Designing Speakers For Music As You Would Experience It Live - Interview with Roy Delgado

[tmtomh]

Oh, and vastly overstated sensitivity.

This one drives me nuts - not singling out Klipsch here, as others do it too. it just seems like flat-out fraud to me.

In fact, I think we're way overdue for a patented @restorer-john "manufacturers and their dishonest specs" tirade on the subject of bogus speaker sensitivity claims!

 

[MattHooper]

Another designer who mistakes sound reproduction with sound production. A Marshall cab makes a killer guitar sound but you don't play back a recording of a guitar on it.

Another ASR who doesn’t understand there’s more than one approach and more than one goal for speaker designers.

 

[MattHooper]

On the Thursday evening before Axpona 2022 opened I was walking on the ground floor. With me was a musician who played multiple instruments. Down a wide walkway we could hear a saxaphone being played, and there was a door open on that side of the walkway. I looked at him and he looked at me, and we were both bug-eyed. I said, "THAT sounds like a live saxaphone!" and he agreed; saxaphpone is one of the instruments he plays. So we made a beeline for the open doorway. Was there a performance going on? Was somebody using a live-versus-recorded saxaphone to help them set up their room? Nope. Somebody was playing a pair of Klipsch Jubilee speakers in a very large room.

I can believe it.

When I heard the Klipsch Lascala at my friends place, within its limited frequency range they had a tendency to remind me more of live musicians playing in front of me than many other speakers I’ve heard. It wasn’t imaging certainly, but the sound had this density and energy and liveness.

 

[MarkS]

On the Thursday evening before Axpona 2022 opened I was walking on the ground floor. With me was a musician who played multiple instruments. Down a wide walkway we could hear a saxaphone being played, and there was a door open on that side of the walkway. I looked at him and he looked at me, and we were both bug-eyed. I said, "THAT sounds like a live saxaphone!" and he agreed; saxaphpone is one of the instruments he plays. So we made a beeline for the open doorway. Was there a performance going on? Was somebody using a live-versus-recorded saxaphone to help them set up their room? Nope. Somebody was playing a pair of Klipsch Jubilee speakers in a very large room.

So what characteristic does this speaker possess (that most others, apparently, do not) that leads to this "outside the room it sounds real" effect?

Or is it all just coincidence? If there had been Salon 2's in there playing that same recording (whatever it was), would the result have been the same?

 

[antcollinet]

would the result have been the same?

I'm guessing it would. Most of the "character" of the sound from that position would have been defined by the aperture of the door, and the acoustics of the walkway.

I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the perception came from the brains foreknowledge of what something sounds like when listened to in a different room, through an open door. Perceptive bias in other words.

 

[garyrc]

Although I believe in measurement, subjective impressions count for a lot. Having played in 5 or 6 amatuer orchestras (depending on how you count player overlap), and had lunch in front of one rehearsing, hearing live orchestral music very close up every day of my life for several years, and occasionally hearing one from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the way back, I think I'm familiar with the wide range of how live music may sound from those two distance zones, in many halls.

In my earlier years, I liked partly or fully horn-loaded speakers by JBL, Altec, Klipsch, and Electrovoice. We noticed that people who sat in different parts of the orchestra often had different preferences. It was a trend, nothing like 100%. String players seemed to like Bozak (3 way, all cone speakers in an infinite baffles), but tended to like the smaller ones better than the big Concert Grand. They had the sweetest string sound -- more bland than life, but sweet!

Brass players tended to like horn midranges and tweeters. It figures. The ones I liked best were Klipschorns; I've had the 2002 upgrade: redesigned crossovers, new mid horns (something like fiberglass with many external ribs) and, of course, the flange, and mounting the tweeter flush with the front panel. Percussion (everything), especially cymbals, piano, etc., and brass sound very, very real to me. And, as several reviewers of Klipsches sharing these components have said, they're fun! In one store, there was a wall about 50 feet wide, with Khlipschorns in the corners -- the Khorns took 'em all!

