Klipsch Roy Delgado explaining why Klipsch measures so bad.

[PristineSound]

Although no expert, but I am familiar with Dr. Toole's work.

This is what you said:

You said ABOVE the transitional frequency (above the bass region) the in room estimate is not representative of what we hear. That is false because you got it reversed, it is BELOW the transitional in an estimated in room response is typically not what will be measured in room due to the effects of bass and room interaction.


That's ok, anyway, we will move on.

 

[Chris A]

You guys seem to have all your answers already (except perhaps with the possible exception of Mr. Soniclife and Mr. ahofer, who are actually asking questions), and the responses seem to be coming much too fast here, which indicates that it's less related to understanding and learning, and more something else.

To answer the question about my comment about spinoramas being room- and position-dependent, go look at all the documentation on how all the curves except the nearfield curves are generated. That will answer your question.

I actually think a lot of Toole and his contributions, but "spinorama" I think isn't one of the best moments of his illustrious career. I think he clearly overemphasized amplitude response and under-emphasized controlled directivity, especially below 1-2 kHz. , as well as phase response, which if you think about it, is the entire reason why we have so many enthusiasts diving into FIR filtering.

Enjoy your hobby--but keep it fun and happy!

Chris

 

[Soniclife]

You said ABOVE the transitional frequency (above the bass region) the in room estimate is not representative of what we hear.

I was talking about in room (not at all anechoic) measurements, not the estimated in room response, which is derived from anechoic measurements.

 

[PristineSound]

I was talking about in room (not at all anechoic) measurements, not the estimated in room response, which is derived from anechoic measurements.

This statement is confusing.

But in any case, below the transitional frequency, you can almost never predict how it would sound in a room, without doing some simulation with the room dimensions. And above the transitional frequency, even anechoic measurements can be accurate (enough) because it's directional and the wavelength is short.

Any how, let me apologize on the snarky tone, I confused you with the other member who tried to give me few digs.

 

[PristineSound]

I actually think a lot of Toole and his contributions, but "spinorama" I think isn't one of the best moments of his illustrious career.

Really?!?!

Well. . .I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Chris A]

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.

First discussions with Roy in 2007-2008 about why anechoic measurements (in the listening room just outside the anechoic chamber in Hope), and tuning loudspeakers initially to anechoic, are about the only way you can get useful results--above the transition frequency. I think that all "room correction software" packages try to ignore this, but eventually fail around the room's transition frequency to give useful results (plus or minus an ~octave). It's much better to move the microphone to 1 m from the loudspeaker to minimize non-minimum-phase reflections. You can see this in the measurements of excess phase and group delay (the "extra" phase and group delay left over from the discrete Hilbert transform of the frequency response).

I think the best resource for this subject is D'Appolito's little book Testing Loudspeakers, which pretty clearly tells the story. I recommend that little book most highly of all the books on the subject in hi-fi audio. It takes a bit more time to understand why this is, so I try to parcel out the story (to those that are truly interested) in pieces, to understand what is occurring in-room.

Chris

 

[PristineSound]

First discussions with Roy in 2007-2008 about why anechoic measurements (in the listening room just outside the anechoic chamber in Hope), and tuning loudspeakers initially to anechoic, are about the only way you can get useful results--above the transition frequency. I think that all "room correction software" packages try to ignore this, but eventually fail around the room's transition frequency to give useful results (plus or minus an ~octave). It's much better to move the microphone to 1 m from the loudspeaker to minimize non-minimum-phase reflections. You can see this in the measurements of excess phase and group delay (the "extra" phase and group delay left over from the discrete Hilbert transform of the frequency response).

I think the best resource for this subject is D'Appolito's little book Testing Loudspeakers, which pretty clearly tells the story. I recommend that little book most highly of all the books on the subject in hi-fi audio. It takes a bit more time to understand why this is, so I try to parcel out the story (to those that are truly interested) in pieces, to understand what is occurring in-room.

