Are Klipsch THX home theater speakers really this good?

[gags11]

I’m trying to upgrade my HT speakers and have been doing some research.

I came across this review from Audioholics of the Klipsch THX ultra2 speakers. It looks really unbelievable to have a FR like that from Klipsch. I have never seen any reviewed HT speaker to have that flat of a FR. The attached picture is for Klipsch KL-525-THX and the link to the review below.

Klipsch THX Ultra2 Loudspeaker System Review

For nearly six decades Klipsch Audio Technologies has held an enviably successful position in the American consumer audio industry. That sort of longevity (given the competitive, volatile nature of

www.audioholics.com

Anyone with any experience with Klipsch THX ultra in-wall speakers? I know it is not the same as the one in the review, but to me it suggests Klipsch THX is in another league compared to their other offerings.

Specialty, I’m looking to replace my surrounds and ceiling speakers and considering Klipsch THX-8000-L and Klipsch THX-5002-L.

 

[MacCali]

I’m trying to upgrade my HT speakers and have been doing some research.

I came across this review from Audioholics of the Klipsch THX ultra2 speakers. It looks really unbelievable to have a FR like that from Klipsch. I have never seen any reviewed HT speaker to have that flat of a FR. The attached picture is for Klipsch KL-525-THX and the link to the review below.

Klipsch THX Ultra2 Loudspeaker System Review

For nearly six decades Klipsch Audio Technologies has held an enviably successful position in the American consumer audio industry. That sort of longevity (given the competitive, volatile nature of

www.audioholics.com

Anyone with any experience with Klipsch THX ultra in-wall speakers? I know it is not the same as the one in the review, but to me it suggests Klipsch THX is in another league compared to their other offerings.

Specialty, I’m looking to replace my surrounds and ceiling speakers and considering Klipsch THX-8000-L and Klipsch THX-5002-L.

View attachment 263860

Are those the box looking speakers? I heard they’re really good but pretty pricey

I think youthman had that as one his early HT. I’ve seen a full set on sale for a while on one of those audio retailers. If it’s the square box one but even at a discount was expensive

 

[voodooless]

Those graphs show 120 dB of range. Normally you’d like to see only about 50 to 60 dB. Anything looks flat when you zoom out that much.

 

[alex-z]

On-axis response is borderline meaningless for three reasons.

1. Flat on-axis response is easy if you are halfway competent at crossover design.

2. Flat on-axis response is not always best. You want a smooth in-room response, which in some cases means sloping high frequencies up or down for the sake of your off-axis response.

3. Modern EQ/DSP allows on-axis response to be easily corrected, especially with AV receivers. Having a good radiation pattern and relatively high sensitivity is what you want for home theatre applications.

 

[MacCali]

Those graphs show 120 dB of range. Normally you’d like to see only about 50 to 60 dB. Anything looks flat when you zoom out that much.

I agree with that totally. Something to consider.

Also I thought you were looking at these, the 6000’s

 

[gags11]

On-axis response is borderline meaningless for three reasons.

1. Flat on-axis response is easy if you are halfway competent at crossover design.

2. Flat on-axis response is not always best. You want a smooth in-room response, which in some cases means sloping high frequencies up or down for the sake of your off-axis response.

3. Modern EQ/DSP allows on-axis response to be easily corrected, especially with AV receivers. Having a good radiation pattern and relatively high sensitivity is what you want for home theatre applications.

I understand that radiation pattern is important for main channels, center channel or Hi-Fi music listening.

However, for surrounds speakers I thought narrow radiation may be best given the object based spatial mixes of Atmos in a dedicated HT..

I’m looking specifically for surrounds and surround back speakers.

 

[Antisense]

I understand that radiation pattern is important for main channels, center channel or Hi-Fi music listening.

However, for surrounds speakers I thought narrow radiation may be best given the object based spatial mixes of Atmos in a dedicated HT..

I’m looking specifically for surrounds and surround back speakers.

I’ve heard as well that wider field may not be the best for surrounds. I have klipsch ultra THX system with 3 kl-650 as lcr and kl-525 and ks-525, cdt5800 ceiling speakers, coupled with two rythmik subwoofers. I do not have any objective measurements to guide you about how they perform compared to other speakers. All I can say is compared to psb image speakers I had previously, these have worked very well for me for the last three years or so. I’m very pleased with the way they sound, and the imaging it produces for Atmos. I believe a more powerful amplifier than what I have will probably make it sound even nicer.