The Khorns have low modulation distortion and are enormously dynamic. So what does the Achilles' heel, the frequency response look like with Audyssey? Some of you have seen this before; this is the curve if I want especially strong bass. A subwoofer comes in at 40Hz. The Khorn sounds better than the sub above that.

The trade-off works for me.

 

[MarkS]

Another ASR who doesn’t understand there’s more than one approach and more than one goal for speaker designers.

What are these "other approaches" and "other goals"? Can they be quantified by measurements, or only by listening?

 

[Talisman]

What are these "other approaches" and "other goals"? Can they be quantified by measurements, or only by listening?

You're confusing snake oil DACs with speakers designed (whether you like their sound or not) with very specific features that some people appreciate.
Obviously everything can be demonstrated by the measurements, both the dispersion, the frequency response and the enormous dynamics or the great sensitivity (not as great as they like to believe but still remarkable)
Almost all Klipsch speakers, even those of the less noble series such as the RP, have shown great dynamic capabilities at high spl, i.e. the ability to maintain a coherent frequency response even at higher spl levels, without compressing the response (or compressing it less compared to other similar speakers in terms of price/size) this leads to loud sounding and preservation of dynamics (as for live instrumentalists) and this could favor the sensation of "live" music.
Clearly they are often speakers with a less than perfect frequency response, and this is also clearly visible in the measurements.
So what are we talking about?
The cards are on the table, no snake oil or magical properties not supported by science, only design choices with defects but also clear advantages, everyone chooses their poison based on their own tastes

 

[Rmar]

There's nothing magic or fundamental physics about Toole's curve. They are empirical preference measurements. If Klipsch thinks there's a different curve or sound that their customers prefer, good for them. As long as they are basing it on experimentation and engineering, I think that's ok.

On my system, I use a modified Harman curve for my response (a bit more bass, a bit less treble), and my Revel speakers can handle the EQ just great!

I am an objectivist, but being an objectivist does not mean not having personal tastes that may be different from those of others.
I see a lot of criticism of klipsch for its colored speakers, I don't understand why, it's not snake oil, it's a design choice (which you may not like), almost all klipsch have a house sound, if you don't like it you can check the measurements and stay away from them.
In my main listening system I have Kef R3s with 3 subwoofers, all managed by the DSP adjusted based on measurements with umik 1 and rew, it is a high fidelity system and I am fully satisfied with it.
However, when I want to enjoy some rock or electronic music at full volume, I go up to the room where I have two huge Klipsch RP280F towers, never measured the frequency response not even out of curiosity, no sub. I turn up the volume and enjoy them like a child, I really enjoy them, what's wrong with that?

Thank you radix and Talisman for your superior thought leadership. To be able to read about someones beliefs, preferences, personal experiences, examples and/or logic without all the flaming is refreshing. You posts are worthy of emulation.

Question to all about this term, "objectivism"? Is that something created by this site? I don't see it in use anywhere elese. Does anyone know where it came from? Like most philosophical ideas, my observation is that it can lead to confusion. Googling "objectivism" get's me this:

objectivism, philosophical system identified with the thought of the 20th-century Russian-born American writer Ayn Rand and popularized mainly through her commercially successful novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Its principal doctrines consist of versions of metaphysical realism (the existence and nature of things in the world are independent of their being perceived or thought about), epistemological (or direct) realism (things in the world are perceived immediately or directly rather than inferred on the basis of perceptual evidence), ethical egoism (an action is morally right if it promotes the self-interest of the agent), individualism (a political system is just if it properly respects the rights and interests of the individual), and laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivism also addresses issues in aesthetics and the philosophy of love and sex. Perhaps the best-known and most-controversial aspect of objectivism is its account of the moral virtues, in particular its unconventional claim that selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice.

Or does objectivism as it is being used on this site merely mean: A preference for a flat frequency response above all else?

Again, thank you for the instructive post.

Rob

 

[Talisman]

Or does objectivism as it is being used on this site merely mean: A preference for a flat frequency response above all else?

