Klipsch R-41M Bookshelf Speaker Review

[gvl]

A keyhole mount -- presumably for hanging the things on a wall -- on a rear-ported enclosure? Seriously? At least those $43/pair Daytons with their keyhole mounting brackets are sealed!

This is not as wrong as you might think.

 

[SmackDaddies]

i did a similar thing with Micca mb42 in my kitchen

 

[mhardy6647]

Walter/Wendy Carlos did something similar in his/her studio in NY at one point... with four Cornwalls.
No rear ports on the Cornies, of course... but the thought of being in the middle of that maelstrom at anything other than low SPL is borderline terrifying.

http://www.wendycarlos.com/photos.html

 

[amirm]

Why would you be disappointed if the JBL measured poorly if you enjoy the sound?

Because the knowledge may then lead him to select a better speaker next time. Putting your head in the sand is no way to advance in this hobby.

 

[amirm]

Why would anyone take seriously an evaluation of a speaker that begins with measuring and then the measurements are supposedly confirmed in a listening test?
Either listen and measure or measure and leave it at that.

The measurements don't care if I listen or don't listen. If you have no use for them, then this is not a forum for you.

As for my listening tests, they are expected in speaker reviews for good or bad. Or I have to deal with someone like you ridiculing the review with: "he didn't even listen to the speaker!"

In addition, you could do a hell of a lot worse than my listening tests. They are level matched, single speaker, A/B against another reference (for smaller ones and soon for larger ones). This is infinitely more revealing than anything anyone else does in speaker reviews as evidenced by how wrong their assessments are. I also often get my wife to listen who has not seen measurements and doesn't know which speaker is which.

 

[stereo01]

The measurements don't care if I listen or don't listen. If you have no use for them, then this is not a forum for you.

As for my listening tests, they are expected in speaker reviews for good or bad. Or I have to deal with someone like you ridiculing the review with: "he didn't even listen to the speaker!"

In addition, you could do a hell of a lot worse than my listening tests. They are level matched, single speaker, A/B against another reference (for smaller ones and soon for larger ones). This is infinitely more revealing than anything anyone else does in speaker reviews as evidenced by how wrong their assessments are. I also often get my wife to listen who has not seen measurements and doesn't know which speaker is which.

Simply suggesting that if you are going to give your listening impressions those impressions should be first not last.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Honestly, is anyone on this site reading the reviews for the subjective impressions?

But seriously, yes of course I must agree, subjectively review first, measure later, is the way to do it. Even Stereophile insists on this principle

EDIT: or just skip the subjective impressions entirely ofc. Not that I don't trust your ears @amirm, just that I don't see it as in keeping with the site necessarily. Anyway, enough of me demanding that you do this or that, the speakers measurements are fantastic, I'm already more than happy.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, I like correlation of the objective with the subjective.
The means and the end are both interesting to me.

That said, as a left-handed analytical scientist (think about it) -- my world-view isn't terrifically normal (in the literal or figurative senses of the word).

 

[stereo01]

Because the knowledge may then lead him to select a better speaker next time. Putting your head in the sand is no way to advance in this hobby.

I would also suggest a little bit more humility as you are not advancing the hobby if your formula for a review is backwards. In addition, don't take my criticism personally, I'm just trying to advance the hobby or in this case stop it from sliding backwards.

 

[CheapskateCCAOwner]

EDIT: or just skip the subjective impressions entirely ofc. Not that I don't trust your ears @amirm, just that I don't see it as in keeping with the site necessarily.

With electronics, sure; subjective impressions in most cases have limited value.

For speakers, though? I have to disagree with eliminating subjective impressions; there are too many physical and environmental variables involved with speaker measurements that simply aren't there for electronics. There are (and likely will continue to be) instances where some measurements just don't correlate with subjective listening impressions. For those instances, there is an opportunity to analyze and (perhaps) make changes to the measurement methodology that may lead to more accurate results (or at least make it easier to predict the subjective results through repetition).

Besides, I enjoy reading Amir's subjective impressions; he clearly strives to be as objective as possible in his subjective assessments, which is refreshing. And his wife's impressions give nice contrast on how the reviewed speaker sounds to non-audiophiles.

 

[andreasmaaan]

With electronics, sure; subjective impressions in most cases have limited value.

For speakers, though? I have to disagree with eliminating subjective impressions; there are too many physical and environmental variables involved with speaker measurements that simply aren't there for electronics. There are (and likely will continue to be) instances where some measurements just don't correlate with subjective listening impressions. For those instances, there is an opportunity to analyze and (perhaps) make changes to the measurement methodology that may lead to more accurate results (or at least make it easier to predict the subjective results through repetition).

Besides, I enjoy reading Amir's subjective impressions; he clearly strives to be as objective as possible in his subjective assessments, which is refreshing. And his wife's impressions give nice contrast on how the reviewed speaker sounds to non-audiophiles.

The thing is, these "physical and environmental variables" are far more pronounced in a particular listening environment, making subjective impressions even more unreliable (e.g. than for an electronic device listened to on headphones). Eliminating these variables is exactly what the Klippel measurement system does.

I do agree that Amir's subjective review style is refreshing compared to other reviews out there

Anyway, I'll bow out now as it's all academic to me - I don't actually read subjective reviews anyway!

 

[Jon AA]

I would also suggest a little bit more humility as you are not advancing the hobby if your formula for a review is backwards. In addition, don't take my criticism personally, I'm just trying to advance the hobby or in this case stop it from sliding backwards.

Good grief. Spending $100K on equipment and beginning a database of comprehensive anechoic data on speakers is not "advancing the hobby" but "sliding it backwards?" Somebody in this thread needs a little bit of humility, but it's not Amir.

 

[SmackDaddies]

Good grief. Spending $100K on equipment and beginning a database of comprehensive anechoic data on speakers is not "advancing the hobby" but "sliding it backwards?" Somebody in this thread needs a little bit of humility, but it's not Amir.

+1

 

[CheapskateCCAOwner]

The thing is, these "physical and environmental variables" are far more pronounced in a particular listening environment, making subjective impressions even more unreliable (e.g. than for an electronic device listened to on headphones). Eliminating these variables is exactly what the Klippel measurement system does.

I agree with everything you're saying, but for me, it's nice to read how Amir actually feels about the overall sound of the speaker (in his environment), in addition to finding out how strongly his subjective impressions correlate with his measurements.

 

[SegaCD]

Why would you be disappointed if the JBL measured poorly if you enjoy the sound?

If a speaker measures very well then theoretically you could use a DSP to emulate the performance of this speaker or any other speaker.

If you have a speaker that you "enjoy the sound" of, what does that even mean? Do you listen to songs produced and mastered by one person on one set of mastering speakers? Every song will sound different on different speakers. On speaker sound good for all content. I love (if not absolutely adore) my Rectilinear IIIs but they excel with certain material and sound OK with some other material.

The problem with your statement is that "enjoying the sound" means very little. A perfect speaker should be an audio chameleon that can be adjusted to perform how you want it to perform in any room and for any song. A speaker that has resonances and weird frequency dips that are complicated to compensate for will prevent such flexibility and transparency from ever happening. An ideal speaker should allow you to define your performance & your own enjoyment. It's why measurements are important.

If you "enjoy" the sound of a certain speaker out of the box then that's great! However, people that find speakers like that usually spend lots of money trying different speakers to come to such a solution or they are very lucky. Sound deadened, DSP compensated show rooms that carry every speaker in the world don't exist which makes coming to such a conclusion difficult. As long as we all have different sized rooms, differently shaped ear canals, differently shaped heads, etc. "Sounds good" means nothing and by assuming the speaker you own sounds good may be restricting you from a speaker that sounds better. Therefore, join us in our mission find ourselves that magic chameleon speaker that can be DSP'd to hear every song the way we all want to hear it!

 

[andreasmaaan]

If a speaker measures very well then theoretically you could use a DSP to emulate the performance of this speaker or any other speaker.

If you have a speaker that you "enjoy the sound" of, what does that even mean? Do you listen to songs produced and mastered by one person on one set of mastering speakers? Every song will sound different on different speakers. On speaker sound good for all content. I love (if not absolutely adore) my Rectilinear IIIs but they excel with certain material and sound OK with some other material.

The problem with your statement is that "enjoying the sound" means very little. A perfect speaker should be an audio chameleon that can be adjusted to perform how you want it to perform in any room and for any song. A speaker that has resonances and weird frequency dips that are complicated to compensate for will prevent such flexibility and transparency from ever happening. An ideal speaker should allow you to define your performance & your own enjoyment. It's why measurements are important.

If you "enjoy" the sound of a certain speaker out of the box then that's great! However, people that find speakers like that usually spend lots of money trying different speakers to come to such a solution or they are very lucky. Sound deadened, DSP compensated show rooms that carry every speaker in the world don't exist which makes coming to such a conclusion difficult. As long as we all have different sized rooms, differently shaped ear canals, differently shaped heads, etc. "Sounds good" means nothing and by assuming the speaker you own sounds good may be restricting you from a speaker that sounds better. Therefore, join us in our mission find ourselves that magic chameleon speaker that can be DSP'd to hear every song the way we all want to hear it!

I agree with a lot of what you say, but DSP generally can't change a speaker's dispersion characteristics, which contribute significantly to its sound. Even a (hypothetical) ideal constant directivity speaker has a fixed beamwidth. Some companies have experimented with variable beamwidth designs using a large number of drivers (eg B&O), but these designs remain limited in flexibility (typically a choice between "omni" and directional radiation with a single arbitrary beamwidth), and are large and very costly due to the numbers of drivers involved.

 

[amirm]

But seriously, yes of course I must agree, subjectively review first, measure later, is the way to do it. Even Stereophile insists on this principle

Look at how much good it has done them.

As I have repeatedly explained, I perform listening tests after the measurements to get trained on what frequency response anomalies sound like. This is proving hugely valuable.

 

[pma]

As I have repeatedly explained, I perform listening tests after the measurements to get trained on what frequency response anomalies sound like. This is proving hugely valuable.

However you have no chance to prevent bias you received during your measurements. This is unavoidable, though you probably would not admit the fact.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Look at how much good it has done them.

As I have repeatedly explained, I perform listening tests after the measurements to get trained on what frequency response anomalies sound like. This is proving hugely valuable.

No complaint from me Amir, I'm just happy to see the measurememts

Having said that - and I say this only because you bring it up - have you considered that trying to hear anomalies in the absence of bias and then testing your observations against objective data might be more valuable (to you personally I mean)?

 

[MZKM]

However you have no chance to prevent bias you received during your measurements. This is unavoidable, though you probably would not admit the fact.

Which is why you should focus on the measurements. There are usually a handful to dozens of subjective reviews of many of these speakers.