's important to not just simply blaim the things we're uncomfortable with or ignorant of (myself included). Though it seems the biggest thing the history teachers always wanted to cram down our throats is that humans keep making the same mistakes...one of which is destroying things we know nothing about. So I guess from an engineering perspective, I should never expect humans to not be afraid of the unknown...though I'm young enough to hope for it anyway.

[greg928gts]

O.k., here goes.

Please understand that my critique of the Jubilee is from a constructive standpoint, I'm a Jubilee fan! The design is interesting, but I would have done it differently though.

Here's what I like. First off, I like the Jubilee better than my Khorns in a number of ways. The Jubilee is voiced stronger in the bass than Khorns which I prefer, and the overall presentation is bigger and more forward sounding than the Khorn. Instead of the bass gently coming at you from around the room, the Jub pushes it right out at you with authority. The bigger midrange driver and huge horn sound totally different than the Khorn, and at first I would have said better, but after listening for a few months now, I don't know.

I got the K402/K69 with the Jub bass bins all from Klipsch earlier this year. I bought two of the Crown amplifiers that were recommended and the EV DX138. I went with both so I could try both setups. Currently I've got a AH! Njoe Tjoeb CD source to a Creek OBH-10 passive remote control volume, to the EV to the Crown amps (with DSP off) to the Jubs. This is set up in my small room at my shop, really too much speaker for the room, but boy it's impressive at high volume levels!

I've also tried the system in my living room (for as long as I could get away with, WAF) with one of the Crown amps on the bass and my SET tube amps on the horns with much better results from the tube amps on the horns.

I do not like the sound of the Crown amplifiers. They're o.k. on bass, but just terrible on the high end. They have a very odd tonal quality, among other things. My 30 year old McIntosh MC2105's are so much better sounding, like night and day.

My basic problem with the Jubilees, is that one needs to add the electronic pieces into the system in order to make them work properly. I don't like adding these components in line. I don't think it should be that way. I think a speaker should be designed so it is more or less reasonably flat in response, and it should do so with minimal electronics in the crossover. I much prefer a very simple chain from source to speaker, with as few components as possible mucking up the sound. There is a purity to the sound that I have become accustomed to ever since my first experience with SET tube topology with Khorns. I still remember that day.

Every time I have ever added electronics like equalizers or active crossovers into my system I have lost the fidelity in the system. I'm the type of person who would love to have the control of a 1/3-octave EQ sitting on my lap when listening to music, and I'm sure I'd find a way to change the EQ for every song I listened to. But the downside to putting one of these in line is too great, it is not what I consider audiophile quality sound. I've had years of experience running a large PA system, so I'm very familiar with the need to equalize the sound from room to room. I understand what is gained by processing the sound, but I also understand what is lost, and it's just not an acceptable trade-off for me.

I think there are two camps out there, one camp goes for the idea of processing and the advantages that brings, and the other camp prefers the minimilist approach with the advantages that brings.

Sitting eight feet in front of a K402/K69 horn, I would describe the sound as grainy and edgy. When I back away from them, I notice the sound smooth out. This is especially true with the Crown amplifiers. The higher the volume level, the more I notice this. I don't know how much of this is the horn/driver itself or how much is due to the electronics. Since I need the electronics to make the system work, I'll never know the answer to that. Overall, I would give this horn/driver combo a 5/10. The 2" driver and the dispersion from the K402 provides a much bigger soundstage, and the sound is very even, no matter where I go in the room. I don't notice any beaming or ringing. But I've been able to listen to these horns now for a few months, and I don't think they are for me, long term. Like a lot of people, I'm looking for alternatives for my Khorn mids too.

I really don't like the high frequencies produced by the K402/K69. I think the Jub could really benefit with the addition of a nice tweeter like the Beyma CP-25. Of course, then we're talking three-way and that becomes even more complex on the electronic side of things. I really thought I would like the two-way approach, but I was surprised that I really missed having a separate tweeter. I just like three-way speakers.