Chris

Consider this for a moment. If you design speakers based on the anticipation of how it will sound like in a specific room, what happened when the customer puts it in a vastly different room than you anticipated?

Second why would you measure a speaker in room to design it? All the reflections, all the room modes, it's plain out silly. What if I moved the speaker by half a foot, that will completely change the standing waves.

There are some situations where speaker designers will say, I designed it with a narrow vertical dispersion because most people don't have treatments on their ceiling, that makes perfect sense.

But to say, I designed these speakers just to be in the corner to sound good, is absurd; and frankly, I even think it's possible that it's a made up excuse to not have to answer why the speakers don't perform well when compared to the competition.

 

[GXAlan]

But to say, I designed these speakers just to be in the corner to sound good, is absurd; and frankly, I even think it's possible that it's a made up excuse to not have to answer why the speakers don't perform well when compared to the competition.

Archetype: The Klipschorn – Iconic American Loudspeaker

Much like legendary American industrial designers Charles and Ray Eames influenced all things midcentury modern, so too did Paul Klipsch impact high fidelity. Few, if any, modern audio engineers could profess ignorance of Klipsch’s groundbreaking folded-horn, corner-loading, three-way Klipschorn...

www.resistormag.com

Not a made up excuse but it is creating a product that serves a specific market. There is a reason why it has been around for almost 80 years.

 

[PristineSound]

Archetype: The Klipschorn – Iconic American Loudspeaker

Much like legendary American industrial designers Charles and Ray Eames influenced all things midcentury modern, so too did Paul Klipsch impact high fidelity. Few, if any, modern audio engineers could profess ignorance of Klipsch’s groundbreaking folded-horn, corner-loading, three-way Klipschorn...

www.resistormag.com

Not a made up excuse but it is creating a product that serves a specific market. There is a reason why it has been around for almost 80 years.

My comment is the sonic performance, or lack of, and the designer's explanation as to why it doesn't measure well, which we can have a fairly high confidence on why it will likely not perform well sonically. If course there is a possibility that it performs well enough, I have not listened to there Klipsch horn.

But sonic performance has nothing to do with nostalgia, or other human elements such as taste in its styling or the fact that it carries the vintage looks. For example, I own a Pioneer vintage SX-950, I own it not because of its technical performance, I own it because of it vintage look.

All I was saying is, Roy's explanation as to why Klipsch don't measure well fell short and I gave my reasons why.

Now in Roy's defense, to make the Klipsch horn with the same exact looks as it was 50 years ago but with modern day science, there is only so much he can reengineer the speakers before he doesn't look like a Klipsch horn anymore. He can't go around telling people that these Klipsch don't measure well because I am constrain on the existing design from 80 years ago, then no one will buy it.

 

[Chris A]

Consider this for a moment. If you design speakers based on the anticipation of how it will sound like in a specific room, what happened when the customer puts it in a vastly different room than you anticipated?

Good!. These are questions (instead of only statements).

The answer is: loudspeakers having uncontrolled and uneven directivity response will behave badly, while those having full-range directivity control (like the loudspeakers that Roy was demoing and talking about in the video) basically are very much unaffected (relatively speaking) above the room's transition frequency--i.e., the sparse mode region of the room. That was in the transcript that I took the time to transcribe and post, (above).

Second why would you measure a speaker in room to design it?

I don't, nor does Roy. First, it's about anechoic...or as close as you can get to it - like measuring outside in half-space.

All the reflections, all the room modes, it's plain out silly. What if I moved the speaker by half a foot, that will completely change the standing waves.

Not the standing wave (well below the room's transition frequency), but yes, everything changes. That's why the UMIK-2 and other multiple-capsule microphones were invented--to average out the measurements a bit.

There are some situations where speaker designers will say, I designed it with a narrow vertical dispersion because most people don't have treatments on their ceiling, that makes perfect sense.