Objectivism has nothing to do with any type of preference, objectivism in this area is something that has to do with the analysis and objective evaluation of audio performance (components, speakers, DAC, codec, etc.).
An objectivist tends to believe that correct knowledge and interpretations of measurements, and the use of blind listening tests, without any visual prejudice, can give a rational and exhaustive description and evaluation of the audio performance of a system.
This is a rational and scientific approach to 360-degree audio evaluation, which is in contrast to a more classic, audiophile narrative, which tells of something that the human ear can perceive and that no measuring instrument could capture, for example example differences that are said to be perceived between cables that show identical measurements in every parameter, or miraculous audiophile DACs that despite normal measurements would have magical properties of purity and quality that well-measuring but economical DACs would not have (punctually without blind tests with matched levels to demonstrate that you feel a real difference).

All this has NOTHING TO DO with the preference for a flat response, which is instead the search for "true" high fidelity, understood as reproduction as faithful as possible to the signal to be reproduced, which can be associated with objectivism, but not by force.
For example, I have a totally rational approach to the evaluation and measurement of performance, but I am not a fanatic of the flat response of a ruler, nor is it what I look for in my audio systems, in fact, despite having a "reference" system from the from the point of view of fidelity, I enjoy other systems, other audio systems and other components simply because I like them, and I find that the main purpose of MY LISTENING is my personal pleasure and not necessarily absolute fidelity at all costs to the reproduced file.

 

[tmtomh]

There's nothing wrong with preferring a certain speaker's sound signature, including its frequency response and dispersion/directivity characteristics. And there's nothing wrong with preferring a speaker with serious directivity nonlinearities if you think other sonic characteristics are worth the trade-off, or if you don't really even notice, or are not really even bothered by, the directivity error.

I don't even mind if people say such a speaker gives them an unusually vivid perception of one or more aspects of how music sounds when performed live.

But by the same token, it is important for everyone - fans and detractors alike - to clearly acknowledge that this kind of speaker produces a particular kind of effect, which is applied to all recordings regardless of their variable production approaches, instrumentation, musical genres and styles, mixes, and so on.

It is no accident that virtually every comment referencing the verisimilitude to live performance - not just in this thread, but also in threads like the BACCH one where folks got into arguments about perceived soundstage width - uses live orchestral performances as the reference for both realism in listening and the poster's experience and qualifications for evaluating or perceiving that realism.

That is a very particular musical and listening experience. Per @garyrc 's comment above, if someone plays strings in an orchestra and prefers speakers that tend to reproduce orchestral recordings as string players are accustomed to hearing them from where they sit onstage during their performances - or if they just prefer to hear orchestral recordings that make the strings sound especially smooth and/or prominent - that's great.

It just has absolutely nothing to do with the experience I want, which is to hear the widest possible range of recordings reproduced with as much of the recording's detail and sonic aspects reaching my ears as possible. If I listened overwhelmingly to one kind of recording, my preference might change, if I could find speakers that gave me something uniquely satisfying with those sorts of recordings.

So yes, fidelity is different than preference, and there's no reason to denigrate someone's preferences. But if your preference is based on a perceptual experience that is clearly about a very particular genre of music and very particular type of recording and production, then you're going to get criticism if you try to extrapolate that to a more general claim about the realism-inducing effects of a speaker.

 

[Duke]

So what characteristic does this speaker possess (that most others, apparently, do not) that leads to this "outside the room it sounds real" effect?

From through the open doorway and down the walkway, all that could be heard was reflected sound. So my guess is that the Jubilees have very good (pretty close to "flat") power response and very good dynamic contrast.

Or is it all just coincidence? If there had been Salon 2's in there playing that same recording (whatever it was), would the result have been the same?

I have been to dozens of high-end audio shows and walked past hundreds if not thousands of rooms with open doorways while music was playing inside. I have only heard this "sounds startlingly like live instruments from outside the room" characteristic four times at audio shows that I can remember. Each time it has been from horn loudspeakers.

Most of the "character" of the sound from that position would have been defined by the aperture of the door, and the acoustics of the walkway.