I think the Jubilees would be much better in a three-way configuration, with a midrange horn that didn't need equalization to be reasonably flat, and a simple first-order crossover network. This would be a natural progression of the Khorn. Stronger bass, a 2" throat midrange horn, a nicer sounding tweeter, higher efficiency, and all in about the same footprint as the Khorn. A true natural progression of the fully horn-loaded concept.

So that's it, that's my critique of the Jubilee. I'm having fun with them. I'm very lucky to be able to have several nice systems to listen to. I enjoy them all, whether it's the Khorns, the Jubilees or the MCM system, they are all very special in their own way.

Greg

[mikebse2a3]

Anyways, I would be very interested in a discussion about the shortcomings of the Jubilee....however, I think it's important to not just simply blaim the things we're uncomfortable with or ignorant of (myself included).

Yes! I totally agree.

Greg just to make sure there is know misunderstanding I have started this thread with the hope of have a factual discussion of the Jubilee with honest opinions based on first hand experience so that we all can have a better understanding of what and why we think and make the choices we do in our systems. This exchange of thoughts is the best way to learn and comprehend new ideas which I'm always eager to discover.

I honestly have my doubts from past experiences with some posters that this can happen but lets see.

mike tn[]

[mikebse2a3]

Great Post Greg and very clear explanation of your experiences and thoughts up to this point.

We crossed post and I'm heading out for a while but I will respond later.

Thanks again for posting your thoughts.

mike tn

[greg928gts]

This is hard Mike, I don't want to quote the whole thing over again, too hard to read.

The rabid response thing - what you are perceiving as wrong or unfounded is your opinion. It's the defense of those opinions that I find to be "rabid" in the case of Jubilee owners, based on reading all the Jub threads. Much more so than with Khorn critiques.

I think there's a big difference in what you are calling "EQ" that PWK did and what I'm talking about. I think "collapsing vertical polar angles", or first-order crossovers are acceptable ways to produce a speaker system that is relatively flat in its response. I don't even call that EQ or processing, it's simply good speaker design. What I don't like is the addition of multiple ten cent components within the signal stream frigging up the whole sound before it even gets to the speaker.

If digital processing is the next frontier, why are so many audiophiles going back to vinyl? I'm not convinced that digital processing is the next frontier of audiophile listening. It may be a frontier for some systems, but it's not something I'll be searching for in my system. Why is it so difficult for some people to recognize that less is more when it comes to high fidelity? I hear some of you talking about how the home audio industry is 20 years behind and I can't figure out how you are missing what has happened and is happening in our industry. The advancements in the last 20 years for audiophile systems have been to simplify and produce higher quality components using higher quality parts. We are very close to some of these innovators right here in our own forum, NOSValves and Juicy Music come to mind. I don't see the "advanced" digital processing being implemented in their work.

Sure I believe PWK was an innovator and as such always open to new ideas, but I didn't know Paul, so I can't say what he would think of the K402/K69 or the Palladium for that matter. But I think designing a speaker that needs electronic tweaking is a step backwards. JMO.

Greg

[Marvel]

Greg,

I have only heard the Jubilees at the 2007 Pilgrimage, but offer these few comments. I know that Rigma is using low power tube gear on his homebuilt Jubilees, using passive crossovers that Roy designed. This may be something that you should try. If you aren't constantly swapping out drivers and horns, etc., this may work well for you. It is the path I would follow if I were to buy Jubes, because I don't want to have all the extra electronics either. I know he is switching to some TAD drivers, and the crossover change for him is substantial. He may have his originals that he could send you on loan to try (nice of me to offer, isn't it?) Or to to get the schematic and build a set for yourself. If you aren't into the crossover building, perhaps someone on her could build them for you. I could do it if I had the parts... might not be too elegant, but I could have them work.

I only say that as a bunch of the folks have ditched the Crowns...

Bruce

[greg928gts]

Greg,

I have only heard the Jubilees at the 2007 Pilgrimage, but offer these few comments. I know that Rigma is using low power tube gear on his homebuilt Jubilees, using passive crossovers that Roy designed. This may be something that you should try. If you aren't constantly swapping out drivers and horns, etc., this may work well for you. It is the path I would follow if I were to buy Jubes, because I don't want to have all the extra electronics either. I know he is switching to some TAD drivers, and the crossover change for him is substantial. He may have his originals that he could send you on loan to try (nice of me to offer, isn't it?) Or to to get the schematic and build a set for yourself. If you aren't into the crossover building, perhaps someone on her could build them for you. I could do it if I had the parts... might not be too elegant, but I could have them work.

