Klipsch Heresy IV Speaker Review

[Everett T]

The quote above was from the review. Does that sound like a scientific conclusion based on scientific test and measurement? If it does, then you are also the type that is very willing to spend $100.00 dollars on a nice dinner out with your wife, choosing the newest item on the menu, even after the waitress let you know it had only been tested one time buy a guy on the floor of his garage. Enjoy your meal!

When he uses the term opinion, no it's not science. Still the measurements are objective, so what's the point here? They're less than accurate speakers and the data backs up his opinion, whether he measures in his garage, or sacrifices a room in his home like this..

 

[Audio Science Pal]

The Klipsch factory has an anechoic chamber.

 

[Nwickliff]

It is unfortunate this young fellow spent all that time doing his charts and graphs with a set up that was sub-optimal. It is also too bad for Klipsch, because when people pass off "science" as gospel, and when that "science" is based on the wrong assumptions or the wrong test set-up, it misleads others. All trained scientists know that before they start testing, they are required to "review the literature," to find out what others know, before they jump to hypothesis making or testing. Finding out what others know about the Heresy seems to have been missed in this case.

Wow! Please explain how the charts and graphs were sub-optimal! It sounds like you don't understand how to read them. You can actually view the frequency response at many different degrees so sorry, that's not a valid argument. Did you see the directivity? Did you see the measured resonances? "Find out what other know"? What are you talking about. Reviewers aren't scientists. Their opinions are not factual data points. They are opinions and that's it. Could you be any more backwards with your assertions?
The Falacy of science? Huh? Marketing? Huh? Dude, you have twisted your argument into knots, and they now make zero sense. Apparently, you think science is being used by the marketing department to dupe us while we should be really listening to paid reviewers and their subjective opinions that may or may not be biased and who present zero data to back up their assertions?

It's obvious your ego is bruised because a speaker you like measures poorly and the reviewer didn't like them. As, he said, they are NOT a reference speaker. You will NOT hear the music without it's own color and distortion being added to the tracks. But if you like the sound they provide, then that's just fine. If you like distortion in the most basic sense, have at it man.

 

[Nwickliff]

The Klipsch factory has an anechoic chamber.

View attachment 365831

and.....?

 

[Sal1950]

The problem with "objective" measurements is that do not tell you what the "objective" was. It's the fallacy of science. More than half of the best speakers in the world do not measure flat.

I may have been taken too literally here.
Everything is relative, depends on how far from flat they measure.
Too far and they then are just garbage and could never be determined to be any where's near one of the "best speakers in the world".

"What if a high end speaker measures really badly?"​

It's a really bad speaker, plain and simple.

 

[Rmar]

What isn't scientific about the measurement analysis from the Klippel NFS? The interpretation of that data could be flawed in the written, but the data is the data.

As for affiliate links, that helps offset the time and costs associated with each measurement and the equipment. Same as donations here at ASR. Erin's day job at NASA puts the food in the table and cares for his children. If you're gonna complain about Erin, the likes of Stereophile, Hometheater Fidelity, etc, where they're completely dependent on adv dollars, would be a more realistic "target".

When he uses the term opinion, no it's not science. Still the measurements are objective, so what's the point here? They're less than accurate speakers and the data backs up his opinion, whether he measures in his garage, or sacrifices a room in his home like this..
View attachment 365817

Science is about methodology integrity, data integrity and informed judgments. None of which are clearly evident in this review. Further, what is the basis for claiming the data is objective? In other words, how do we know that for a fact? What is objective about it? While we are thinking, what is the significance of the objectivity? Readers who are spring-loaded in favor of fact-based reviews have a lot of unanswered questions. No one can blame them for wanting to know. With so much junk-science and spam-science out there, full transparency and review integrity is everything.

 

[Rmar]

You can't have flawed methodology, and yet valid facts. It doesn't work that way. Let's get somewhere on this issue. How certain are you that the facts are true, and what is your basis for believing it? To make a claim, you must have a logical basis. Who can give one?

 

[DonH56]

You can't have flawed methodology, and yet valid facts. It doesn't work that way. Let's get somewhere on this issue. How certain are you that the facts are true, and what is your basis for believing it? To make a claim, you must have a logical basis. Who can give one?

The Klippel speaker measuring system is a proven objective assessment tool, and Erin and Amir have worked to ensure they understand its proper usage.

The Heresy was originally designed to be a center speaker in a three-channel system and that influenced its design. Virtually all of the Klipsch horn speakers that have been measured by anyone have fared poorly. See e.g. the Stereophile measurements of the past few years.

 

[Rmar]

I may have been taken too literally here.
Everything is relative, depends on how far from flat they measure.
Too far and they then are just garbage and could never be determined to be any where's near one of the "best speakers in the world".

"What if a high end speaker measures really badly?"​

It's a really bad speaker, plain and simple.

How do all these subjective terms (bad, garbage, really bad, best, better, etc. etc) become the descriptors for something claimed to be so very objective, like test results? How can that be? What sense does that make? Think about it. It would be like using hues in the color wheel to discuss blood oxygen levels (which help make blood red in color) with your doctor. It won't get anyone anywhere.

