Finally some high performance Klipsch speakers

[tuga]

tuga,

I have listened to the Klipschorns a few times over the years, as well as to the Klipsch Belles, La Scalas and Heresys, but not The Nines. Without a recent dem I can't say with certainty, but I have heard Klipschorns enough that they would likely be my choice out of the current Klipsch heritage line up.

That said, I had a chance to hear the Belles some years ago when I was contemplating buying a pair of Monitor Red-era Tannoy GRFs. I listened to both quite a bit and bought the GRFs, which I have been running since. I guess I'm more of a Tannoy man than a Klipsch man. The Klipsch are dynamic in a way I've rarely heard in any other speaker but on balance I preferred the Tannoy presentation. It's also horn-loaded and very dynamic but a bit more even-handed.

(I did measure the GRFs. Height: 42.5 inches. Depth: 19 inches. Width: 24 inches. I wanted to make sure I could get them through the door and down the stairs into the basement.)

But I didn’t measure their audio performance. I simply listened. This method works perfectly for me because my criterion is simply do I like the way the component sounds. Don't take this as my embracing foo or disregarding science. I have the utmost respect for what scientists do. I just don't see the point in measuring something to see if I would like it when listening has been foolproof for that purpose. I’ve run the Tannoys since 2008 so whatever their flaws, their strengths more than compensate. I have no interest in changing to something else.

Joe

P.S. My comment about knowing which one I'd choose is a bit of a joke about a comment fishies often make: I know which one I'd choose.

Well, of course you would know which one you would choose. How could you not know the thoughts within your head?

I would probably buy the Klipschorns as well, but I'd time-align the drivers and flatten the response digitally (to avoid changing the aesthetics) or go for a more radical overhaul and replace the midrange horn.
Stereophile's measurements also show a lot of resonances so this would have to be dealt with as well.

It's worth noting that topology limits performance so you can't really compare a 2-way 8" woofer with a 3-way 15" woofer.
But the reason for creating this thread is that the Nines achieve very-near-full performance potential for their topology, whilst the Klispchorns fall short for quite a bit...

 

[tuga]

They look really interesting. I like the idea of being able to adjust bass damping, though I’m not quite clear how they’ve achieved that. Look cool.

You can also achieve that with the 2 interchangeable reflex port tubes supplied with many modern Kef designs, or with ported speakers which come with port bungs.
It's quite handy, although I'd still prefer a sealed box.

 

[tuga]

They look really interesting. I like the idea of being able to adjust bass damping, though I’m not quite clear how they’ve achieved that. Look cool.

I have the Hi-Fi World test in PDF:

Connection is through mono wire terminals and there are three-position treble level and bass damping controls at rear. During tests the treble control had no measurable affect and the bass damping control minimal affect, position I giving -0.5dB less bass than position 3.
Karl-Heinz Fink told me that the treble control was meant to be subtle, compensating for “cable differences”. With the bass damping control Karl told me that internally the crossover network needs a 0.5 Ohm resistor for correct alignment in conjunction with low output impedance (high damping factor) transistor amplifiers - position I on the switch. At position 3 resistance is lowered by 0.25 Ohms to better match high output impedance valve amplifiers that insert their own resistance.

 

[tuga]

There is a phenomenon I call ‘small speaker fist punch’ where a certain listener with a certain taste thinks a speaker ‘wakes up’ when pushed too hard. The effect to my ears is it starts behaving like a rather crude compressor; it starts to sound subjectively ‘punchy’ as drum envelope peaks are reduced and gains a little hardness which can be interpreted as more ‘smack’ to the snare, ‘slam’ to the kick, ‘bite’ to guitars etc. It is just distortion, and that is exactly what I hear it as.

My view is that if a speaker sounds loud then it is distorting.

 

[tuga]

I’m certainly of the view that if you want to listen at a median level of more than about 75-80db in a non-nearfield scenario then you need genuinely big speakers to really get the required headroom cleanly. A little driver bobbing about wildly in a little box will never ever do it. Basic physics.