I only say that as a bunch of the folks have ditched the Crowns...

Bruce

Geez Bruce, that IS nice of you to offer!

I looked into building the passives when I got the Jubs, but the parts cost was very high. Actually there were three different versions that Dean gave me parts lists for. I guess the cheaper version was cheaper, but I thought I'd probably only be happy with the more expensive option. It's a curse. I wanted to try the speakers with the active crossover anyway, so I opted to go that route first.

Maybe someday I'll go with the passives, but I doubt it. I think I'll go in a different direction instead. I may be the first to find out what the resale value is on Jubilees!

Greg

[colterphoto1]

As one who is making a foray into a dedicated 2 channel room with very high quality sources, I too have a bit of philosophical problem with chopping my nice analog music into tiny bits for the purposes of digital processing (xover, delay, PEQ). I have yet to try it fully in my own listening room so will withhold judgement.

When I worked at Klipsch, I spent time at Hope with the Jubilees and did not find the digital processing objectionable. I heard noticable improvements by getting the xover slope very steep, adding delay to the horn, and tweaking some PEQ. Nor did I have any issue the Crown amplifiers that chief engineer Roy Delgado utilizes.

Let's just say that I'll have my Jubilee/digital/Crown array right next to some old Sansui iron and 72 Khorns. This should be fun!

I like Doc's comment about the pro world being reluctant to dive into digital processing, now it's everywhere.

The pilgrims had arrows in their backs (being on the forefront of the frontier hurts).

[Marvel]

Greg,

If you didn't live so far away you could probably come and have a listen without the pain of buying/building passives.

And please don't tempt me with the idea of Jubilees... I really can't afford them, even if on the used market. []

I'm seriously thinking of building some MWM cabinets. Other than the vast amount of wood involved, the build looks pretty easy.

Bruce

[whatever55]

Where did this start ???

[Marvel]

The JBL L-350 vs Khorns thread, but we didn't get into the Jubilee much there. This was to keep the other thread on topic.

Where did this start ???

[greg928gts]

I don't like being critical of someone elses work, especially when the criticism is a subjective evaluation.

I'm sorry Roy, this is why I have been quiet all these months.

I wish I had just kept my mouth shut.

For the most part I really enjoy cranking up the Jubs. I've had fun playing them for three different interested people. One of the three is a good friend of mine, not really an audiophile, but does listen very carefully to all my systems. He doesn't really like horns, so he is critical of everything I own, but he also provides me with good feedback on the various systems. He seemed to like the Jubs o.k. Another listener was Karl Foss, a member of our forum. I didn't get much feedback from him, it was late and he had to leave, so he didn't really say too much. I'd be curious to know what he thinks. The third guy is my crazy friend who is a Klipsch nut. Actually he's just a nut, but he finds me all kinds of interesting audio gear and old Kliipsch speakers to buy. He loved the Jubs, his jaw dropped when I turned them up. He was more impressed with the upper horns than the bass and actually told me he'd like a little less bass, which was very easy to do with the active digital processing unit!

Here's an interesting tidbit. I've noticed that no matter what, I always want to crank the Jubs up very loud. More so than I do with the Khorns. I can listen to the Khorns at a medium volume level and be as satisfied as I would be at a high volume, whereas with the Jubs I find that the louder I go the more I like it. I like the physical nature of sound anyway, and the Jubs really deliver that sensation. It's almost scary when you get these things cranked up. The MCM's are the same way, they'll clear the dust out of my shop! But neither of these systems has the subtleties and nuances that my Khorns with SET tube amps can deliver. I believe it's the simple signal chain, the high quality components, and well balanced speakers that make it so. I can EQ my MCM system till the cows come home and there's just no way it's going to have the audiophile quality of sound that my Khorn system has.

What I'd like to hear is a system that has the punch and impact of the Jubilees with the overall quality that I'm getting from my Khorn system. A true audiophile sound with real MEAT. We're not talking single-driver here folks.