No moreso than if an actual saxophone had been being played in the room.

I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the perception came from the brains foreknowledge of what something sounds like when listened to in a different room, through an open door.

In my experience the brain is pretty good at telling whether something actually sounds real or not. In my experience speaker systems sound closer to realistic when listened to inside the room rather than outside the room. It is not obvious to me how listening through an open doorway and down a hall could make something sound more real that it actually sounds.

If you are aware of any studies that relate to this subject I'd like to read them... ?

 

[EERecordist]

Klipsch is a consumer brand. They had some unique LF cabinet designs. They have had horns in their range. They successfully coasted on that.

JBL has always had more engineering resources to design horns and horns have been found in their studio monitor range on and off. They use software to design their horns, lenses, transducers, and cabinets. They would have a Klippel to prove the design.

Professional monitors are designed to evaluate live sound in an acoustically managed and EQed control room. The engineer's job is to also listen to instruments live in the concert hall. They don't choose Klipsch as a tool.

Klipsch is part of an audio conglomerate owning trailing consumer brands which are not known for fidelity at the level expected today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxx_International

Others may disagree, but old speaker designs place a lot of emphasis on efficiency and simple crossovers. With DSP and the amplifier power today, I would put more design emphasis on lowering distortion and resonance, and of course even dispersion.

Of course consumers can buy any product they like for any reason, as we often discuss on ASR.

 

[antcollinet]

objectivism, philosophical system identified....

We are not talking philosophy. You are probably better off looking to the dictionary:

objective

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

So Objective here means things we can say based on measurements, studies, known engineering or science, or subjective tests where we can control for biases.

Subjectivism is personal opinion not backed up by evidence, personal perception not backed up by controlled testing etc.

 

[EERecordist]

if someone plays strings in an orchestra and prefers speakers that tend to reproduce orchestral recordings as string players are accustomed to hearing them from where they sit onstage during their performances - or if they just prefer to hear orchestral recordings that make the strings sound especially smooth and/or prominent - that's great.

It just has absolutely nothing to do with the experience I want,

We had this problem with a producer who was a brass player. The sound on stage from a section is not what the audience hears. I would also expect a lot of hearing loss in players of even acoustic instruments.

 

[ctrl]

Almost all Klipsch speakers, even those of the less noble series such as the RP, have shown great dynamic capabilities at high spl, i.e. the ability to maintain a coherent frequency response even at higher spl levels, without compressing the response (or compressing it less compared to other similar speakers in terms of price/size) this leads to loud sounding and preservation of dynamics (as for live instrumentalists) and this could favor the sensation of "live" music.

One should be careful with generalizations. It is more of a myth that Klipsch speakers exhibit particularly low compression, aka great dynamic range.

The "Klipsch Premium Heritage Speakers" in particular sometimes exhibit poor short term compression behavior, as Erin's Audiocorner measurements clearly show:
Klipsch Forte IV, Heresy IV


A high sensitivity in the sound pressure level is no guarantee for low compression tendency and "preservation of dynamics".

Driver quality plays a particularly important role here (and limiter behavior for active speaker), for example:
JBL 4367


Source: Erin's Audiocorner

Some more examples and detailed explanation can be found here.

 

[antcollinet]

If you are aware of any studies that relate to this subject I'd like to read them... ?

Theres lots of info about how subconscious biases can directly change our perception of sound even when the sound waves are the same. Theres even a demo you can see for yourself (look up McGurk effect- and note this is just an example of a specific subconscious bias influencing what you hear. This is obviously speech based and I'm not suggesting this specific bias can be at play with your sax - but there are many many others). There are also loads of audio illusions (skip the first - another McGurk effect example) as there are optical illusions, which are also examples of how biases impact what we hear and see.

So - it is quite conceivable for a subconscious bias can make something sound other than the sound waves hitting your ears. However, I'm not saying that *is* what happened. The phrase I used was "I would not be surprised if...."

In my experience the brain is pretty good at telling whether something actually sounds real or not.

So no, I disagree. The brain is exceptionally good at inventing things in the sound that are not actually there.