I agree. I've owned Consonance Barque M12s, Spendor SP9/1s and B&W 802 S3s, and have listened to many large speakers (I have no interest in small speakers).
My Reference 3s are reasonably large and still could use the help of a pair of subs.

This is obvious in the comparative measurements of the 15" woofer JBL 4367 and the 6.5" woofer Kef Reference 1 Meta below.
Most speaker issues are revealed by measurements, you just need to know where to find them.

Electronics measurements are trickier to correlate with listening, though, also because it's easy to go wild and way beyond the limits of audibility as @John Phillips mentioned earlier.

 

[gez]

My view is that if a speaker sounds loud then it is distorting.

I'd say that's very dependant on context. I've been to some indoor concerts that were very loud and I'm fairly confident the systems involved weren't distorting (talking stacks and stacks of high end sound reinforcement speakers and probably tens of thousands of watts). At least not in the way I believe Tony is talking about.

I am also coming to the conclusion that distortion has a tendency to make systems sound "louder" than they should for the SPLs involved. As does having a foreward presentation of course. Probably interlinked.

 

[tuga]

I'd say that's very dependant on context. I've been to some indoor concerts that were very loud and I'm fairly confident the systems involved weren't distorting (talking stacks and stacks of high end sound reinforcement speakers and probably tens of thousands of watts). At least not in the way I believe Tony is talking about.

I was referring to hi-fi speakers/systems.

I am also coming to the conclusion that distortion has a tendency to make systems sound "louder" than they should for the SPLs involved. As does having a foreward presentation of course. Probably interlinked.

Usually 'forward' is used to describe the perceived result of an exaggeration of the presence region, and is also associated with 'harshness'.
I suppose a mid-mirangey sound will sound perceptually 'louder' and unpleasently so. Some people like it though, judging from their speaker choices.

 

[gez]

I have to say, I'm not completely convinced by the speaker driver size argument. What matters is radiating area, and if that's achieved using multiple 6.5" bass over a single larger it makes no difference in terms of how much clean SPL is acheivable. As long as the drivers are all remaining within their linear excursion limits. In "theory" an array of smaller drivers (relatively speaking) should outperform a single large one of the same radiating area as the smaller drivers can more easily achieve a better driver mass to BL ratio, meaning theoretically they'll be quicker to respond to impulses. Then of course being smaller it'll be easier to make them stiff enough to remain piston like.

Of course there are other characteristics that are determined by driver size which makes fair comparisons rather difficult (e.g. not very easy to get a 6.5" driver to have an Fs of 30hz - certainly not without massively sacrificing sensitivity). Plus of course the resulting sound from the two designs will very likely have a different qualitative result.

 

[tuga]

I have to say, I'm not completely convinced by the speaker driver size argument. What matters is radiating area, and if that's achieved using multiple 6.5" bass over a single larger it makes no difference in terms of how much clean SPL is acheivable. As long as the drivers are all remaining within their linear excursion limits. In "theory" an array of smaller drivers (relatively speaking) should outperform a single large one of the same radiating area as the smaller drivers can more easily achieve a better driver mass to BL ratio, meaning theoretically they'll be quicker to respond to impulses. Then of course being smaller it'll be easier to make them stiff enough to remain piston like.

Of course there are other characteristics that are determined by driver size which makes fair comparisons rather difficult (e.g. not very easy to get a 6.5" driver to have an Fs of 30hz - certainly not without massively sacrificing sensitivity). Plus of course the resulting sound from the two designs will very likely have a different qualitative result.

Multiple 6.5" drivers will produce less distortion than a single one because you'll be reducing the excursion for identical SPL levels. That is one reason why I bought double woofer Reference 3s instead of single woofer Reference 1s.

