advertisement


Finally some high performance Klipsch speakers

tuga said:
You haven't listed your kit. Also I don't understand what upsets you so much when I say that measurements can be correlated with our listening experience and preference. Would be interested in hearing that, is it because you can't that you don't think possible, or because you prefer equipment that doesn't measure as well as the best, something else?
I've noticed that you do get upset often, but thank you for engaging in an intelligent and cordial manner unlike some...
Click to expand...
I’m not upset and I’m not going to engage with the personal part of your post, but I do take exception to the absolutist nature of many of the measurement arguments. Including yours. I would be disappointed, however, if I couldn’t argue my points without being cordial, so thank you.

My point is that sometimes I can forgive a foible in one area if a device excels in an area I think is important; or I might like one product for one reason, and another for a different reason. I’d find it hard to correlate that against measurements. It’s like saying you can predict who I’d be friends with if you could measure and correlate our interests and preferences.

My equipment is current Accuphase CD and Amp, and FinkTeam Kim loudspeakers.
 
Steve,

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
... and FinkTeam Kim loudspeakers.
Click to expand...

I thought you had made up a company name for the yuk-yuks. Ha, it's real.

Joe, owner of back-loaded horny speakers from TeamGuy or maybe GuyTeam. I'm not sure which sounds better.
 
`this is a very quick and dirty - and neat - way of presenting differences in a range of speakers (apologies if this has already been posted):

 
Theo said:
`this is a very quick and dirty - and neat - way of presenting differences in a range of speakers (apologies if this has already been posted)
Click to expand...

Sadly it puts the majority at a huge disadvantage as they are all away from the rear wall, and the KHorns can only possibly work as intended in corners (the walls of the room corner is their bass horn).
 
This is turning in to another pointless argument, why do people keep having it? (yes I know I've contributed here, but from now on I'm going to endevour just going to stop).

The only facts here are:

  • Some people choose their equipment based solely on how it sounds to them
  • Some people choose as a combination of how it sounds and how it measures (they believe - rightly or wrongly who's to say - that the measurements are an indication of how the equipment will sound).
  • Some people choose their equipment entirely 100% on how it measures. They see reproduction as a tool and their aim is only to attempt to have what comes out of their speakers be as close as possible to what was recorded on the original medium (be that record, CD, stream or file)
Each one of the above approaches is equally as valid and entirely correct (and here's the important part) to the person that uses it.

The only wrong here, is for anyone who sits in one of the camps to tell the others that their approach is wrong. It's as ridiculous a position as telling someone they are wrong for liking a red car rather than a blue one. Because frankly the other person doesn't care, so there's no point even having the discussion.

If people want to discuss a peice of equipment by talking about how sweet the treble is or how dry the bass is etc or how it makes them feel emotionally. Then leave them alone to do so. Simillarly if someone wants to have a discussion about how a peice of equipment measures and make a judgement of it in those terms, let them get on with it too. Interjecting with points of view from the "other side" does nothing but cause friction. It certainly doesn't make for a place thats conducive to people stating their opinion. Just agree to disagree and let the people you disagree with do what they want.

Anyway, end of rant. :oops:
 
Tony L said:
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.
Click to expand...
I once built a pair of speakers with rear horn loaded mid/bass drivers. They were far from perfect in a lot of ways, but the way they made bass and drove the room was unique and certainly not matched by any infinite baffle or bass reflex speaker I've ever heard. I totally get what you're saying here.
 
In my nearly 30 years of building both speakers and amplifiers I've learnt that just about every circuit for none feedback amplifiers is wrong.. , i know thats a bold statement.. all the circuits out there work of course but most perform sub optimally.. and it's also music signal/ volume dependant, but never the less, there a noticable difference across all music

Knowing what I've learnt of the last few years has helped me understand what's wrong with modern equipment..

My experence its not about distortion at all, we live in a world of commercial 'sticking plaster' low distortion amps, which all in varying degrees cancel parts of the music signal.
They all measure perfectly until you connect loudspeakers and play music..

Many of us have spent lots of money and no one wants to think they have a suboptimal system so defend what they/we own

Most systems speakers interact with the music signal going into the amplifier, (back EMF) and that changes the original signal.. usually cancellation of the finer parts.

Statics have no back emf by the way. So usually sound very clean, if not as dynamic as the signal.
 
