Hybrid Trachorn

[cjgeraci]

Hey Carl, would you happen to have any measurements?

I'll reserve any opinion, pro or con, on the Jubilee and the K402 or K510 on top until I listen to a pair properly set up. Maybe, in the near future, I'll be able to clear some time to hear Coytee's pair since he is probably the closest owner to me, proximity-wise.

Now, back to Trachorns...............

No, no measurements yet. Its been on my list after I get my "honey doos" done. I have a Behringer Ultra Curve Pro that I need to dig out of the closet. My intellectual curiosity begs me to square some time away from Cub Scouts, family, religion, work, and other commitments to actually sit down and measure these suckers. They sound great, but I am curious to see how they actually measure.

Time to research old threads in there to reacquaint me with the Behringer, how it works, what to place the settings on, and where to place the mic.

BTW, I do agree with Blvdre's comments about crossing over the 902s on the low end. They can take 500 hz, first order, but they don't like it much. There is more distortion at higher spl levels as opposed to a steeper slope at that cutoff or moving the bottom end up to a higher low end cutoff. If crossing them over at 500 hz on the bottom, I would use a minimum of a 24 db slope or depending on what you are using for the bottom end, higher than that. I currently cross mine over either at 620 hz or 800 hz on the bottom, with a 18 db slope. They are a bit cleaner at 800 hz, but not much.

Carl.

[ZAKO]

The reason explained to me in one audio white paper about the 1.4 throats was to eliminate the extension from a 1.4 to a 2" on the ol drivers.. and bring the Diaphram and phase plug up closer to the newer horn throats. Supposed to give a scosh lower distortion,,, I dont know about that... Need a good 1.4 horn for that,,, Sure didnt work here... Would have liked to use a TAD TD4003 or a TD 4002 with out the adaptor for evaluation.

[sfogg]

"I dont know about that... Need a good 1.4 horn for that,,, Sure didnt work here... "

What horn and what driver did you actually listen to?

Shawn

[greg928gts]

Am I the only one who sees a striking similarity between Bose 901's and the equalizer needed to make them sound right and the 402/69 and the equalizer that is necessary to make them sound right?

Greg

[whatever55]

Well I am confused. As far as I know, Mike K does not have the K-402 horn. He does not have standard factory Jubilees. He has Golden Jubilees. Here is a picture he sent me of the horn he got with the Golden Jubilees.

Bob

OK... What are the golden Jubilees ???

[Deang]

I'm pretty sure it's a reversed engineered effort of what Valerie Klipsch has sitting in her sitting room -- one of the original prototypes. She has a copy of the original plans for the bass bin so it's probably fairly close to the current production model from Klipsch. The horn is a cloned K-403 horn and it was probably sent with the B&C 75 or one of its varients. The prototype had a passive network in it, I know this because I saw/handled it. It seems difficult to believe that this particular clone wasn't delivered with the same network -- as opposed to no network and an EV DX-38 solution.

Presuming what was sent to Mike K. was engineered, built, and integrated properly, we learn that what PWK liked lasted about 30 seconds at the hands and ears of an "expert" -- and this doesn't have much of anything to do with what some of us have experienced with the current solution by Delgado.

The Martinelli horn might be using the BMS 4590 or 4592ND coaxial, as Martinelli was a BMS dealer at one time.

http://www.auraaudio.fi/Pdf/BMS/bms-4590.pdf

At any rate, without measurements to substantiate claims of superiority (or inferiority), what one says they are hearing isn't of much use.

As for Mike K., I'm sure he's a great guy and whether he borders at genius or not -- he's also the same guy who once swore that Al's Universal Type A was the greatest advancement for the Klipschorn, wrote a raving review and showered Al with elaborate praise (which Al had posted on his site for years) -- and later (much later), decided there was something "wrong" with the sound and went back to the Type A or AA.

[J.4knee]

Am I the only one who sees a striking similarity between Bose 901's and the equalizer needed to make them sound right and the 402/69 and the equalizer that is necessary to make them sound right?

Greg

Yep yer the only one who can make that connection.[H]

[sfogg]

Am I the only one who sees a striking similarity between Bose 901's and the equalizer needed to make them sound right and the 402/69 and the equalizer that is necessary to make them sound right?

A horn like the K510 with a driver with EQ to handle the CD nature of the horn sounds very different then a 901. The K510/driver/EQ sounds right, the 901 never does. It is far too rolled off on the top end even with the EQ in place.

Shawn

[greg928gts]

It's interesting to me that some of these mid horns are actually quite small compared to the size of the driver. There must be a relationship between driver size and horn, and how much of each is contributing to the overall sound.