No moreso than if an actual saxophone had been being played in the room.

This is true. I doubt very much that a sax listened through a door and down a corridor will sound the same as a sax in the same room. Even in room sound will vary depending on the characteristics of the room. But the brain is pretty good at filling in the gaps and may well be doing this in all three cases.

In other words, a subjective impression that you were hearing a real sax while wandering down a walkway outside of the room is not particularly strong evidence (at least for me) that the speakers producing that sound are capable of any more realism than any other speakers.

 

[Talisman]

Klipsch is part of an audio conglomerate owning trailing consumer brands which are not known for fidelity at the level expected today.

This does not imply that they are not capable of doing so, just that they make different design (and marketing and brand identity) choices.
Suffice it to say that the active speakers "the nines" have a perfectly managed and slightly and deliberately highlighted response from 10khz upwards (however manageable by the DSP control).
Klipsch doesn't make random speakers that come like this, it's a choice, if you don't like it there's no shortage of alternatives
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/klipsch_the_nines/

One should be careful with generalizations. It is more of a myth that Klipsch speakers exhibit particularly low compression, aka great dynamic range.

The "Klipsch Premium Heritage Speakers" in particular sometimes exhibit poor short term compression behavior, as Erin's Audiocorner measurements clearly show:
Klipsch Forte IV, Heresy IV
View attachment 367188
View attachment 367189

I have no problem with what you say, and it was certainly a general statement.
However, let me note two things.

A) Dynamic compression appears to be limited to some particular specific frequencies, typically "classic" dynamics test textures have much larger areas of SPL decay and often at band boundaries, particularly in bass responses.
I tend to think that these two types of dynamic collapse are very different on a perceptual level and that the massive collapse of the bass response is much more acoustically relevant and noticeable

B) The comparison, although by way of example, was made between speakers costing 5000 euros and speakers costing 17,000..... God forbid there were no differences in the quality of the drivers.

Finally, I'll give you an example of what I was saying
This is the dynamics of the Klipsch rp8000f II

At 102db we still have drops and peaks of half a db in the bass and a little more in some specific frequencies. We are talking about speakers that with a little attention and research can be found for 1200 euros LA Pair, and which offer very respectable performance for lovers of energetic music.
Klipsch, with the exception of some first-rate speakers, offers very competitive prices on very good products that are sometimes unfairly despised because they do not fall within the "hifi" standards of many.

 

[Duke]

Theres lots of info about how subconscious biases can directly change our perception of sound even when the sound waves are the same...

Yes, I was wondering if you were aware of studies directly applicable to "listening in another room".

So no, I disagree. The brain is exceptionally good at inventing things in the sound that are not actually there.

But bias is introduced by expectation. My expectation would have been to hear what sounded like loudspeakers, not what what sounded like a live instrument. Not that I expect you to lend any credibility to my account; just pointing out that bias would have probably worked the other way in this instance.

In other words, a subjective impression that you were hearing a real sax while wandering down a walkway outside of the room is not particularly strong evidence (at least for me) that the speakers producing that sound are capable of any more realism than any other speakers.

Ime it is rare for speakers to create the subjective impression of hearing a live instrument from outside the room, and imo it can be indicitave of the speakers getting the spectral balance of the reflection field correct. Imo it tells us nothing about the direct sound.

 

[Soniclife]

On the Thursday evening before Axpona 2022 opened I was walking on the ground floor. With me was a musician who played multiple instruments. Down a wide walkway we could hear a saxaphone being played, and there was a door open on that side of the walkway. I looked at him and he looked at me, and we were both bug-eyed. I said, "THAT sounds like a live saxaphone!" and he agreed; saxaphpone is one of the instruments he plays. So we made a beeline for the open doorway. Was there a performance going on? Was somebody using a live-versus-recorded saxaphone to help them set up their room? Nope. Somebody was playing a pair of Klipsch Jubilee speakers in a very large room.

Do you know what the recording was? When I've had this sort of experience it's usually because the recording was really dynamic, and it was played loud.