Greg

[bodcaw boy]

I don't like being critical of someone elses work, especially when the criticism is a subjective evaluation.

I'm sorry Roy, this is why I have been quiet all these months.

I wish I had just kept my mouth shut.

For the most part I really enjoy cranking up the Jubs. I've had fun playing them for three different interested people. One of the three is a good friend of mine, not really an audiophile, but does listen very carefully to all my systems. He doesn't really like horns, so he is critical of everything I own, but he also provides me with good feedback on the various systems. He seemed to like the Jubs o.k. Another listener was Karl Foss, a member of our forum. I didn't get much feedback from him, it was late and he had to leave, so he didn't really say too much. I'd be curious to know what he thinks. The third guy is my crazy friend who is a Klipsch nut. Actually he's just a nut, but he finds me all kinds of interesting audio gear and old Kliipsch speakers to buy. He loved the Jubs, his jaw dropped when I turned them up. He was more impressed with the upper horns than the bass and actually told me he'd like a little less bass, which was very easy to do with the active digital processing unit!

Here's an interesting tidbit. I've noticed that no matter what, I always want to crank the Jubs up very loud. More so than I do with the Khorns. I can listen to the Khorns at a medium volume level and be as satisfied as I would be at a high volume, whereas with the Jubs I find that the louder I go the more I like it. I like the physical nature of sound anyway, and the Jubs really deliver that sensation. It's almost scary when you get these things cranked up. The MCM's are the same way, they'll clear the dust out of my shop! But neither of these systems has the subtleties and nuances that my Khorns with SET tube amps can deliver. I believe it's the simple signal chain, the high quality components, and well balanced speakers that make it so. I can EQ my MCM system till the cows come home and there's just no way it's going to have the audiophile quality of sound that my Khorn system has.

What I'd like to hear is a system that has the punch and impact of the Jubilees with the overall quality that I'm getting from my Khorn system. A true audiophile sound with real MEAT. We're not talking single-driver here folks.

Greg

greg,

don't be sorry, man! it's okay. at least you have heard them and can talk from experinence and i am okay with it. i have heard jubs with passive thru tubes and they made me go hummmmmm......never saw that coming. so it's okay i promise.

i think the jubs with the actives are about as real as it gets but this is just my opinion. so just go and crank them.

take care,

roy

[bodcaw boy]

This is hard Mike, I don't want to quote the whole thing over again, too hard to read.

The rabid response thing - what you are perceiving as wrong or unfounded is your opinion. It's the defense of those opinions that I find to be "rabid" in the case of Jubilee owners, based on reading all the Jub threads. Much more so than with Khorn critiques.

I think there's a big difference in what you are calling "EQ" that PWK did and what I'm talking about. I think "collapsing vertical polar angles", or first-order crossovers are acceptable ways to produce a speaker system that is relatively flat in its response. I don't even call that EQ or processing, it's simply good speaker design. What I don't like is the addition of multiple ten cent components within the signal stream frigging up the whole sound before it even gets to the speaker.

If digital processing is the next frontier, why are so many audiophiles going back to vinyl? I'm not convinced that digital processing is the next frontier of audiophile listening. It may be a frontier for some systems, but it's not something I'll be searching for in my system. Why is it so difficult for some people to recognize that less is more when it comes to high fidelity? I hear some of you talking about how the home audio industry is 20 years behind and I can't figure out how you are missing what has happened and is happening in our industry. The advancements in the last 20 years for audiophile systems have been to simplify and produce higher quality components using higher quality parts. We are very close to some of these innovators right here in our own forum, NOSValves and Juicy Music come to mind. I don't see the "advanced" digital processing being implemented in their work.

Sure I believe PWK was an innovator and as such always open to new ideas, but I didn't know Paul, so I can't say what he would think of the K402/K69 or the Palladium for that matter. But I think designing a speaker that needs electronic tweaking is a step backwards. JMO.