Tony L said:
Sadly it puts the majority at a huge disadvantage as they are all away from the rear wall, and the KHorns can only possibly work as intended in corners (the walls of the room corner is their bass horn).
Click to expand...
I've seen that video before and wasn't very impressed. I don't know how any of those speakers should sound, but all of them sounded very much to me like I was hearing a lot of room reverb rather than the actual speakers. The exception being the Klipschorn's. I just struck the video off as a bad demo.
 
gez said:
I once built a pair of speakers with rear horn loaded mid/bass drivers. They were far from perfect in a lot of ways, but the way they made bass and drove the room was unique and certainly not matched by any infinite baffle or bass reflex speaker I've ever heard. I totally get what you're saying here.
Click to expand...

That is what I’m trying to get across, and I’m certainly not suggesting Klipsch are perfect. They are very far from it, e.g. the time alignment is a total mess, comedically bad, many have obvious cabinet resonance etc, but any loudspeaker can be criticised as every single one is a truly hopeless compromise in some way or other. Despite all their flaws a 75year old pair of Klipschorns can get some things right so much of todays audio screw up beyond recognition. Dig out a pair of almost as elderly Quad ESLs and hear some other entirely different things that most audio today screws right up. No one has got this right yet and frequency response graphs etc only seem to tell a very small part of the story.

I’ve suggested before on other threads that the theoretical ideal of a loudspeaker is a full-range (let’s agree on 20Hz-20kHz) flat-response true point-source of high efficiency, high dynamic range, and controlled directivity with no audible distortion. Now go find me one so I can buy it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gez
Tony L said:
That is what I’m trying to get across, and I’m certainly not suggesting Klipsch are perfect. They are very far from it, e.g. the time alignment is a total mess, comedically bad, many have obvious cabinet resonance etc, but any loudspeaker can be criticised as every single one is a truly hopeless compromise in some way or other. Despite all their flaws a 75year old pair of Klipschorns can get things right so much of todays audio screw up beyond recognition. Dig out a pair of almost as elderly Quad ESLs and hear some other entirely things that most audio today screws right up. No one has got this right yet and frequency response graphs etc only seem to tell a very small part of the story.

I’ve suggested before on other threads that the theoretical ideal of a loudspeaker is a full-range (let’s agree on 20Hz-20kHz) flat-response true point-source of high efficiency, high dynamic range, and controlled directivity with no audible distortion. Now go find me one so I can buy it!
Click to expand...
Acoustic impedance matching? I suspect that's what's going on. Just a guess though.
 
gez said:
Acoustic impedance matching? I suspect that's what's going on. Just a guess though.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the fundamentals of loudspeaker design Paul Klipsch, along with other giants like Gilbert Briggs and Peter Waller did some amazing research that still stands today even if much has sadly been forgotten. I don’t know exactly where to find them these days, but PWK’s various white-papers on the Klipschorn, how horns interact with the room, and how important narrow directivity can be is fascinating reading. It is all very carefully thought-out and designed in. He did the math. A very clever guy, as were so many radical thinkers in the early days of audio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gez
tuga said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you buy the Magico’s then?
 
Tony L said:
When it comes to the fundamentals of loudspeaker design Paul Klipsch, along with other giants like Gilbert Briggs and Peter Waller did some amazing research that still stands today even if much has sadly been forgotten. I don’t know exactly where to find them these days, but PWK’s various white-papers on the Klipschorn, how horns interact with the room, and how important narrow directivity can be is fascinating reading. It is all very carefully thought-out and designed in. He did the math. A very clever guy, as were so many radical thinkers in the early days of audio.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's been forgotten. Some of it must have been assimilated, other bits superceded by improved understanding and better measuring equipment.
Speaker design has advanced a lot since those days.

This is all I have by Paul Klipsch:

Modulation Distortion in Loudspeakers

404 File Not Found - Jumpshare

The file you are looking for does not exist.
jmp.sh jmp.sh


Also this by Roy Delgado, which is related:

Tractrix Horns

404 File Not Found - Jumpshare

The file you are looking for does not exist.
jmp.sh jmp.sh
 
gez said:
This is turning in to another pointless argument, why do people keep having it? (yes I know I've contributed here, but from now on I'm going to endevour just going to stop).

The only facts here are:

  • Some people choose their equipment based solely on how it sounds to them
  • Some people choose as a combination of how it sounds and how it measures (they believe - rightly or wrongly who's to say - that the measurements are an indication of how the equipment will sound).
  • Some people choose their equipment entirely 100% on how it measures. They see reproduction as a tool and their aim is only to attempt to have what comes out of their speakers be as close as possible to what was recorded on the original medium (be that record, CD, stream or file)
Each one of the above approaches is equally as valid and entirely correct (and here's the important part) to the person that uses it.

The only wrong here, is for anyone who sits in one of the camps to tell the others that their approach is wrong. It's as ridiculous a position as telling someone they are wrong for liking a red car rather than a blue one. Because frankly the other person doesn't care, so there's no point even having the discussion.

If people want to discuss a peice of equipment by talking about how sweet the treble is or how dry the bass is etc or how it makes them feel emotionally. Then leave them alone to do so. Simillarly if someone wants to have a discussion about how a peice of equipment measures and make a judgement of it in those terms, let them get on with it too. Interjecting with points of view from the "other side" does nothing but cause friction. It certainly doesn't make for a place thats conducive to people stating their opinion. Just agree to disagree and let the people you disagree with do what they want.

Anyway, end of rant. :oops:
Click to expand...

Well said, that man!

I personally have really enjoyed the recent trend in measuring loudspeakers (with the Klippel) /electronics and having the data presented to me with explanations of what it all means. I find Erin (erin's audio corner) provides the best explanations of the data out there and how they correlate with what we hear. It has helped me get to a place where I am not having thoughts of 'upgrading' every few months. I know my speakers, from an objective point of view, are about as good as I can get within my budget (Wharfedale Linton).

I actually lived with the Linton for about a year or so before the Klippel data came out for it. I was happy with the sound, but the fact that the data was there to support that this was a well engineered speaker... Well, that just stopped me looking for another speaker. The next step up in 'better measurements', that may make a subjective improvement to my listening, are out of my price range.

Measuring my speakers' behaviour in my room was probably the biggest benefit to me. I would have said the Linton were too 'boomy' if I'd just played them 'as is'. But measuring them showed me I had a huge peak at 60Hz. I used the PEQ function in Roon to dial that down and it changed the whole experience.

Caveat that with the following... It matters not if someone else doesn't care for measurements. All that matters is that they are happy. Each to their own. Do what is right for you.

If people want to make threads showing the measured performance of a speaker, maybe showing that the speaker has excellent engineering based on well understood principles of sound reproduction, then let them. Without jumping straight in and claiming that measurements are meaningless (or similar statement).
 
gez said:
This is turning in to another pointless argument, why do people keep having it? (yes I know I've contributed here, but from now on I'm going to endevour just going to stop).

The only facts here are:

  • Some people choose their equipment based solely on how it sounds to them
  • Some people choose as a combination of how it sounds and how it measures (they believe - rightly or wrongly who's to say - that the measurements are an indication of how the equipment will sound).
  • Some people choose their equipment entirely 100% on how it measures. They see reproduction as a tool and their aim is only to attempt to have what comes out of their speakers be as close as possible to what was recorded on the original medium (be that record, CD, stream or file)
Each one of the above approaches is equally as valid and entirely correct (and here's the important part) to the person that uses it.

The only wrong here, is for anyone who sits in one of the camps to tell the others that their approach is wrong. It's as ridiculous a position as telling someone they are wrong for liking a red car rather than a blue one. Because frankly the other person doesn't care, so there's no point even having the discussion.

If people want to discuss a peice of equipment by talking about how sweet the treble is or how dry the bass is etc or how it makes them feel emotionally. Then leave them alone to do so. Simillarly if someone wants to have a discussion about how a peice of equipment measures and make a judgement of it in those terms, let them get on with it too. Interjecting with points of view from the "other side" does nothing but cause friction. It certainly doesn't make for a place thats conducive to people stating their opinion. Just agree to disagree and let the people you disagree with do what they want.

Anyway, end of rant. :oops:
Click to expand...
Fair enough in its own terms, but if a thread is started which takes a position on something, I feel entirely justified in engaging with it. And if I disagree, it’s entirely right that I get to say so. Otherwise, if your position is right, the only acceptable responses to an OP would be those that say ‘yes, that’s right’. Can’t see this forum lasting long if that happens.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Fair enough in its own terms, but if a thread is started which takes a position on something, I feel entirely justified in engaging with it. And if I disagree, it’s entirely right that I get to say so. Otherwise, if your position is right, the only acceptable responses to an OP would be those that say ‘yes, that’s right’. Can’t see this forum lasting long if that happens.
Click to expand...

I can understand if you tell me that it doesn't work for you but you don't seem to accept that I (and others) can use measurements for shortlisting with very good results.

But this thread titled "Finally some high performance Klipsch speakers" merely states a fact, that the Nines are the best performing/measuring speaker ever produced by Klipsch. I don't know what is there to disagree with, unless we go all Trumpian and start creating alternative truths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top