• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Klipsch Roy Delgado explaining why Klipsch measures so bad.

Status
Not open for further replies.

PristineSound

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2025
Messages
352
Likes
456
Location
Northeastern part of USA
This interview is certainly conducted by the wrong person. For fully transparency I have nothing but negative perceptions and thoughts on Klipsch.

But anyway, here is the interview.

 
Dunno. I always thought, this measurement looked more than ok.

1006klipsch.3.jpg


Purple trace is the horn loaded, nearly 20 year old RB-81.

Source:
 
As per forum policy can you please give a decent summary about the video.

I think I'll step in here, since the OP here and the interviewer seem to be well out of their comfort zones...

Klipsch is not known to measure the best. Why?

Answer:
On the LF, how you measure makes a difference, for instance, the Klipschorn is measured in 1/8th space, anechoically.

[To those that have never talked to Roy Delgado before, he's actually beginning to answer the question, but he's answering it this way: how to you measure a corner-loaded loudspeaker? The answer to that question actually calls into question all measurements of loudspeakers in rooms. But the interviewer looks like he isn't experienced enough to know what just occurred.]

But Is there not a standard way to measure speakers?

Answer:
Yes, but that isn't necessarily the way to measure a corner-loaded speaker. The first loudspeakers were all horn-loaded, and typically, corner-loaded. Once direct radiator sealed systems began to come out, that kind of cut out a lot of the complexity of designing a loudspeaker, but people tended to always go the easy route, or what they're most comfortable with. When the majority of the speakers began to go that way, there is a very typical way to measure that. [cut in the video stream--so we don't know what Roy said after that...] We've also tended to get away from specifying how we measure the systems, for example, the La Scala...

I will say, yes, there were some things that showed anomalies in the frequency response that are there. But here's the other thing, too, our philosophy starts off with high efficiency, that's our #1, and in this order, Paul would tell me,

1) high efficiency (because it gives you low distortion),
2) controlled coverage (understanding how you're spewing energy into your room), then we're looking at power response, and
3) the last one, (the way Paul said it), controlled frequency response.

In order to measure to give you flat power response, what's more important a flat frequency response or a flat power response? From our perspective, a flat power response.

It's like, I need to take a course to understand the difference...

Answer:
The biggest difference is, in a room, you don't have the energy being absorbed, it bounces back at you, so if you look at that perspective, because it does affect how you hear. And that's how you get room loading...

[another video cut, that we don't know what was said...]

So each room is different, so what do you use as a standard?

Answer:
for us, that's why controlled coverage is important, because if you decide to keep the energy in this space [he moves hands around to gesture the room's volume], the room begins to affect it less and less.
__________________________________________________________________

That gets you out to minute 5+ in the video. There is, apparently, a lot more that Roy said, and most troublingly the most important segue in the interview appears to have been cut out of the video (unfortunately).

Chris
 
Last edited:
I'll also point out that amplitude response is the only one of the big factors that is easy to correct in-room. Toole I think forgets that the JBL M2 has something like 20 PEQs (equivalent) in its DSP to correct its amplitude and phase response (i.e., "frequency response" is both amplitude and phase responses).

Low distortion (modulation distortion) and controlled directivity really can't be corrected via DSP etc. And I've seen Fulcrum Acoustics correct the impulse response using DSP (a patented process), but that's really aimed at PA-duty, and typically lower fidelity applications.

Chris
 
Dunno. I always thought, this measurement looked more than ok.

1006klipsch.3.jpg


Purple trace is the horn loaded, nearly 20 year old RB-81.

Source:

I think there will be a few exceptions, but I am sure you are quite aware that many Klipsch speakers measure oddly or mediocre.
Pulling out ONE example from nearly 20 years ago, does not circumvent the entire company and the many mediocre to bad ones they have designed.

I can still vividly remember my first audition of Heresy speakers around 1990, and my realization, they could do "loud", but were very unrefined and had all kinds of other issues tonality wise!
 
I think I'll step in here, since the OP here and the interviewer seem to be well out of their comfort zones..
What a nice little dig on me, was a personal attack necessary?

Below are two quick graphs from spinorama on the Heresy and Forte.

Regardless if speakers are designed for a room or not, corner in this instance, typically only frequencies below the transitional frequency is controlled by the room. Usually anything above, say 300hz, are room independent, take a look these charts, although their not terrible, but in today's day in age, even a $600 Ascilab performs better than this.