Kef Reference 1 - Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise @ 90dB, 50Hz - 10kHz (measured @ 2m)

Kef Reference 3 - Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise @ 90dB, 50Hz - 10kHz (measured @ 2m)



One advantage of using smaller multiple drivers over a single larger driver is reduced floor-bounce cancellation:

 

[gez]

Multiple 6.5" drivers will produce less distortion than a single one because you'll be reducing the excursion for identical SPL levels

Clearly in the comparison you provide that is the case, but I'd be wary of making that statement as a generalisation. If the single driver is large enough with enough radiating area, it'll hardly have to move to produce a comparative SPL to a couple of smaller drivers, and so in that case its excursion related distortion is likely to be lower. Though of course then you have to start dealing with more cone break up etc. It's all about balance and the materials used in the individual cases etc. It all depends on the size differential at the end of the day. (I'm sure there are online calculators around that'll show predicted excursion and spl at given frequencies for different size drivers).

It is interesting that a lot of Bass players (talking electronic bass here) will prefer to use a 4x10 cabinet over a 2x15 though.

 

[tuga]

Klipsch speakers are not bad measuring. Here’s an ancient REW plot from back when I owned MkI LaScalas.

That is a very basic mic on the sofa in-room plot, both channels driven using a £100 Amptastic T-Amp to power them (it was my TV system!).

Now go and compare those distortion figures with whatever little ported box speaker you use! A flat line doesn’t tell the whole truth. Let alone when it comes to headroom and dynamic ability. Again, I’m in no way arguing they were perfect, there was some very obvious colouration from a resonance in the bass horn box (which doesn’t show itself on the plot, but was obvious to the ear and certainly triggered me), but they could do things many speakers can’t even dream of. You may not have even heard speakers that can do what I’m trying to describe. I hadn’t. Once you ‘get’ what huge high-efficiency horns are about you hear everything else slightly differently from that point onwards. Same with good panels, but in a different way. You just miss what they do and other speakers can’t. The Tannoys get me close as they have the efficiency and horn mid, they also have even more scale, but they’ll never have the full multi-way horn thing of the Klipsch. Proper horn-loaded bass is a whole different animal to any cone in any box. Again it is a dynamic/note envelope thing.

Below you can compare the distortion of a Klipsch Forte IV (15") with that of a Kef Reference 1 Meta (6.5" woofer) producing 86dB @ 1m.
And the Kef's frequency response is absurdly flatter.

Now 96dB @ 1m.

 

[tuga]

Clearly in the comparison you provide that is the case, but I'd be wary of making that statement as a generalisation.

Sorry, my post is not clear, I was referring to using 2 of the same driver vs just 1 (2x 6.5" vs. 1x 6.5").

 

[flatpopely]

You can also achieve that with the 2 interchangeable reflex port tubes supplied with many modern Kef designs, or with ported speakers which come with port bungs.
It's quite handy, although I'd still prefer a sealed box.

You’ll love Linn SARAs then!

 

[gez]

Below you can compare the distortion of a Klipsch Forte IV (15") with that of a Kef Reference 1 Meta (6.5" woofer) producing 86dB @ 1m.
And the Kef's frequency response is absurdly flatter.

Now 96dB @ 1m.

Not so great in the bass region though, even at 86dB the KEF is distoring more below about 70hz and it only gets dramatically worse in comparison to the Klipsch at 96dB. Also the KEF plot doesn't show any lower than 40hz, so who knows what it's doing down between 30 and 40 where the Klipsch plot is rising dramatically.

Agree that the performance of the upper bass and higher is better on the KEF though.

 

[flatpopely]

You can also achieve that with the 2 interchangeable reflex port tubes supplied with many modern Kef designs, or with ported speakers which come with port bungs.
It's quite handy, although I'd still prefer a sealed box.

You’ll love Linn SARAs then

 

[tuga]

Also worth mentioning that the audibility of distortion decreases as you go down in frequency.

