Klipsch R-41M Bookshelf Speaker Review

[tuga]

largely, yes. And also, what a "considerable" amount of audiophiles buy is really only meaningful if they also continue to prefer those colored flavors in blind tests...which they apparently don't...just like the fact that a "considerable" amount of the general public continues to buy bluetooth speakers and HTIAB kits but still ALSO have the same speaker preferences as the golden-eared audiophiles in speaker preference tests. The fact is, we are all humans and it turns out we all mostly like the same shit. Audiophiles are not special in any regard...

Realy only. You believe that? Because there's a study with a massive sample of 250 of which 1/3, 2/3s(?) are audiophiles?

Audiophiles are special because they obsess about audio unlike normal consumers.

 

[q3cpma]

Realy only. You believe that? Because there's a study with a massive sample of 250 of which 1/3, 2/3s(?) are audiophiles?

Audiophiles are special because they obsess about audio unlike normal consumers.

Or because they want to appear special and as obsessing over audio.

 

[QMuse]

I don't think you've read my first post. The dip is inaudible, but not the time anomaly. See https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/jbl-7-series and https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ty-jbl-705-i-speakers.8564/page-5#post-265573

Oh, I've read it, but you didn't read my answer carefully. I would put my money that "time anomally" of 5ms longer decay at 800Hz is not audible. I would accept a test with a sweep instead of music as well but it would have to be unsighted, and those you linked have been sighted.

 

[q3cpma]

Oh, I've read it. I would put my money that "time anomally" of 5ms longer decay at 800Hz is not audible. I would accept a test with a sweep instead of music as well but it would had to be unsighted, and those you linked have been sighted.

Well, it's not completely scientific, but come one, man, that's not the same as the usual audiophile imagination, they're saying they hear something that's actually there. In any case, there are some areas like that one where I would avoid ignoring religiously; but that's okay, since that kind of problem is quite rare.

 

[QMuse]

Well, it's not completely scientific, but come one, man, that's not the same as the usual audiophile imagination, they're saying they hear something that's actually there. In any case, there are some areas like that one where I would avoid ignoring religiously; but that's okay, since that kind of problem is quite rare.

They are saying they're hearing something because they have seen it's there on the graph, which is a very typicall example of sighted bias. They are expecting to hear it there as they have seen it is there.

For such test to be of any scientific value they shouldn't have seen any graph at all.

 

[q3cpma]

They are saying they're hearing something because they have seen it's there on the graph

You don't know such a thing, and in the case of SOS, that's doubtful. I say that because they usually don't do measurements, so I presume the did to double-check what they heard. In any case, what you're arguing is that it's not always audible, but I'm arguing that's it's not always inaudible; there is no point going further, really.

For such test to be of any scientific value they shouldn't have seen any graph at all.

I know, but it's not like we have any data. Between going blindly and considering N speakers and not putting the extremely rare case like this on my buying list which is now of size N-1, I know which one is more reasonable; especially when N is high, as is the case at the price point of the 705p.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Realy only. You believe that? Because there's a study with a massive sample of 250 of which 1/3, 2/3s(?) are audiophiles?

Audiophiles are special because they obsess about audio unlike normal consumers.

That's absolutely true. It also says nothing relevant regarding the actual choices they make as a result of that obsession. For proof one need only look at the photos of their systems and listening spaces posted all over the various audiophile forums on the internet. There's self-identified audiophiles listening to vinyl with speakers sitting on the floor in a corner behind a sofa on one side and in an alcove beside a bookshelf on the other. If you think the awesome visual of a nice tube amp isn't a huge part of their appeal, well then I guess you and I just have a very different understanding of human nature.

 

[QMuse]

You don't know such a thing, and in the case of SOS, that's doubtful. I say that because they usually don't do measurements, so I presume the did to double-check what they heard. In any case, what you're arguing is that it's not always audible, but I'm arguing that's it's not always inaudible; there is not point further, really.

Test is either done in a control manner or it is not. Those 2 tests you linked certainly were not.

