Klipsch R-41M Bookshelf Speaker Review

[TimF]

Do we all grow up calibrating our hearing/perception to the same environment. Perhaps farm kids face an environment different enough to be significant from central city kids, or suburban kids. We do in some manner standardize and synchronize--that is what I think you mean when you write "...people who incorrectly think everyone's taste in speakers is different...."

 

[amirm]

I don't know how we are taught that some food is too salty, too sweet, etc. But we do. Same is true here. Listening tests have extensively demonstrated this fact to exist for audio. A farmer can tell boomy bass as well as we can.

 

[tuga]

What? I addressed both.

Point here was when you are hearing a peak in frequency response you don't know if it is caused by cabinet/driver resonance or something else, you just hear a peak.

Correct.
Steady state pink-noise over a single speaker is good for evaluating tonal balance but not other aspects of performance.

 

[tuga]

Do we all grow up calibrating our hearing/perception to the same environment. Perhaps farm kids face an environment different enough to be significant from central city kids, or suburban kids. We do in some manner standardize and synchronize--that is what I think you mean when you write "...people who incorrectly think everyone's taste in speakers is different...."

Tasting sound presentation and assessing performance are different tasks with distinct goals.

I agree with your suggestion that our taste in sound presentation depends on many factors from our upbringing, exposure to live music, exposure to reproduced music, musical preferences and probably even anatomical/physiological characteristics and conditions.
But if listeners are trained to identify deviations from standard then they can critically or objectively assess tonal balance.

Most audiophiles are not trained listeners and because the ultimate goal of a domestic music reproduction system is to provide listening pleasure they tend to buy whatever they fancy.

 

[amirm]

Most audiophiles are not trained listeners and because the ultimate goal of a domestic music reproduction system is to provide listening pleasure they tend to buy whatever they fancy.

"Most audiophiles" have been tested and their preferences very much match trained listeners. Here is a formal test of trained listeners versus many other groups of population including audio reviewers:

As you see, the ranking of the speakers (each colored graph) stays the same no matter which group is listening.

I have taken the test twice myself and both times I voted the same as the majority/trained listeners.

You just need to put aside your intuition on this front and go with science and research.

Of course this is for blind tests. Make it sighted and many factors impact preference from story behind the speaker, to its cost, shape, etc.

 

[Johnb]

Good thing the moral bastions of Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Apple et. al have folks like you looking out for non-fraudulent return bandits so they can continue to dodge hundreds of billions in taxes, pay their employees a homeless wage, charge you triple/quadruple digit mark up, and enact schemes/policies designed to screws you over and bleed you dry. Nope, the immoral party here is Joe Plumber, to whom $500 is probably a significant amount of money, buying 2 camcorders with the intent of returning 1.

So I guess your arguement is that since Xxx is a evil company, everyone should defraud them? This moral relativism is what I was complaining about. You know, our children watch our attitudes and learn from them. No wonder they are so jaded and confused. To each sinner his own sins.

The fact that companies factor in theft does not make these victim-less crimes, nor them any less victims. The fact that people know they can get away with stuff, that they think it is Ok, and their peers don't chastise them is the true loss to our society.

 

[StevenEleven]

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Jason-Lisle/

So I guess your arguement is that since Xxx is a evil company, everyone should defraud them? This moral relativism is what I was complaining about. You know, our children watch our attitudes and learn from them. No wonder they are so jaded and confused. To each sinner his own sins.

The fact that companies factor in theft does not make these victim-less crimes, nor them any less victims. The fact that people know they can get away with stuff, that they think it is Ok, and their peers don't chastise them is the true loss to our society.

This is an extremely serious conversation and very much deserves its own thread. IMHO. If it goes to another thread I’ll spin it out.

 

[StevenEleven]

"Most audiophiles" have been tested and their preferences very much match trained listeners. Here is a formal test of trained listeners versus many other groups of population including audio reviewers:

View attachment 51283

As you see, the ranking of the speakers (each colored graph) stays the same no matter which group is listening.

I have taken the test twice myself and both times I voted the same as the majority/trained listeners.

You just need to put aside your intuition on this front and go with science and research.

Of course this is for blind tests. Make it sighted and many factors impact preference from story behind the speaker, to its cost, shape, etc.

This is kind of textbook knowledge by this point. Do we have something like a textbook knowledge thread? I see folks spinning around in circles in at least a few contentious threads where a lack of knowledge can’t be overcome by any degree of logic, and. alternatively, where the logic is so bad I really lose esteem for people. Not that it matters what I think but can we try harder?

 

[QMuse]

Correct.
Steady state pink-noise over a single speaker is good for evaluating tonal balance but not other aspects of performance.

Everything you stated (dynamic ceiling, resolution at low volumes, cabinet and driver resonances, bass alignment ) we actually perceive as a disruption in tonal balance (uneven frequency response).

 

[tuga]

"Most audiophiles" have been tested and their preferences very much match trained listeners. Here is a formal test of trained listeners versus many other groups of population including audio reviewers:

View attachment 51283

As you see, the ranking of the speakers (each colored graph) stays the same no matter which group is listening.