 

[AdamG]

How do all these subjective terms (bad, garbage, really bad, best, better, etc. etc) become the descriptors for something claimed to be so very objective, like test results? How can that be? What sense does that make? Think about it. It would be like using hues in the color wheel to discuss blood oxygen levels (which help make blood red in color) with your doctor. It won't get anyone anywhere.

Because the testing results are reliable and repeatable by various reviewers. That in a nut shell is the objective evidence. The subjective terminology is just that subjective and varies from reviewer to reviewer. The Reviewer announces that fact and stipulates that these are just their subjective interpretations. However, these terms become more relevant, meaningful and understood when they are associated with Objective scientific measurements that support these observations. You are using circular logic to just argue for the sake of arguing. Please stop or present your own Objective evidence that contradicts this.

 

[Rmar]

So here is where we are: The tests are objective "because the testing results are reliable and repeatable by various reviewers." I must admit, I had not thought of that logic. I really hadn't. I would say you are one smart fellow who has made a very compelling case. Well done and good night.

 

[AdamG]

So here is where we are: The tests are objective "because the testing results are reliable and repeatable by various reviewers." I must admit, I had not thought of that logic. I really hadn't. I would say you are one smart fellow who has made a very compelling case. Well done and good night.

For the record I am using the words of our host @amirm. He is the smart fellow and I am but his humble henchman

Good night to you Sir.

 

[Doodski]

So here is where we are: The tests are objective "because the testing results are reliable and repeatable by various reviewers." I must admit, I had not thought of that logic. I really hadn't. I would say you are one smart fellow who has made a very compelling case. Well done and good night.

It's about standards and measures. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Sal1950]

So here is where we are: The tests are objective "because the testing results are reliable and repeatable by various reviewers." I must admit, I had not thought of that logic. I really hadn't. I would say you are one smart fellow who has made a very compelling case. Well done and good night.

It's all the basis of reporting scientific procedure.
Presented evidence must be repeatable and verifiable or vs versa. LOL

 

[Angsty]

After all this, the Heresy still measures poorly despite the fact that some people like it.

 

[DonH56]

Poor objective measurements do not always equate to lack of listening preference, though studies by Toole et. al. show most of us prefer a more even response. Many folk have not heard a flat (anechoic) speaker with good off-axis response so have no basis for comparison. Peaks and valleys in the response may counter room or hearing problems, or people may prefer a certain "sound". At least for a while; many times I have felt a speaker sounded impressive because of its flaws, but as time went on grew to dislike the emphasis they imposed on the music. "Beamy and bright" to me may be "dynamic" to someone else, "boomy" to me might be "punchy" bass to another, and so forth. "Spacious and enveloping, filling the room" from Bose 901s sounded impressive to me at first listen, but the more I listened the more I grew to dislike the way the image was smeared, and the way single-point sources like solo instruments and singers were spread across the front wall, etc. Always room for preference. As for objective measurements, I have always had a definition like the one below, meaning empirical observed data without personal bias, not that there is some "objective" in mind (that is a new one to me).

objective /əb-jĕk′tĭv/ adjective

1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
   "objective reality."
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
   "objective facts."
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.
   "an objective critic."
   Similar: fair

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

 

[Everett T]

Poor objective measurements do not always equate to lack of listening preference, though studies by Toole et. al. show most of us prefer a more even response. Many folk have not heard a flat (anechoic) speaker with good off-axis response so have no basis for comparison. Peaks and valleys in the response may counter room or hearing problems, or people may prefer a certain "sound". At least for a while; many times I have felt a speaker sounded impressive because of its flaws, but as time went on grew to dislike the emphasis they imposed on the music. "Beamy and bright" to me may be "dynamic" to someone else, "boomy" to me might be "punchy" bass to another, and so forth. "Spacious and enveloping, filling the room" from Bose 901s sounded impressive to me at first listen, but the more I listened the more I grew to dislike the way the image was smeared, and the way single -point sources like solo instruments and singers were spread across the front wall, etc. Always room for preference. As for objective measurements, I have always had a definition like the one below, meaning empirical observed data without personal bias, not that there is some "objective" in mind (that is a new one to me).

objective /əb-jĕk′tĭv/ adjective

1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
   "objective reality."
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
   "objective facts."
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.
   "an objective critic."
   Similar: fair

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Trained listening sessions should be a requirement for anyone who calls themselves an audiophile

 

[Sal1950]

Trained listening sessions should be a requirement for anyone who calls themselves an audiophile

LOL

"Spacious and enveloping, filling the room" from Bose 901s sounded impressive to me at first listen, but the more I listened the more I grew to dislike the way the image was smeared, and the way single -point sources like solo instruments and singers were spread across the front wall, etc

100% agreed on the 901s. I never could understand the popularity?

Old school speakers tended to do some things very well and some things quite poorly so you really had to pick by preferences and make large compromises. Today they thankfully are starting to get a little more even temperament though they still all have the plus and minus columns to decide from.

 

[Doodski]

After all this, the Heresy still measures poorly despite the fact that some people like it.

It's not voodoo mysterious stuff. Some peeps like them and that's a normal part of being different.

 

[jkasch]

It's not voodoo mysterious stuff. Some peeps like them and that's a normal part of being different.

You mean, if you like something that doesn’t measure well you’re not a bad person?