I know, but it's not like we have the data. Between going blindly and considering N speakers and not putting the extremely rare case like this on my buying list which is now of size N-1, I know which one is more reasonable; especially when N is high, as is the case at the price point of the 705p.

We don't have any proof such artifact is audible. My guess is it is not, but let's wait for the opinion of the guys with more knowledge of psychoacoustics than I have.

 

[tuga]

Or because they want to appear special and as obsessing over audio.

There are many ways to practice audiophilia but almost every audiophile is obsessed with audio and gear. We spend hours in forums discussing audio, and have several systems during our lifetime, sometimes several systems at one time, and go to shows, and we read reviews, and we look and make measurements, and we worry about recording sound quality, and we have large systems when others have large TVs, we spend too much money...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

...and we allow ourselves to be fooled by all sorts of things that have nothing to do with sound quality.

 

[tuga]

That's absolutely true. It also says nothing relevant regarding the actual choices they make as a result of that obsession. For proof one need only look at the photos of their systems and listening spaces posted all over the various audiophile forums on the internet. There's self-identified audiophiles listening to vinyl with speakers sitting on the floor in a corner behind a sofa on one side and in an alcove beside a bookshelf on the other. If you think the awesome visual of a nice tube amp isn't a huge part of their appeal, well then I guess you and I just have a very different understanding of human nature.

Indeed, but there are also countless reports of people complaining about Chord or Benchmark DACs etc. sounding "clinical" and "sterile".

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Indeed, but there are also countless reports of people complaining about Chord or Benchmark DACs etc. sounding "clinical" and "sterile".

exactly. There's countless reports of all sorts of silliness...

 

[tuga]

...and we allow ourselves to be fooled by all sorts of things that have nothing to do with sound quality.

Indeed. The amount of cloud space dedicated to say the discussion of cables is stupefying...

But we are slowly veering away from the subject now.

 

[tuga]

exactly. There's countless reports of all sorts of silliness...

No. People don't like this kind of sound. Sometimes the problem is elsewhere in their system and they don't know it but often they just don't like how this stuff sounds.

Until rational (Objective would sound pejorative) people understand this there will never be a dialogue.

Some people like "coloured" sound reproduction. This is a fact and has to be acknowledged. Have you seen how most people can live with high stauration and contrast TV settings? Or the countless people who watched 4:3 content in 16:9?

 

[tuga]

There is a lot of sighted bias, but the main question is: are you talking about ear preference or mind preference? Because I think this is just retro-LARPing, and people who actually had to deal with vinyl and tubes without any choice are very happy we progressed.

I've been participating in forums in the US, the UK, France, Spain and Portugal for almost 15 years now.
Some people like "coloured" gear. Is it that too difficult to accept?
It's not just valves or vinyl that people like; some people put their speakers near the side-walls with no toe-in; some people power hard to drive low-sensitivity loudspeakers using 5 or 10W amps with high output impedance; some people like Redbook over NOS DACs; et cetera.

Many signal-correlated distortions increase the sense of "spaciousness", a bit like reverb. Others make the tonal balance perceptually "warmer". Others still mask problem up- or downstream...

 

[q3cpma]

I've been participating in forums in the US, the UK, France, Spain and Portugal for almost 15 years now.
Some people like "coloured" gear. Is it that too difficult to accept?

When you've seen the results of Toole, yeah. Unless those preferences are visible blind-tested, those are just in their mind.

It's not just valves or vinyl that people like; some people put their speakers near the side-walls with no toe-in; some people power hard to drive low-sensitivity loudspeakers using 5 or 10W amps with high output impedance; some people like Redbook over NOS DACs; et cetera.

The fact that you're mixing stuff that is provably inaudible (like DACs, unless those are completely botched) and stuff that isn't doesn't serve your point.

Many signal-correlated distortions increase the sense of "spaciousness", a bit like reverb. Others make the tonal balance perceptually "warmer". Others still mask problem up- or downstream...