Take a look at the DI and ERDI, that should have nothing to do with what room and room placement it's designed for.

They not terrible speakers, I'm sure you will find worse, but I just didn't find Roy's explanation satisfactory, especially for their more expensive speakers and further more when compared to what is out there today.
1000022884.png
1000022883.png
 

Attachments

  • 1000022883.png
    1000022883.png
    228.4 KB · Views: 67
  • 1000022884.png
    1000022884.png
    225.4 KB · Views: 72
Also, to be fair, I think Klipsch caught wind of what is happening in the HuFi world and that consumers are more educated and aware. Their newer speakers perform much better than their older models as evident on Spinaroma.
 
...but I just didn't find Roy's explanation satisfactory,
Did I forget to mention that the biggest part of has explanation was apparently edited out? (No, I didn't.)

[If you clearly hate something, why do you spend any time on it? Must be related to psychological factors.]

Spinorama curves assume some sort of room placement and room dimensions/wall reflectivities vs. frequency. If anything is not exactly where and what is assumed, the curves are no longer representative of what you actually get.

I've found that polar sonograms (normalized) are a much better way of seeing what's occurring in-room and allow the owners to place the loudspeakers and room treatments accordingly.

The best of all are in-room measurements (i.e., REW, etc.). Then you can dial them in and move treatments around/add/subtract until a much better configuration is found.

Chris
 
Spinorama curves assume some sort of room placement and room dimensions/wall reflectivities vs. frequency.
Could you elaborate? I certainly agree that the in-room estimate does that, but it seems like the direct measurements and sound power tell you something about the speaker’s behavior independent of the room. I agree with you on in-room measurements, but the spinorama can at least isolate your speaker’s contribution to the in-room.

Or are you instead suggesting that Toole and Olive’s preference research assumes certain rooms/placement?
 
Spinorama curves assume some sort of room placement and room dimensions/wall reflectivities vs. frequency
Spins are anechoic.

The best of all are in-room measurements (i.e., REW, etc.).
These do not represent what we hear above the transition frequency, much better to use anechoic measurements there.
 
[If you clearly hate something, why do you spend any time on it? Must be related to psychological factors.]
Is this just a continuation of the personal attack that you started earlier and ignored when I called you out on it?

I don't feel the need to justify why I am posting an interview of someone in the hobby where his explanation of science is insufficient (or incomplete as you claim) on a related hobby forum that focuses on science.

Instead, I'll just say that I'm a grown man staring discussion and if you, another grown man, who don't like the discussion, why spend time on it? Did I forced you to partake in this discussion?

Spinorama curves assume some sort of room placement and room dimensions/wall reflectivities vs. frequency.
Huh? A Spinaroma or CEA 2034 does not "assume some sort of room placement" nor 'room dimensions/wall reflection vs freq" it's measured anechoic. Think of that as measuring outdoors with no reflection and not ambient noise such as wind.

If anything is not exactly where and what is assumed, the curves are no longer representative of what you actually get.
There is a very good good video that Andrew Welker of Axiom Audio did as to why anechoic measurements, despite no one listens to music in an anechoic chamber, is the way and standard to measure loud speakers. It's in YouTube, have a watch.
 
That's not part of the spin FWIW., This measurement only estimates some of the boundaries, the front wall, which is very relevant for lots of us isn't included. I wish it was for speakers designed for near wall placement.
I also want to add the in room estimate is almost never how a speaker is measured at the listening position in even the most "standard" room. You will almost always have room modes.
 
Please explain.
Below the transitional frequency is bass, bass is omnidirectional when it comes out of the transducer, then it hits walls causing reflection and stacking as well. And because the wavelength of bass is longer, it is prone to standing waves, causing room modes. So below the transitional frequency, the room controls the speakers.

Above the transitional frequency, sound is directional and gets more and more directional as frequency increases, so it is less prone to reflections and the wavelength are shorter, so not prone to standing waves.
 
Above the transitional frequency, sound is directional and gets more and more directional as frequency increases, so it is less prone to reflections and the wavelength are shorter, so not prone to standing waves.
That's not exactly flipping what I wrote, but for a better explanation of what I mean please see the below from Floyd Tool.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom