Wow, damning Klipsch review!

[tuga]

ASR has measured a couple of Klipsch standmount speakers. The performance is a bit on the appalling side...

 

[tuga]

As said above, but worded a little differently. How many HiFi retailers selling loudspeakers actually have any test equipment? Sad world if relying on test equipment figures/numbers to decide which loudspeakers to purchase. As many have found out over the years, you need to use yours ears to decide on a shortlist but importantly ensure you demo them in your listening location! Number of times people have gone on reviews they have read, then wondered why the items did not "live up to expectations".

To shortlist with one's ears one would have to listen to a lot of what is available on the market.
By using measurements one can actually shortlist from one's sofa, and then only spend time listening/comparing speakers which are worth the time and effort.

I agree that reviews are misleading at best but mostly useless. They are great at creating expectation bias and hype.

 

[matt j]

I have bought loads of things over the years that sounded great that if I'd first read any reviews of (I don't read any Hi-Fi reviews) or tried to decrypt measurements, I probably wouldn't have even bought in the first place.

I'd just rather try it and make my mind up that way.

 

[Tony L]

This is where I believe the great divide between subjective-driven and objective-driven audiophiles lies. For the former technical and measurement data is incomprehensible and the latter struggle to accept that higher fidelity or accurate reproduction may and does not sound pleasing to many for a multitude of reasons.

I suspect you’ll find most of us understand the measurements, and their inherent weaknesses, very well indeed! Quite a few of us can see the commercial agendas behind many of them too!

To be honest the only speaker measurements that really interest me these days is sensitivity and an impedance plot. I’ll assess the rest with my ears. I’ve certainly been around long enough to grasp that a response plot in anything other than one’s own listening environment means remarkably little in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ToTo Man]

What reaches the listening spot is a combination of direct sound (on-axis) and early reflections (off-axis) - see precedence or Haas effect.

In a normal-sized untreated domestic environment speakers with an off-axis response that is not smooth or is significantly different from the on-axis response will produce a "combined" in-room response that is not flat.

Loudspeakers are largely responsible for what you hear, from the on and off axis frequency response you can gauge the character of the speaker.
Look at the measurements sections of John Atkinson’s reviews for Stereophile or Amir’s at ASR, or Erins audio corner.
All thre explain the correlation between measurement and the sound you hear.
Keith

I purposely didn't say because it's complicated.

Off-axis really depends on if there are peaks or dips, and again, where they are. My current speakers had an off-axis peak at 2khz (horizontal) that was audible, and not great. It was only up a decibel or two, but it's a bad area to have a peak. I had to drop the on-axis response in that area, and that cleared up the problem. Most people probably wouldn't have even noticed the problem in the first place (gives some vocals a slight glassy quality).
A peak at 1khz for example, might sound nice, and give some vocals a bit more presence (Falcon Acoustics LS3/5a).

I don't point my speakers directly at my ears though, and my side walls are quite close to my speakers (lots of off-axis reflections). In a larger room with the speakers pointed at your ears or near-field listening, the results may be different.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that it is still going to be significantly room dependent, is it not?

A speaker with rough off-axis vertical response is going to make far less contribution to the sound you hear at the listening seat in a room with 12' high ceilings and a thick rug covering the floor than in a room with 8' high ceiling and tiled floors? Likewise a speaker that's several feet away from the side walls and toed-in towards the listener isn't going to be generating a lot of horizontal reflections.

Also, by using absorption and/or diffusion at the first reflection points, the detrimental contribution of a poor off-axis response is reduced even further. I'm not suggesting that forking out additional money on room treatment is necessarily a sensible way to correct the deficiencies in the loudspeakers you've just bought, but if you're already using room treatment to 'control the room' (i.e. reduce overall reverberation times), then why not also use it to control the speakers? I know from personal experience with Tannoys in a completely untreated room that a speaker with smooth off-axis response is no substitute for an adequately damped listening space!

 

[tuga]

I suspect you’ll find most of us understand the measurements, and their inherent weaknesses, very well indeed! Quite a few of us can see the commercial agendas behind many of them too!

Manufacturers can use measured performance as a selling point. But unlike marketing/philosophical blabber measurements can be verified by independent sources.
A measurement of an "obscure" parameter which has little impact on audible performance (f.e. jitter filters or filtering power cables) may also be used as a way of pushing a product but knowing a little about the tech as well as testing by independent sources can help bust the myths.

To be honest the only speaker measurements that really interest me these days is sensitivity and an impedance plot. I’ll assess the rest with my ears. I’ve certainly been around long enough to grasp that a response plot in anything other than one’s own listening environment means remarkably little in the grand scheme of things.

Like I said, a single on-axis frequency response plot of a loudspeaker is insufficient to charecterise its performance, you need as many as possible. An impedance plot can actually provide more information regarding cabinet, driver and horn resonances than a frequency response plot, as can be seen below:

Klipsch Klipschorn, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

https://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-klipschorn-ak6-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[tuga]

I have bought loads of things over the years that sounded great that if I'd first read any reviews of (I don't read any Hi-Fi reviews) or tried to decrypt measurements, I probably wouldn't have even bought in the first place.

I'd just rather try it and make my mind up that way.

I am not advocating that one should give up listening, quite the contrary. In my view listening and measurements are complementary sources of information but only the ear can help one decide about preference because the ultimate goal of a system is to provide listening pleasure.

But until one is able to interpret measurements and correlate them with listening then they are of little worth.

 

[Tony L]

An impedance plot can actually provide more information regarding cabinet, driver and horn resonances than a frequency response plot, as can be seen below:

Sure, but it still won’t give anyone who has never heard a KHorn even the slightest hint what listening to a well setup pair sounds like, or indicate the things they can do that no conventional moving coil box can hope to emulate. There just don’t seem to be measurements for dynamics, scale, life, believability etc.

 

[Shane2468]

Anyone watched this one?

S.

 

[matt j]

Here we go, he's cracked open his jpeg folder of waterfall plots and frequency responses.

 

[tuga]

The point I was trying to make earlier is that it is still going to be significantly room dependent, is it not?

A speaker with rough off-axis vertical response is going to make far less contribution to the sound you hear at the listening seat in a room with 12' high ceilings and a thick rug covering the floor than in a room with 8' high ceiling and tiled floors? Likewise a speaker that's several feet away from the side walls and toed-in towards the listener isn't going to be generating a lot of horizontal reflections.

Also, by using absorption and/or diffusion at the first reflection points, the detrimental contribution of a poor off-axis response is reduced even further. I'm not suggesting that forking out additional money on room treatment is necessarily a sensible way to correct the deficiencies in the loudspeakers you've just bought, but if you're already using room treatment to 'control the room' (i.e. reduce overall reverberation times), then why not also use it to control the speakers? I know from personal experience with Tannoys in a completely untreated room that a speaker with smooth off-axis response is no substitute for an adequately damped listening space!

Directivity and early-reflection treatment is a matter of taste, and the reason why there people who enjoy omnis, and others narrow constant-directivity speakers such as dipoles and full-range horns.
I agree that one can reduce the negative impact of an uneven off-axis response by treating early reflection zones but that wouldn't be accpetable to many which enjoy the perceptual effects they produce such as increased envelopment/immersion, a wider soundstage and speakers which are less obvious as sources.

Off-axis response or vertical and horizontal directivity plots will provide enough information about how the speaker will perform above the transition or Schroeder frequency. (around 200-300Hz in a typical sitting room).
Below that it becomes more difficult to antecipate how the speakers will work in a room.
But unless your room is very particular there are tools (i.e. REW) which allow one to simulate the resulting response of a reasonably conventional speaker in a room in relation to a listening spot.

 

[tuga]

Sure, but it still won’t give anyone who has never heard a KHorn even the slightest hint what listening to a well setup pair sounds like, or indicate the things they can do that no conventional moving coil box can hope to emulate. There just don’t seem to be measurements for dynamics, scale, life, believability etc.

All these are subjective attributes which may or may not be perceived by someone other than yourself.

And even if the KHorn does produce perceived "dynamics, scale, life, believability etc." other speakers of similar topology may/will produce the same impressions without a load of issues that the KHorn has.

The problem is that some of those issues either are not detectable by some listeners or their importance is negligeable but that doesn't mean others will not be sensitive to such problems which are obvious in the measurements. It is a matter of expectations, objectives and ultamately of taste.

The sound and performance of the KHorn could be massively improved by time-aligning the drivers, using horns with better profiles, reinforcing the cabinet to reduce resonances and adding a couple of subwoofers (maybe even replace a driver or two with better performing ones).
Of course for most of us such modifications are difficult or impossible to perform for several reasons.

 

[Tony L]

The problem is that some of those issues either are not detectable by some listeners or their importance is negligeable but that doesn't mean others will not be sensitive to such problems which are obvious in the measurements. It is a matter of expectations, objectives and ultamately of taste.

This is the point. For all I know I may sit in front of your system and hear crossover phase error, cabinet resonance, port artefacts, room comb effects, splash etc, but you’ll be happy because you have a flat line on some graph or other! The point I’m trying to make is one person’s selection or measurement criteria is of absolutely zero value to someone else.

Much of the current fad for measurement seems to stem from the Floyd Toole Harman marketing exercise/PR stunt where they placed several competitors speakers in an acoustic location where they couldn’t possibly work properly and then measured them to show how “superior” their product was. Many actually took this BS seriously because graphs always impress a certain type of person (“mmm, ‘sciencey’”). I view ASR much the same. I guess if you lack confidence or real-world experience this sort of stuff can be highly impressive, but way too many are trying to use it as a political/ego sledgehammer these days, and many are doing so with a remarkably shallow grasp of audio IMHO.

 

[Tw99]

Personally I find measurements more useful than the subjective impressions of some random person on the internet. You only have to read the totally conflicting impressions people report from the same rooms at HiFi shows to realise how useless such impressions are to anyone else.

 

[tuga]

Much of the current fad for measurement seems to stem from the Floyd Toole Harman marketing exercise/PR stunt where they placed several competitors speakers in an acoustic location where they couldn’t possibly work properly and then measured them to show how “superior” their product was. Many actually took this BS seriously because graphs always impress a certain type of person (“mmm, ‘sciencey’”). I view ASR much the same. I guess if you lack confidence or real-world experience this sort of stuff can be highly impressive, but way too many are trying to use it as a political/ego sledgehammer these days, and many are doing so with a remarkably shallow grasp of audio IMHO.

Personal computers, digital audio and Toole/Harman have made measurements mainstream. And whilst this is not necessarily a bad thing (room correction is now easy and available free for everyone) it can lead to bias just as much as reviews.
I agree that Harman's Scientific Marketing Research (particularly that which is directed at preference) may have created another audiophile myth, but to dismiss Toole's book - which compiles a lot of the research performed by many of the great engineers including the BBC - is in my view a gross mistake.

Yes, measurements can provide some sort of validation to insecure "sciencey" audiophiles but the same is true for subjective-driven audiophiles who read reviews or come to forums for comfort.
In my view the problem lies in people's innability to interpret measurements as well as to relate them to their listening experiences. And at least some basic technical knowledge is required to understand how measurements relate to performance issues.

Like I've mention earlier, I am not advocating that one should give up listening, quite the contrary. In my view listening and measurements are complementary tools/sources of information but only the ear can help one decide about preference because the ultimate goal of a system is to provide listening pleasure. But until one is able to interpret measurements and correlate them with listening then they are of little worth.

 

[tuga]

Personally I find measurements more useful than the subjective impressions of some random person on the internet. You only have to read the totally conflicting impressions people report from the same rooms at HiFi shows to realise how useless such impressions are to anyone else.

That happens because the large majority of people evaluate equipment through the tinted or biased lens of their own preference/taste, even most magazine reviewers do that. They are not objective in their report and they praise certain aspects of performance which they find pleasing, regardless of whether they are actually the result of problems or a deviation from neutrality/accuracy (although to be fair they may not know this).
When there are no standards and no benchmarks anything goes; it's all a matter of opinion, of taste. Welcome to the world of Trump.

 

[cooky1257]

I think it beneficial to look further into/ refresh the memory about the research carried out by Sean Olive and Floyd Toole.
The first papers are from 1986 and it really isn't a PR excercise at all.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html
The notion that The Spinorama is designed to disadvantage loudspeakers that need particular placement / treatment is misplaced as the research was used to identify preference trends not a 'what's the best speaker out of this crop?' Type of group test. Where JBL, Revel etc do use it for subjective comparisons is in establishing price/ performance points for their new models- something every manufacturer does.
Many speakers can sound fabulous but may not have textbook measurements; KHorns, JBL 4350, Tannoy pepperpots.

 

[tuga]

This is the point. For all I know I may sit in front of your system and hear crossover phase error, cabinet resonance, port artefacts, room comb effects, splash etc, but you’ll be happy because you have a flat line on some graph or other! The point I’m trying to make is one person’s selection or measurement criteria is of absolutely zero value to someone else.

I don't disagree with your point. In fact, someone who is ignorant of basic tecnicalities and measurements should ignore them and just use their ears.
My point is that they will be better off learning because they're invaluable tools that will help take control of the upgrade/improvement path.

The thing is that many people will come to forums complaining about this or that problem in which is audible and significant but that they can't quite pinpoint what it is.
And they sound surprised and sadly dismissive when someone diagnoses the problem for them just by looking at measurements, at their room, at the amplifier or speaker topology, without listening.

People who take up sailing must learn about winds and currents and navigation and sails, etc.
But many audiophiles are just box-swapping randomly without a clue, piqued by marketing, reviews and forum hype.

 

[Amber Audio]

If I like something it stays if I don’t I get rid. Reviews and forums are useful to see if it has the features I want and it doesn’t look like a design accident.

Measurements and reviews don’t mean much to me after umpteen years reading about what is the best this or that component and finding out I don’t like it. The one thing you can’t take into account is the listeners own ears and music tastes.

I also read lots of posts about combos the resident experts/measurists say won’t work well, that turn in a stellar result making the owner very pleased with his choices. Typical is a cart/arm combo that is not in the sweet spot on the graphs, you’re told it’s not gonna work but sounds bloody marvellous.

What’s up with box swapping if that’s part of the hobby you enjoy.

 

[tuga]

I also read lots of posts about combos the resident experts/measurists say won’t work well, that turn in a stellar result making the owner very pleased with his choices. Typical is a cart/arm combo that is not in the sweet spot on the graphs, you’re told it’s not gonna work but sounds bloody marvellous.

That is probably not the resident experts/measurists' fault.
The thing is that "sounds bloody marvellous" is a matter of personal taste or preference and some lower-fi systems or equipment sound stellar to some people and attrocious to others, just as some very accurate equipment sounds attrocious to some people and stellar to others.

Higher-fidelity doesn't guarantee enjoyment.