Finally some high performance Klipsch speakers

[Tony L]

The “horn sound” manifests itself to me as a sort of beam of sound effect. It’s not just horns, Quad ESL 63s have poor vertical dispersion and the music sounds to me like it’s coming through a letterbox. During my experiments with speakers, I’ve realised that diffraction effects and reflections that disturb the presence region are really quite unpleasant. I don’t know if it’s because this presence region is heightened by Horn type speakers, but I find them less than ideal?

I’m the opposite. I love really directional speakers as long as they are setup well as you get the sound so much ahead of any room reflection. The video I took the piss out of upthread with the Jubilees setup in what looked like a reverb chamber (as most modern minimalist rooms are in effect) is amusing as if one has to live with a room as terrible as that then horns are by far the best way to deal with it. A conventional wide-dispersion speaker would sound exponentially worse as you’d get a shed-load of early reflections mixed in. Even in a really good well damped room like mine horns still offer an advantage and get closer to a studio control room or headphone perspective where you hear more of the acoustic of the recording, not of the room. A full-range fairly directional point-source remains my speaker ideal.

 

[Tang2502]

I don't know if you're old enough to remember - but in the late 80's Sony and Pioneer created perfectly measuring digital amps. End game. They were perfectly measuring.

Except nobody bought them (or uses them today)....because they sounded like cr4p.

give us some examples

 

[gez]

I think dynamics is, or in any event, is generally thought to be more than just whether a speaker scales up accurately and linearly from 40dB to 95dB, or whatever, though. For me, what matters far more is how well the speaker deals wit sudden and highly dynamic changes of level. Does the bass keep up with the treble, or is the note smeared because the time response isn’t so seamless across the various drivers, for example. If I hear a loud timpani, I want the speed of the attack, the weight of the ‘hit’, the pitch, and the decay and no blurring, smearing or slowing of that. I’m less bothered whether the level difference between before and the moment of strike is within a dB of what it should be, and much more interested in when it should be.

Like John, I see timing as a separate performance characteristic (smarter people than me may be able to confirm/deny if spl dynamics are somehow related to timing - in a real speaker, due to the physics of how they work I mean). That said, you probably have a point about the "instantaneous" abilty of the speaker to go from 40 to 95dBA, a "static" level frequency sweep at both SPL levels doesn't necessarily mean the speaker will actually go from 40 to 95 in an instantaneous way. If the drivers are massy for example it would be perfectly possible for them to accurately be able to achieve those SPL levels (accurate vs their input I mean) but they may take a fraction of a second to "settle" to the level, which of course would not be a good thing when reproducing music, as it might mean the impulse response to an input signal that should result in a 95dBA peak, may indeed be delayed.

Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced about the sensitivity of humans to timing and impulse responses. We're pretty bad at perceiving phase variation.

But I do totally get what you're saying about the leading edge, body, decay of notes. Otherwise called the notes envelope. I too believe it's important for a speaker to reproduce "realistically".. I'm just not sure technically how "perfect" the speaker would need to be in order for us to thus perceive the notes as realistic. I've never seen any study or speaker measurements that have made such a correlation. (clearly a correlation must exist).

 

[gez]

Is there not a clear distinction between ‘dynamics’ and ‘dynamic range’? One seems to me to be about a speaker’s ability to accurately reproduce the extremes of the loudness envelope, and the other is about how well it deals with rapid changes in loudness. These are not the same thing.

I think this is where different peoples interpretation of words comes in to effect. An engineer will probably tell you dynamics and dynamic range are one and the same thing. I would probably tend to that view and call what you're calling dynamics "impulse accuracy" or "timing accuracy" because it pertains to how quickly the speaker is responding as you say.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced about the sensitivity of humans to timing and impulse responses. We're pretty bad at perceiving phase variation.

Do you have anything you can point to that supports your basis for this view? My understanding is pretty much the opposite, and I thought there was a significant body of evidence to show that the human ear-brain is acutely sensitive to phase and timing in sound.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think this is where different peoples interpretation of words comes in to effect. An engineer will probably tell you dynamics and dynamic range are one and the same thing. I would probably tend to that view and call what you're calling dynamics "impulse accuracy" or "timing accuracy" because it pertains to how quickly the speaker is responding as you say.

I think the term 'dynamics' being plural, is more likely to be an envelope term for a number of related phenomena, of which 'dynamic range is only one'. 'Fluid dynamics', for example, is a field that encompasses a number of different aspects of the behaviour and motion of fluids, such as compressibility, viscosity, differences in behaviour due to ambient pressure or temperature changes, and so-on. I don't think 'dynamics' and 'dynamic range' are interchangeable terms, one is a subset of the other.

 

[gez]

Do you have anything you can point to that supports your basis for this view? My understanding is pretty much the opposite, and I thought there was a significant body of evidence to show that the human ear-brain is acutely sensitive to phase and timing in sound.

Accurate for location purposes yes, but less so for the topic we're talking about. I can't point at a specific study, it's just my understanding from stuff I've read over the years, including for example the fact that time aligned speakers are not universally praised by all. In my belief, if there was a high level of sensistivity to timing accuracy in humans I would expect speakers that excel at it to be universally accepted as doing so. That's not what I've read over the years.

I'm happy to have my point of view changed however, if you happen to have something to hand that says otherwise. I'm only going on things I've read over time.

 

[gez]

Oh heaven help us. If measurements were “universally useful” we’d all use them for every purchase. We don’t. That just might be the answer and the point.

The hilarious thing about measurements is that every discussion which has ever involved them includes a statement along the lines of “The measurements said this so I expected this. However, what I didn’t expect was…” So, no better than, what are they called again, oh yeah, “ears”.

Please confirm that you’re male and single. I’ll die of happiness then.

The ONLY thing that has ever been designed, adjusted, tested and perfected by the use of ears alone in the audio world, are instruments.

The world of audio recording and reproduction has never worked that way, it has always been based on measurements because thats how the people who create all the equipment involved in both chains are educated. You can't design an audio amplifier without understanding amplifier design, that requires knowlege of measurements and mathematics. Same for speakers, same for microphones, same for DACs and CD players, same for turntables or literally any peice of equipment you can name that may exist between the intrument and the sound you hear in your listening room.

No English major who failed mathematics ever designed a single piece of audio recording or reproductive equipment.

None of that matters to how you or anyone else may decide to evaluate a peice of audio reproduction equipment of course, but that with full respect to you, is a total irrelevance to the audio equipment industry and the people who work in it.

What amuses greatly about these discussions is that the audio world is the only industry based on electronics where anybody insists that anything but measurements and testing are needed. It doesn't happen in RF, in Telecommunications, in Microwave, in Aviation, or anywhere else where electronic engineering is the fundamental requirement to produce the equipment.

 

[gez]

Am I right in thinking that you're referring here to the Japanese amplifiers that were reported to measure almost perfectly but sound below par? If so, then this is a very interesting subject.

I was aware of these sort of items for many years and it was only a few years ago that one of them crossed my path. It was one of the Hitachi MOSFET power amplifiers - I forget which precise model it was, but it was one of the big ones!

It came to me in perfect working order, but it had been clouted in a house move and needed some physical repairs to its speaker terminals. I did this and then slotted it into my system to have a listen to it as I was well aware of its reputation as something that measured well but sounded pretty average, and I was keen to hear how this would manifest itself specifically in sonic terms.

Sadly, the experiment was a dismal failure. I spent nearly a week with it in my main system before it had to go back to the owner and the only conclusion I could reach was that it was, and remains still, one of the best power amplifiers I have ever encountered.

Maybe it was more damaged than I thought?!

I have always believed the whole "it measures well but sounds rubbish" mantra that was being touted against Japansese amplifiers of the day was the result of one thing and one thing only. British Audio industry protectionism.

 

[Steve 57]

Dynamics is a really interesting subject when it come to hifi, its a vital part of reproduction, but one in my view most systems sort of squash.
Many comments on this thread seem to be on similar thoughts.

I'm not imagining it.. there's something going on that not being measured
My mate is really into hifi measurements and says how difficult it is to measure what the ears/brain hear, and he has some very expensive test gear.

In reality the problem with hifi is that most people look at a circuit and think of it as a one way street leading to the speakers.
That so far from the truth.

 

[Beobloke]

I have always believed the whole "it measures well but sounds rubbish" mantra that was being touted against Japansese amplifiers of the day was the result of one thing and one thing only. British Audio industry protectionism.

Having heard some of the "rubbish" Japanese items in question (that aren't) and the "magnificent" British ones (that also aren't!), I can only agree with you.

 

[Tony L]

With regards to dynamics I suggest folk have a listen to a good classical or jazz piano recording via a good big pair of Klipsch speakers. I grew up in a house with a grand piano in it. I know that sound so well from every conceivable angle, though what I’m trying to get across here has nothing to do with volume level. Klipsch, from the little Heresy up, gets something right here 98% of speakers get wrong. It is a note-shape/envelope thing. They just do it right where the typical multi-way cone speaker with a crossover right in the middle just screw it up. The bigger the Klipsch the better it gets as that mid-horn covers so much of the range to which we are most critical of, e.g. a LaScala or KHorn has the range from 400Hz through to 6kHz covered by that huge mid-horn. The Jubilee will be even wider. I’m not saying Klipsch aren’t flawed elsewhere, they certainly are, but they definitely get the core essence of a piano right.

I think it is this ‘envelope thing’ that is why I am personally so uncomfortable with big modern high-mass multi-way speakers with drivers stacked up high in crazy heavy ported MDF coffins (Wilson, JM Labs, in fact pretty much anything expensive these days). I suspect it is a combination of wildly different driver heights, too many crossovers slicing the music horizontally, metal dome tweeters and ultra high mass cabs that just store energy. Give me a big horn mid or a panel every time!

PS One reason I love mini-monitors is, when done well, they are small and simple enough not to suffer from either the slicing or deadness even if they will never be able to do dynamic range or scale.

 

[jamesd]

i've been thinking a lot about measurements recently as I've gone back and forth with Yamaha integrateds and Line Magnetic integrateds (not with any intent, it's just how it's worked out). Brio-R > Yamaha AS-2000 > Line Magnetic 518ia SET > Yamaha AS-801 > LM 211ia EL-34 amp...and added a LM 12AU7 cd player at the same time.

I've lived with the Yamaha AS-801 for longer than any of them as I purchased it when we started having children and it was fuss-free and safe for little fingers. I believe the Yamaha measures very well. But putting in a small tube integrated and tube cd player at the same time, which I also assume measure worse....there's no contest. I would be shocked if any audiophile/listener/normal human being would prefer the Yamaha stack over the Line Magnetic stack. Speculation, but I'd put money on that.

 

[tuga]

I don't know if you're old enough to remember - but in the late 80's Sony and Pioneer created perfectly measuring digital amps. End game. They were perfectly measuring.

Except nobody bought them (or uses them today)....because they sounded like cr4p.

You seem to be talking about marketing. It might not actually be related to my post.

 

[Mike Hughes]

The ONLY thing that has ever been designed, adjusted, tested and perfected by the use of ears alone in the audio world, are instruments.

The world of audio recording and reproduction has never worked that way, it has always been based on measurements because thats how the people who create all the equipment involved in both chains are educated. You can't design an audio amplifier without understanding amplifier design, that requires knowlege of measurements and mathematics. Same for speakers, same for microphones, same for DACs and CD players, same for turntables or literally any peice of equipment you can name that may exist between the intrument and the sound you hear in your listening room.

No English major who failed mathematics ever designed a single piece of audio recording or reproductive equipment.

None of that matters to how you or anyone else may decide to evaluate a peice of audio reproduction equipment of course, but that with full respect to you, is a total irrelevance to the audio equipment industry and the people who work in it.

What amuses greatly about these discussions is that the audio world is the only industry based on electronics where anybody insists that anything but measurements and testing are needed. It doesn't happen in RF, in Telecommunications, in Microwave, in Aviation, or anywhere else where electronic engineering is the fundamental requirement to produce the equipment.

All valid points but entirely off topic if one goes back to the OP. Also rather misses the point that despite the manufacturing focus on measurements many a terrible speaker has been borne of exactly that.

 

[tuga]

With regards to dynamics I suggest folk have a listen to a good classical or jazz piano recording via a good big pair of Klipsch speakers. I grew up in a house with a grand piano in it. I know that sound so well from every conceivable angle, though what I’m trying to get across here has nothing to do with volume level. Klipsch, from the little Heresy up, gets something right here 98% of speakers get wrong. It is a note-shape/envelope thing. They just do it right where the typical multi-way cone speaker with a crossover right in the middle just screw it up. The bigger the Klipsch the better it gets as that mid-horn covers so much of the range to which we are most critical of, e.g. a LaScala or KHorn has the range from 400Hz through to 6kHz covered by that huge mid-horn. The Jubilee will be even wider. I’m not saying Klipsch aren’t flawed elsewhere, they certainly are, but they definitely get the core essence of a piano right.

I think it is this ‘envelope thing’ that is why I am personally so uncomfortable with big modern high-mass multi-way speakers with drivers stacked up high in crazy heavy MDF coffins (Wilson, JM Labs, in fact pretty much anything expensive these days). I suspect it is a combination of wildly different driver heights, too many crossovers slicing the music horizontally, metal dome tweeters and ultra high mass cabs that just stores energy. Give me a big horn mid or a panel every time!

PS One reason I love mini-monitors is, when done well, they are small and simple enough not to suffer from either the slicing or deadness even if they will never be able to do dynamic range or scale.

I too think that horns do something special, but I am more inclined to point at the low room interaction and possibly the better low-level detail reproduction capability of compression drivers as the potential reasons as to why that happens.
Having large woofers helps lower the distortion; below you can compare the compression test of two of the best measuring speakers in Erin's site, one has a 6.5" woofer in a small cabinet, the other a 12" one. I would say that if you stick to a small room and reasonable levels the smaller speaker does just as well.

I've owned single driver speakers and I couldn't hear any magic compared to a 2-way with a well designed speaker, except for perhaps increased separation and the sharper images, but that you also get with coaxial mid-tweeters.

Having owned a very large pair of Spendors and the Stirling LS3/6s my view is that these BBC-style designs produce audible (albeit perhaps 'euphonic') resonances in the upper-bass/lower-midrange region whilst well designed high-density cabinets do not resonate.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/

 

[tuga]

i've been thinking a lot about measurements recently as I've gone back and forth with Yamaha integrateds and Line Magnetic integrateds (not with any intent, it's just how it's worked out). Brio-R > Yamaha AS-2000 > Line Magnetic 518ia SET > Yamaha AS-801 > LM 211ia EL-34 amp...and added a LM 12AU7 cd player at the same time.

I've lived with the Yamaha AS-801 for longer than any of them as I purchased it when we started having children and it was fuss-free and safe for little fingers. I believe the Yamaha measures very well. But putting in a small tube integrated and tube cd player at the same time, which I also assume measure worse....there's no contest. I would be shocked if any audiophile/listener/normal human being would prefer the Yamaha stack over the Line Magnetic stack. Speculation, but I'd put money on that.

Some people prefer vinyl, others digital. Some people prefer valves, others transitors. Some people prefer jazz, others classical, electronica, rock or folk. Some people prefer coffee, others tea... Interestingly I've yet to see someone prefer VHS over Blu-ray though, I wonder why.
Measurements characterise performance or fidelity/accuracy, but not everyone prefers accuracy over euphony.

 

[Tony L]

Having owned a very large pair of Spendors and the Stirling LS3/6s my view is that these BBC-style designs produce audible (albeit perhaps 'euphonic') resonances in the upper-bass/lower-midrange region whilst well designed high-density cabinets do not resonate.

Keep listening! I’m convinced high-mass/high-density cabinets get something very wrong. They just suck life somehow. I hear it at every modern hi-fi show. I just walk room to room thinking ‘I hate this’ and what I don’t like is always the same. A dead over-damped sound that bares no resemblance to any real music I’ve ever heard. It just sounds like ‘bad hi-fi’. It is its own sonic aesthetic. I am absolutely convinced high-mass is a bad design choice in both loudspeakers and turntables. It certainly never produces something I want to stay in the room with. It is so hard to articulate, but for me it is the difference between wanting to listen to music, and not.

PS It is something other than the absence of resonance as I love panel speakers (Quads, Maggies etc). It is a mass thing. A whole design school I view as being bad.

 

[jamesd]

Some people prefer vinyl, others digital. Some people prefer valves, others transitors. Some people prefer jazz, others classical, electronica, rock or folk. Some people prefer coffee, others tea... Interestingly I've yet to see someone prefer VHS over Blu-ray though, I wonder why.
Measurements characterise performance or fidelity/accuracy, but not everyone prefers accuracy over euphony.

in this instance i would say it has to do more with instruments sounding like instruments. a recording sound more like an actual instrument than the playback of the instrument. one major difference I've noticed is in bass texture. lower notes have more detail in their tonality than before and by a large margin. the small oscillations/warbles of a string beginning and ending a note are more clear.

 

[tuga]

Keep listening! I’m convinced high-mass/high-density cabinets get something very wrong. They just suck life somehow. I hear it at every modern hi-fi show. I just walk room to room thinking ‘I hate this’ and what I don’t like is always the same. A dead over-damped sound that bares no resemblance to any real music I’ve ever heard. I am absolutely convinced high-mass is a bad design choice in both loudspeakers and turntables. It certainly never produces something I want to stay in the room with. It is so hard to articulate, but for me it is the difference between wanting to listen to music, and not.

PS It is something other than the absence of resonance as I love panel speakers (Quads, Maggies etc). It is a mass thing. A whole design school I view as being bad.

High mass or density if resonant will move the resonance to a higher frequency which may sound nasty instead of euphonic. Perhaps that's what you are referring to?
Same with hard cones and domes: if the breakup is audible they'll sound bad, but when adequately filtered they sound very natural, open and detailed.

But I think that the dead overdamped sound you are referrig to is the result of compression, not cabinet mass. One of the best speakers I've listened to, the TAD Reference 1, is high mass. I've recently listened to the Magico A5s which are on the heavy side and they were brilliant.