The real problem is that, supposing those audible preferences exist, sound reproduction isn't the same as sound creation. The goal of your speakers is to sound like what the artist and/or sound engineer heard in their studio, otherwise you're just a make-believe "artist" yourself. Since not all the studios sound the same, trying to reach an average of the studios where your material was recorded is probably the goal.

Not completely related but the people in the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" camp really seem to think of it as an absolute truth; especially one that can shield from any criticism.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I've been participating in forums in the US, the UK, France, Spain and Portugal for almost 15 years now.
Some people like "coloured" gear. Is it that too difficult to accept?
It's not just valves or vinyl that people like; some people put their speakers near the side-walls with no toe-in; some people power hard to drive low-sensitivity loudspeakers using 5 or 10W amps with high output impedance; some people like Redbook over NOS DACs; et cetera.

Many signal-correlated distortions increase the sense of "spaciousness", a bit like reverb. Others make the tonal balance perceptually "warmer". Others still mask problem up- or downstream...

All these cases may be (I don't claim they necessarily are) the result of sighted bias. Where is the scientifically gathered data showing that people prefer these things under conditions in which sighted bias has been removed?

Anyway, for the sake of furthering the discussion, I've used RePhase to create a couple of impulses (download here) that add high-Q pre- and post-ringing, with no effects in the amplitude domain. You can convolve these in software with a recording of your choosing and then use Foobar's ABX comparator, for example, to determine whether you can reliably detect a difference between the filtered and unfiltered signals.

I chose a centre frequency of 2.5kHz as it is within the range where our ears are most sensitive. The impulses are generated at three different sample rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, and 96kHz, to give people some flexibility in running the tests.

Note that these impulses include both pre- and post-ringing, and therefore are more severe than the kind of ringing you've been describing @tuga, since in the cases you're describing there is only post-ringing. Unfortunately, I couldn't think up a way to do this in software such that only post-ringing would be generated while the amplitude response would remain unaffected and the group delay would remain constant.

Perhaps someone else here has some ideas on how this might be done?

Anyway, if you run this test and get a positive result, this leaves open the possibility that it is the post-ringing that is audible (but note of course that the research is quite clear that the pre-ringing is far more likely to be what is audible).

So yes, a flawed test, but at least one that's biased towards detection rather than non-detection.

Here are some graphs generated using REW showing the behaviour of the filter at a sampling rate of 96kHz (but in any case, within the audio band, all three impulses are identical).

Amplitude response:

Step response:

Waterfall (only post-ringing visible):

Spectrogram (only post-ringing visible):

 

[tuga]

All these cases may be (I don't claim they necessarily are) the result of sighted bias. Where is the scientifically gathered data showing that people prefer these things under conditions in which sighted bias has been removed?

All these cases? Surely not. I have no data. Toole's research used some 100-150? audiophiles (0.005%), maybe you can ask Harman for more data.

Thanks for taking the effort to create the distortions.
I'm on a Mac. I have Audacity installed but not Foobar (not sure I wan't to).

Perhaps someone else here has some ideas on how this might be done?

I'd try @pkane

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thanks for taking the effort to create the distortions.
I'm on a Mac. I have Audacity installed but not Foobar (not sure I wan't to).

No problem

Foobar is not the only option, just the one I'm familiar with. It's, free and system non-intensive, which is why I like it.

Anyway all you really need is any software that can convolve the impulse with a recording, and then software to conduct an ABX test. There are lots of options, but I don't have a mac so I'm not sure what might be best for you. If you'd like to send me a recording, pm me: I could convolve it for you and then all you'd need would be an ABX comparator, or perhaps you'd just like to listen casually/sighted out of interest.

Or maybe wait to see if anyone else here works out a way to generate a post-ringing-only impulse with flat amplitude response and otherwise constant group delay.

 

[Putter]

Hey that's clever engineering. The bassgain from the wall get's countert with automaticly closing the port.

I've always wondered about that. If using a sub crossed at 80 hz or higher, would the port's contribution be eliminated/minimized? Or would the back pressure on the midwoofer from a wallmount interfere with its operation?