 

[alex-z]

I understand that radiation pattern is important for main channels, center channel or Hi-Fi music listening.

However, for surrounds speakers I thought narrow radiation may be best given the object based spatial mixes of Atmos in a dedicated HT..

I’m looking specifically for surrounds and surround back speakers.

Narrow radiation patterns can sound better for object based surround formats. But consistency is important, you want all your channels to behave in a similar fashion for smooth panning.

You also don't want the radiation pattern changing dramatically throughout the frequency range. That is true for both wide and narrow dispersion types.

 

[fubarnow]

THX Standards mean nothing to me for speakers.
Just something else for the masses to fret about.

 

[Dal1as]

Yes the THX Klipsch speakers are known to be solid. Unlike some of the other THX ratings the speaker ratings actually mean something where the speaker has to pass certain criteria. Dispersion, distortion, spl, frequency response both on and off axis, etc.

 

[abdo123]

On-axis response is borderline meaningless for three reasons.

1. Flat on-axis response is easy if you are halfway competent at crossover design.

2. Flat on-axis response is not always best. You want a smooth in-room response, which in some cases means sloping high frequencies up or down for the sake of your off-axis response.

3. Modern EQ/DSP allows on-axis response to be easily corrected, especially with AV receivers. Having a good radiation pattern and relatively high sensitivity is what you want for home theatre applications.

Which AV receivers out there allow for on-axis response to be corrected?

 

[alex-z]

Which AV receivers out there allow for on-axis response to be corrected?

Any model with adjustable DSP/EQ? Audyssey MultEQ XT32, Dirac Live, Trinnov, ARC Genesis, etc.

You are changing the signal before it reaches the amplifier stage, and therefore the on-axis response of whatever speaker is connected.

 

[abdo123]

Any model with adjustable DSP/EQ? Audyssey MultEQ XT32, Dirac Live, Trinnov, ARC Genesis, etc.

You are changing the signal before it reaches the amplifier stage, and therefore the on-axis response of whatever speaker is connected.

If I remember correctly none of these allow for correction only based on user input and you have to opt-in for brute forcing the in-room response to a target curve. Except maybe trinnov.

 

[gags11]

THX Standards mean nothing to me for speakers.
Just something else for the masses to fret about.

Not really, IMHO. Thx reference levels are pretty demanding. Most HT speaker sold on the market, will likely fail this standard.

I may be mistaken, but these need to get to 100dB levels at listener position, which is not a small task.

 

[gags11]

Going back why I’m looking into Klipsch for my dedicated HT, is that I have tried B&W, KEF, Revel. These are great speakers, but in my HT, I need seamless 120db peak capability without compression.

Even my current, non THX Klipsch surrounds sound better than my late Revels and KEF

My 2-channel is KEF, love it. But they cannot go Loud enough for my HT without compressing.

Just an example of ability to play loud. These are my R/L main modified Klipsch RF7 iis playing really loud, not jus peak, but a FR sweep.

Ignor higher frequency distortion, this was because the beryllium diaphragm was touching the mesh grill It was fixed, see below.

 

[gags11]

Most of Hi-Fi speakers reviewed here show 96dB performance at 1 meter.

I am at least 2-4 meters away from my speakers in my HT. 96dB performance seems useless in this application, especially at THX standard levels.

 

[gags11]

With the above said, I am goin to make a plea to Amir.

1. Can we measure HT receivers and processor SINADs with full DSP engaged?
I do not know anyone who turned off DSP when watching movies in a dedicated HT.

2. If speakers are designed for home theater, can we measure 106dB and 112 dB sweep?

PS: most High-end dedicated HT installations do not care about pure direct or musics, we care about performance when watching movies Atmos processing turned on.

 

[fubarnow]

Not really, IMHO. Thx reference levels are pretty demanding. Most HT speaker sold on the market, will likely fail this standard.

I may be mistaken, but these need to get to 100dB levels at listener position, which is not a small task.

My speakers can hit this level but
I have better sense than to listen at these levels.

 

[Frontino]

I’m trying to upgrade my HT speakers and have been doing some research.

I came across this review from Audioholics of the Klipsch THX ultra2 speakers. It looks really unbelievable to have a FR like that from Klipsch. I have never seen any reviewed HT speaker to have that flat of a FR. The attached picture is for Klipsch KL-525-THX and the link to the review below.

The woofer of the THX Ultra 2 series is superior than those of the Reference series.