You’ll love Linn SARAs then!

I'm done with Linn speakers, thank you. And I'd much prefer sealed, although I have found ports tuned to 30Hz or below innocuous.

 

[tuga]

Not so great in the bass region though, even at 86dB the KEF is distoring more below about 70hz and it only gets dramatically worse in comparison to the Klipsch at 96dB. Also the KEF plot doesn't show any lower than 40hz, so who knows what it's doing down between 30 and 40 where the Klipsch plot is rising dramatically.

Agree that the performance of the upper bass and higher is better on the KEF though.

I suppose we can all agree that larger woofers potentially produce less distortion than smaller ones.
Although Purifi has produce small mid-woofers which are able to fight with much bigger boys.

Like I said earlier, I chose to buy Ref 3s because they use a pair of woofers, also that all 2014/2023 Ref speakers need to be used high-passed and with subs for optimal performance.

 

[flatpopely]

Also worth mentioning that the audibility of distortion decreases as you go down in frequency.

I'm done with Linn speakers, thank you. And I'd much prefer sealed, although I have found ports tuned to 30Hz or below innocuous.

Linn SARAs are sealed.

 

[tuga]

I'm not convinced this 'correlation with your listening preference' is actually a thing at all, though.

And the fact that some people may like what you describe as a 'euphonic distortion' where others, like you, prefer something else, should tell you that we are all different. There is no DIN-standard for ears. So how can you determine what is a 'good' measurement in absolute terms? You liked the TAD speakers, Tony hated them. I'm ambivalent, I can respect them without wanting them in my life. I haven't yet heard a Magico loudspeaker I'd let in my house, let alone pay money for. Tony loves the big Klipsch speakers, as do I, and you disparage them in the thread title. I, like Tony I suspect, love them not for their accuracy, but for the vitality they bring to music. Measure that.

An interesting comment by Nelson Pass on the subject of 'euphonic distortion':

I have built a lot of Class A amplifiers that have either 2nd or 3rd harmonic
distortion but not both, and gave them to listeners and/or sent them out
into the marketplace. I have received fairly consistent feedback which mostly
mirrors my own observations.

When you start getting above about .1%, people can hear the difference.

Not a new observation - in the '60's Julian Hirsch (much derided for his
supposed "can't hear it" stance) made a comment that he couldn't hear
distortion below .1%. He is to be praised for his honesty.

Interestingly, there seems to be a consistent subjective comment about
3rd, which is that it seems to make sound a little more dynamic, the
silences a little more black. 2nd harmonic is praised for warmth and/or
sweetness, but I have found it to also have two qualities about apparent
depth depending on the phase of the distortion, and I have commented on
this elsewhere (BAF 2017 on youtube for example).

I have noticed that some audiophiles like 2nd and some like 3rd, probably
for the character described above. Nobody seems to like harmonics above
2nd or 3rd, or at least won't admit to it...

Audibility of 3rd harmonic

I understand there is a ton of info on this issue and it has been discussed debated argued etc., however I would like to hear what some here have to say about my specific experience. Basically it has to do with the audibility of 3rd harmonic distortion between about 300 and 1.5 KHz, and here is...

www.diyaudio.com

Measurements will show if a DAC or amplifier produces distortion above or below 0.1% and whether it's predominantly 2nd or 3rd.

The Leak Point One was so called because it produced .1% distortion = inaudible.

 

[tuga]

Not so great in the bass region though, even at 86dB the KEF is distoring more below about 70hz and it only gets dramatically worse in comparison to the Klipsch at 96dB. Also the KEF plot doesn't show any lower than 40hz, so who knows what it's doing down between 30 and 40 where the Klipsch plot is rising dramatically.

Agree that the performance of the upper bass and higher is better on the KEF though.

It's worth noting, though, that human sensitivity to distortion decreases with frequency meaning that we are far more sensitive to distortion in the upper midrange or treble than in the bass.