Jubilee comments/discussion continued.

[ClaudeJ1]

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

take care,

roy

Well yes, I live with it every day, but it's on MWM's. I love the sound of my simpleton networks. Pun intended.

[DrWho]

I've never heard any PA equipment that can hold a candle to a really nice tube amplifier on Khorns.

I have.

Do any of us really know what the original sound was? No, and even if we thought we did, it would only be a subjective evaluation, one mans opinion.

But we can learn what speaker distortions sound like and be fairly confident that those distortions weren't intended in the mix. Of course, that only works when someone has actually learned what speaker distortions actually sound like...so far, I'm yet to hear it be construed as even remotely musical...

[DrWho]

Since you brought it up Mike. How do you know Bose 901's are not accurate? From my point of view, Bose did with the 901 exactly as Roy did with the Jubilees. They used processing equipment to take a raw speaker design and integrated the speaker and the processing together to produce a product for market.

Well you could always measure it...901's have gobs of distortion. Also, the Bose processor module isn't just EQ...it adds distortion to give the effect of more bottom end - basically a harmonic synthesizer.

The 901 needs the EQ to sound the way the engineers intended for them to sound, just as the Jubilees need the DSP to sound the way they are intended. I see a lot alike with the approach to designing these two very different speakers.

No offense, but if balancing networks (whether active or passive) are a determining factor for similarity, then just about every quality speaker out there is the exact same approach (according to your logic).

Btw, the Jubilees do not 'require' DSP - there is a perfectly acceptable passive xover that will yield better sensitivity than the Khorn.

Just don't be surprised if your tonal balance goes to crap, since you're using SET - as the impedance response of the Jub is quite different than the Khorn (and just about all SET is high output impedance). Zobels can alleviate that deviation, but I have a feeling that zobels will sound more dry (clinical?) than what you've got happening with the Khorn.

Let's not confuse bandwidth with accuracy when a response is made to these statements. Within the frequency range that the 901's work in, how do we know they are not accurate? I'm sure they could be made more accurate by adding more processing and electronics into the mix. Would this make them sound better?

Are you really being serious here??? The point you're trying to make is so far off the mark that it almost doesn't even warrant a reply...sheesh

[DrWho]

Accuracy and truthfulness to the real time event or accuracy in the sense of faithfully reproducing the signal? With the former, I think of an unamplified female vocalist standing at the center of a stage, where the sound is originating from a small oriface. Wouldn't a single small, single driver monitor with a ruler flat frequency response produce the most "accurate" reproduction of this event? What of the different studio micophone techniques and the recording engineers who provide a multitude of manipulations to the signal, and executing this process while listening to Lord knows what -- does the word "accuracy" really have any relevance in this context? So, in as much as having a loudspeaker that faithfully or "accurately" reproduces the real time event -- well, good luck with that.

With the latter, or faithfully reproducing the signal or material, which is objectively better; a monitor that has an on-axis response of +/-2dB from 40Hz to 20kHz or a horn loaded system that is +/-7dB from 40Hz to 15kHz? Someone will say that PWK put FR fourth on the list of things that matter the most, but hey -- someone else will say how non-sensical that is when speaking in the context of "faithfully reproducing" the signal. I hate to disappoint here, but a haggard response is a form of "coloration".

To an extent, I totally agree...but I think there is one major component missing...

To me, it seems totally obnoxious to engage in a philosophical perspective of measurements and their meaning without any experience with the measurements oin the first place!

For instance, let's argue frequency response as it pertains to percieved accuracy....how many hear have actually engaged in anechoic measurements? How bout gated measurements in a room? Ground planes? 1/8 space? Full spectrum noise source with RTA? How many have done it to more than one speaker? Or how bout just about every speaker they've heard (or cared to discuss the measurements about)?

Or how many have actually extensively measured distortion? or polars? Or impulse responses? ETCs? Power response? Time alignment? Impedance?

And I'm not talking about reading one spec from a magazine and comparing that to a manufacturer claims and then comparing that to some home brew stupid test tone + SPL meter. The only time measurements are meaningful is when every device under test is measured with the same equipment in the same environment with the same conditions. Anything beyond that requires interpretive compensation from the user, which, until becomming familiar with the trends and correlations, is completely crazy to start assuming.

It's a bit disturbing for me to be the young guy bringing this up, but I simply cannot fathom how someone can engage in a discussion of objective correlation in audio without having any experience whatsoever. I have always been a musician first and engineer second when it comes to audio, but the experience I have with measurements indicates that many are totally unaware to the power it can give you when trying to tailor a sound to what you want. Knowing what you want is where the art comes into play; the measurements and physics are the means (or limitations) of getting there (in a logical fashion)...

All that to say, there seems to be some implied mysticism about objective data and its inability to be correlated to perception...which to me is a screaming sign that someone does not have enough (or any) experience with the measurement in question.

So with all that in mind...where do we see the numbers not resulting in more perceived accuracy? Or where do we see the diminishing returns? Do we need a +-0.01 degree phase response or a -1000dB noise floor? 0.5Hz to 5GHz frequency response? Chocolate coated woofers?

Btw, I wasn't trying to aim this at el Deano over there...he just got me going with the frequency response thing (though I totally agree with him on it).

[Marvel]

Just don't be surprised if your tonal balance goes to crap, since you're using SET - as the impedance response of the Jub is quite different than the Khorn (and just about all SET is high output impedance). Zobels can alleviate that deviation, but I have a feeling that zobels will sound more dry (clinical?) than what you've got happening with the Khorn.

Hmmm... the output on my Moondogs is 8 ohms. That is what the output transformer is for. Plus, I built constant impedance networks for my LS. Rigma uses passives on his Jubiliees if I remember right, and 300B amps.

Bruce

[DrWho]

I was just commenting that the effective "equalization" resulting from the impedance interface is going to be different - and if things are dialed in to the point of perfection on the khorns, then that deviation is going to be "away from perfection" if you change it in any way.

[ClaudeJ1]

I was just commenting that the effective "equalization" resulting from the impedance interface is going to be different - and if things are dialed in to the point of perfection on the khorns, then that deviation is going to be "away from perfection" if you change it in any way.

True. I still say the transducer array makes a much greater sonic difference than the darn amplifiers, as long as they have low distortion and a source impedance less than or equal to the largest impedance dip of the Xover and drivers together, the power will transer, and it will make music.

[ClaudeJ1]

BTW, perfection in audio of any kind doesn't exist. It's all an illusion.....................but a mighty good illusion for many of us.