Those Martinelli horns are relying on a much higher percentage of the overall sound being contributed by the driver itself as compared to the horn, with the overall proportion of driver to horn being much greater than that of the stock Khorn 400/55 combo for example. I would conclude that the quality of the driver is much more important with this Martinelli setup, or ones similar, than with a horn/driver combo that has a much larger horn contributing to the overall sound.

With a horn/driver combo that has a higher proportion being contributed by the driver, I think it's likely that any horn-related nastiness (coloration, distortion, or that "horn" sound) will be minimized, and in the whole mix of things, the listener will be hearing more of the driver itself. More like a speaker that uses a cone midrange driver without a horn.

I'm looking forward to building my own wooden tractrix horns with high quality 2" drivers and utilizing them within the tophats of the my Khorns. This is what drew me to this Hybrid Trachorn thread in the first place.

Greg

[sfogg]

Dean,

Thanks, so what we learned here is a non-Klipsch built horn is built lousy and with who knows what driver also sounds lousy. And that some people are confused about what horn they were actually listening to.

If the DSP was being used one also wonders what settings were used for it? If someone just copied and pasted the K402/69 settings into the crossover on a 403ish horn that would be all screwed up since it would be applying CD type boost to a horn that collapses the verticals to apply EQ itself.

"and it was probably sent with the B&C 75 or one of its varients. "

Which would entail a 2" to 1.4" adapter since the K403, and presumably the copy, is a 1.4" horn. Going down in size in an adapter is just asking for sonic trouble. Heck going up in size doesn't always work either. When I had the 902 on the K510 that was a really ragged lumpy sounding combination that just wasn't right. Wasn't the 902 or the K510s fault, both sound dramatically different (better) with different horns/drivers. The 1" to 2" adapter was really killing that combo.

How exactly does any of this apply to the Klipsch Jubilee?

Shawn

[greg928gts]

Am I the only one who sees a striking similarity between Bose 901's and the equalizer needed to make them sound right and the 402/69 and the equalizer that is necessary to make them sound right?

A horn like the K510 with a driver with EQ to handle the CD nature of the horn sounds very different then a 901. The K510/driver/EQ sounds right, the 901 never does. It is far too rolled off on the top end even with the EQ in place.

Shawn

For crying out loud, I didn't say they sounded the same. Geeez. Of course they don't sound the same. I'm talking about the design approach.

The Bose engineers knew that nine little ninety nine cent drivers in a MDF box weren't going to produce bass or highs, and I believe that anyone designing a mid horn, who starts with a CD horn design, knows the limitations there too. I think there are fundamental similarities to both designs, and I don't think either is the best approach to speaker design.

And, how can the 901 be too rolled off? Just turn the highs up higher. This is what DSP or equalization or any processing has to offer isn't it? Just tweak the sound all over the place to make it right, no need to have it be right naturally, just EQ the hell out of it.

BTW, I have no problem with processing a system, as long as it is understood that adding the electronics in line and processing takes something away from the purity of the sound. The argument is really between what is gained from processing versus what is lost. I have two systems up and running right now that are processed, the four-way MCM system and the two-way Jubilee system. Both are spectacular in their own ways, but neither comes close to capturing the "life" of music the way my minimalist Khorn system does.

Greg

[sfogg]

Greg,

"For crying out loud, I didn't say they sounded the same. "

Read what you wrote again. You said the 901 needs the EQ to make them sound right, they don't sound right even with the EQ. The K510 with driver and EQ does.

"I'm talking about the design approach. "

By taking that tact there is no difference in speaker design between any speakers out there. Buy one or more drivers, maybe put them in a box and maybe use a crossover to make them play music. That is a very broad scope.

"And, how can the 901 be too rolled off? Just turn the highs up higher."

Nope, they are still too rolled off up top and then become to forward/hard in the upper midrange.

"This is what DSP or equalization or any processing has to offer isn't it? "

Not even close. The 901 has a single control for the high end. You can't alter where it applies the boost, how wide of a bandwidth it applies to boost... all you have is gain. It is basically just a treble control in the 901s 'EQ' module. DSP with multiple filters is a totally different animal then that. You can dial in exactly what the system needs without screwing up other areas. With DSP/EQ you could *attempt* to gain back the top end without making the upper midrange forward/hard but in doing so you would end up putting a lot of power up top into those drivers which may or may not be able to handle it.

"no need to have it be right naturally....but neither comes close to capturing the "life" of music the way my minimalist Khorn system does. "

Your K'Horn has processing in it, you just don't recognize it for what it is. Crossovers are altering the natural response of the horn and driver. They are doing it to make the system sound better then it natrually does, that is what DSP is for too.