Greg

what is it that bothers you the most about the active processing, the peqs or the compensation for the top end? would it bother you if the peqs or compenstion for top end was done passively?

have you ever listened to a system that used 6db slopes for crossovers?

take care,

roy

[greg928gts]

what is it that bothers you the most about the active processing, the peqs or the compensation for the top end? would it bother you if the peqs or compenstion for top end was done passively?

have you ever listened to a system that used 6db slopes for crossovers?

take care,

roy

I'm not sure if there is a difference between a load of active electronics and a load of passive electronics from my point of view. Both seem unecessary to me.

Do we not have mid horn designs that are relatively flat in response? Are we not able to combine a relatively flat-response midrange horn with a relatively flat-response tweeter and a simple network that all improves on the Khorn design?

I would be much more interested in a design that included the Jub bass bin, a tractrix midrange horn with a high quality 2" mid driver, a lush sounding tweeter like the Beyma CP-25 and a simple network like the "A" network, but of course made to balance these particular drivers. This is not my expertise, but it just seems to me that compared to the Khorn, this combination would offer higher efficiency, a relatively flat frequency response, a deeper voicing, smoother response through the midrange, and sweeter highs. I could run a speaker like this (and achieve superior sound quality) with the same 2 watts per channel that I'm feeding into my Khorns.

In addition, the speakers could have grill cloth covering the bass bin openings, a nice veneer on the fronts, and a good looking cabinet for the top horn section. Then I would actually be allowed to put them in my living room!

Isn't the "A" network a 6db slope crossover?

Greg

[mikebse2a3]

Well Greg I guess the best response I can give to alot of what you have said is to tell you of where I come from in this hobby since you feel that jub owners fall into two camps.

I'm afraid I don't totally fit in either camp completely.

You see I've had a very respectable record system and if I had room and money for that I would still enjoy such a system. I've owned and modified and listened to many amplifiers from Solid State both single ended and push/pull, Tube amplifiers both Single Ended and Push/Pull with prices ranging from a few $100 to $15,000 and as many know $ don't always equate to better sound. I owned and used the OBH-10 that you mention and used it (along with a CD transport/Tube DAC) for many years directly feeding a single-ended 2A3 amplifier into my Klipschorns and I had many $2000 dollar pre-amplifiers pass through here that I wouldn't have traded it for. So you see I have been a minimalist for well over 10 years of this hobby and fully understand were someone is coming from with such a system and it's compromises as well.

So moving forward somewhat I went to a Musical Fidelity CD-Pre 24/96 (used as a CD Player only at the time) into a Cary SLP98L pre-amp driving either my single ended 2A3 amplifier or my 2A3 push/pull amplifier into Klipschorns and this was my system for several years and very enjoyable system it was.

Now I have the Jubilee hooked up in a system consisting of the Musical Fidelity CD-Pre 24/96 driving the EV DX38 which drives the 2A3 push/pull amp on the LF and the 2A3 single ended amp driving the K402/K69A and I absolutely IMO have not given up anything in detail or clarity, with out adding any edgeness or negatives that you might think the EV unit might add and I have gained all the other benefits that the Jubiilee and active crossovers can offer.

So to sum it up for me I've gained a great deal in sound quality and given nothing up to the previous minimalist system.

Like I said earlier I'm an Owner of Jubilees for 2 years now and I wouldn't dream of selling them. Of course as you said this is all my opinion but I can base it on facts and experiences so for what it's worth to anyone thats where I'm coming from when I talk of these things.

mike tn[]

[ZAKO]

Refer to my last comments on the ,,Khorn V JBL L350 site,,, Something better always comes along,,,sonicly,, It amaze,s me how fast audio technoligy is moving.

[Edgar]

have you ever listened to a system that used 6db slopes for crossovers?

For transient response comparable to that of 6 dB crossovers, but with much steeper rolloff rates, try this crossover topology. Copies of the paper are available free from me; just send a PM if interested.

Greg

[colterphoto1]

I'm way out of your guys' league but could I toss a theory out?

I recently purchased JC's Ah! tubed cd player. It's theory of operation is that the tubes 'round off' any jaggedness from the digital process (very simplified).

Could it be that running tube amps post digital processing via the DX38 does somewhat the same thing and tames any digital harshness that may be present in the EV unit?