I have taken the test twice myself and both times I voted the same as the majority/trained listeners.

You just need to put aside your intuition on this front and go with science and research.

Of course this is for blind tests. Make it sighted and many factors impact preference from story behind the speaker, to its cost, shape, etc.

If I'm not mistaken this report focuses solely on tonal balance.
And non-trained listeners are far less demanding.

But I must read a bit more about the study. I've only read Toole's piece for The Audio Critic.

 

[tuga]

Everything you stated (dynamic ceiling, resolution at low volumes, cabinet and driver resonances, bass alignment ) we actually perceive as a disruption in tonal balance (uneven frequency response).

With steady state sound? I doubt it.

 

[QMuse]

With steady state sound? I doubt it.

Not necessarily with steady state sound. I was mererly trying to point out that all those things manifest themselves as uneven frequency response.

Not many things we perceive beside uneven FR, directivity and distortion (if very high) come to mind.

 

[tuga]

Not necessarily with steady state sound. I was mererly trying to point out that all those things manifest themselves as uneven frequency response.

Not many things we perceive beside uneven FR, directivity and distortion (if very high) come to mind.

My original comments concern the audibility of other aspects of performance when listening to a single speaker playing (steady state) pink noise.

 

[QMuse]

My original comments concern the audibility of other aspects of performance when listening to a single speaker playing (steady state) pink noise.

I was listening pink noise quite a lot lately as I was doing room EQ for my new speakers and I actually believe all 4 things you mentioned can be recognised with pink noise as all 4 are FR related.

 

[bobbooo]

So I guess your arguement is that since Xxx is a evil company, everyone should defraud them? This moral relativism is what I was complaining about. You know, our children watch our attitudes and learn from them. No wonder they are so jaded and confused. To each sinner his own sins.

The fact that companies factor in theft does not make these victim-less crimes, nor them any less victims. The fact that people know they can get away with stuff, that they think it is Ok, and their peers don't chastise them is the true loss to our society.

No-one is defrauding anyone and no crimes are being committed if they are returning items within the time-frame and for the reasons permitted by the company's policy. In fact, in the EU it is actually the law (under the Consumer Contracts Regulations) that the consumer has the legal right to cancel the contract of sale up to 14 days after they have received an item, if the sale was made online, by phone, or mail order, even if they have just changed their mind, and they then have another 14 more days to return it. Many EU companies extend this cancellation period voluntarily to 30 days (or sometimes more), and Q Acoustics, being a UK company, have kindly chosen to also extend their policy to US customers in addition to their UK ones, even though to my knowledge US federal law gives buyers no such equivalent legal cancellation rights for online purchases. To me, such policies seem especially appropriate for something like a speaker, as you cannot know how it sounds and whether you would like that sound until you receive it. If you think these no-questions-asked cancellation periods are 'immoral' then you should take that up with the companies that are voluntarily including them in their return policies, or if you live in Europe, with the EU legislators who have enshrined them in law. The consumer is not at fault here.

 

[amirm]

If I'm not mistaken this report focuses solely on tonal balance.

You are mistaken. The listeners are simply voting for their preference of one speaker over another. From the peer-reviewed Journal of AES paper,
Differences in Performance and Preference of
Trained versus Untrained Listeners in
Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow

Here is the paper abstract:

 

[tuga]

You are mistaken. The listeners are simply voting for their preference of one speaker over another. From the peer-reviewed Journal of AES paper,
Differences in Performance and Preference of
Trained versus Untrained Listeners in
Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow


View attachment 51290

View attachment 51291
View attachment 51292

Here is the paper abstract:
View attachment 51293

Thanks for the info.

Does the study say how many of those 256 untrained listeners worked for Harman or were Harman dealers?

 

[amirm]

Thanks for the info.

Does the study say how many of those 256 untrained listeners worked for Harman or were Harman dealers?

Yes, there is a whole section on it. I don't want to keep quoting the paper. Please buy a copy of it. Or get Dr. Toole's book. For now, here is the one bit which should push back on where you are going:

If this group voted same as trained listeners and not different from each other, then there is no case to be made that audiophiles all have different tastes.

 

[Dimitri]

With some groups being excited and other being "meeh" I don't see how we can say the voted the same.
They put them in the same order of preference but clearly the trained group were really not enthused with any of them.
If "different tastes" is not the right phrase , maybe the phrase to descibe the phenomenon is wrong.

 

[napilopez]

With some groups being excited and other being "meeh" I don't see how we can say the voted the same.
They put them in the same order of preference but clearly the trained group were really not enthused with any of them.
If "different tastes" is not the right phrase , maybe the phrase to descibe the phenomenon is wrong.

I don't think that's it - it's that trained listeners are much more attuned to listen to flaws. So naturally if they hear a flaw, they will be pickier about what constitut a truly great speaker. I took Harman's freely available listening course(on mobile, so can't find the link right now) and that alone was revealing for helping figure out flaws. Just because I can tell flaws in speaker more easily doesn't mean I enjoy them less though.