Shawn

[Deang]

There is something inherently different about the sound when it is run through a processing unit -- I've given up trying to find the words to describe it. I tried it both ways, and much preferred the sound with passive filters.

[sfogg]

Dean,

"There is something inherently different about the sound when it is run through a processing unit --"

The amp to driver interface is inherently different between a bi/tri-amped system and a system using passive crossovers.

The biggest problem with the DSP boxes (with analog input/outputs) is that IME most people that use them don't maximize resolution through them. If someone is listening to a system that is using 3 bits of resolution through a DSP processor that *is* going to sound really lousy. But is that the DSPs fault or the users fault?

Shawn

[bodcaw boy]

There is something inherently different about the sound when it is run through a processing unit -- I've given up trying to find the words to describe it. I tried it both ways, and much preferred the sound with passive filters.

but the passive are "processing" as well, right?

[Coytee]

Wow...

It's been a while since we've had a good ole fashioned brawl....

Where's Craig....I need a good punch in the face...

[:S] [] [*-)]

[Don Richard]

The Bose engineers knew that nine little ninety nine cent drivers in a MDF box weren't going to produce bass or highs, and I believe that anyone designing a mid horn, who starts with a CD horn design, knows the limitations there too. I think there are fundamental similarities to both designs, and I don't think either is the best approach to speaker design.

The BoSe engineers, and I use the term very loosely, didn"t and don"t know anything, apparently. By relying upon reflected sound rather than direct sound they ensured that this attempt at making a transducer would be a failure. No knowledgeable loudspeaker designer would intentionally design any product to create early reflections. In fact, nearly all loudspeaker designers try very hard not to let that happen. Early reflections cause comb filtering and time smearing, which have been shown to reduce fidelity and realism by everyone who measures and listens to loudspeakers.

Attempts to use these speakers for vocal sound reinforcement were total failures. Intelligibility was much lower than horn-loaded speakers, proven by Don Davis of SynAudCon, in a well-known test done at a university in Indiana, IIRC.

And then we come to distortion. PWK measured modulation distortion in the 901 to be an order of magnitude worse than a Heresy. Harmonic distortion was so bad that Total Harmonic Distortion is a sufficient description - no numbers required.

Klipsch speakers are well designed transducers. BoSe speakers are junk. It's as simple as that.

[ZAKO]

Sfogg There is alot of conjecture and supposcion going on as to what was attached to the horn,,,No adapters were needed to mate driver to horn,,,Xovers were correct..... Horn is a stinko,,, I dont know who the manufactur is but they should be takin out in the back ally,,Horsewhipped,, and salt rubbed into the wounds,,,Left for the rats to finish off. Or should I save that for the armchair intelligencia here???

[greg928gts]

I've had the opportunity over the last couple of years to hear several two-way systems, and of course I have one now setup at my shop. As I'm listening to a two-way system, I can appreciate the smoothness of the high end with the lack of a crossover point, but I have a hard time with all the mid/upper frequencies coming from one point. I don't really know why that is. I have always thought I would like a two-way system better and I've always kept an open mind to any speaker design. Maybe it's just that I've gotten so used to hearing the highs from a separate driver.

I'll keep enjoying the Jubs, even with them being only a two-way and with the "life" being sucked out of the music by all the processing.

Boy, the "Defend the Jub" crowd is so easy to get going.

BIG difference between a "A" network and the kind of processing that's needed to smooth out the Jubs.

For the Jubilee bass bins, why not ? just design an exponential or, how about a square tractrix horn and mate it with a really nice sounding driver from Beyma or TAD, add a simple network and BAM! You've got a successor to the Khorn legacy. A real advancement in the state of the art of building fully horn loaded loudspeakers. There is no other company in the world that should be doing this any more than Klipsch.

Greg

[sfogg]

"There is alot of conjecture and supposcion going on as to what was attached to the horn,,,No adapters were needed to mate driver to horn,,,"

Then your earlier slamming of the K69 is BS since you weren't listening to a k69. A k69 won't fit a k403 clone with an adaptor.

".... Horn is a stinko,,, I dont know who the manufactur is but they should be takin out in the back ally"

Shouldn't have been calling it a Jubilee horn and a K402 earlier then. So all your negative comments about it don't apply to anything coming from Klipsch.

Pretty sad it took 5 pages of posts before it came out that you were listening to a third party system, not anything from Klipsch and were slamming those that have a system different then what you were listening to.

Shawn