Actually, if you take something like an AMT-1 (made by ESS) or other air-motion transformer, you will soon learn that narrow vertical coverage is its real Achilles heel--just stand up or sit down and you can clearly hear the difference. I use two AMT-1s stacked on top of my surround loudspeakers, with the top AMT-1 leaning back about 15 degrees to expand the effective vertical coverage. Everything else about that driver is outstanding--transfer function, horizontal directivity, frequency coverage, cost, etc.

But to say, I designed these speakers just to be in the corner to sound good, is absurd; and frankly, I even think it's possible that it's a made up excuse to not have to answer why the speakers don't perform well when compared to the competition.

Well, this seems to be your learning style, i.e., for everyone to see your initial biases (but it wouldn't be my learning style, to be honest...), I guess I could try to let you in on the "why".

But first, you'd have to start questioning a whole bunch of stuff that you think you already know if you are serious about learning the "why". I'd start with the 1986 Khorn review. If you don't know who Richard C. Heyer was, I do recommend taking a little time to familiarize yourself before making any initial remarks about his technical relevance today.

Enjoy!

Chris

P.S. Paul Klipsch didn't have corners in his listening room at home, so he built false corners for his Klipschorns. Problem solved...

 

[PristineSound]

Good!. These are questions (instead of only statements).

The answer is: loudspeakers having uncontrolled and uneven directivity response will behave badly, while those having full-range directivity control (like the loudspeakers that Roy was demoing and talking about in the video) basically are very much unaffected (relatively speaking) above the room's transition frequency--i.e., the sparse mode region of the room. That was in the transcript that I took the time to transcribe and post, (above).

Ok . . .and many of these Klipsch measures poorly above the transition frequency. . .and many of these Klipsch has uneven directivity. . .Roy seems to suggested that his speakers are designed for corner placement, implying that would fix the FR above the transition frequency. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Not the standing wave (well below the room's transition frequency), but yes, everything changes. That's why the UMIK-2 and other multiple-capsule microphones were invented--to average out the measurements a bit.

Can you explain how the miniDSP mic will help with fixing the issues below the transition frequency? It will tell you the FR in your room but that's it. How do you fix it with a mic alone? And what do you mean by "average out the measurements a bit."?

And explain how this statement justified Roy's explanation that he designs Klipsch based on the fact that it needs to be place in the corner of a room?

Actually, if you take something like an AMT-1 (made by ESS) or other air-motion transformer, you will soon learn that narrow vertical coverage is its real Achilles heel--just stand up or sit down and you can clearly hear the difference. I use two AMT-1s stacked on top of my surround loudspeakers, with the top AMT-1 leaning back about 15 degrees to expand the effective vertical coverage. Everything else about that driver is outstanding--transfer function, horizontal directivity, frequency coverage, cost, etc.

Even 15 degrees at 8 ft away gives your more than sufficient wiggle room to compensate for your height. You can figure this out by simple geometry. But if your intent is other than stationary ear level listening that a narrow vertical dispersion is not the right application.

But first, you'd have to start questioning a whole bunch of stuff that you think you already know if you are serious about learning the "why". I'd start with the 1986 Khorn review. If you don't know who Richard C. Heyer was, I do recommend taking a little time to familiarize yourself before making any initial remarks about his technical relevance today.

I'm always willing to learn, but implore you to do the same. This is all written with black letters in white paper in many acoustic science literature, backed with decades of scientific, controlled experiments and data to share. To the point that the Spinaroma, which you think so little of, is the industry standard, followed by any serious loudspeaker manufacturers.

P.S. Paul Klipsch didn't have corners in his listening room at home, so he built false corners for his Klipschorns. Problem solved...

So he designed speakers to only be in corners that he doesn't have, so then he made fake corners for it? my God, this gets better and better.

 

[levimax]

I don't have a dog in this fight but it seems like all the focus is on poor FR and directivity (which is also kind of FR). What about the things Klipsh measures off the charts good at like effeciency and lack of compression and transient reponse? Many modern speakers have nice FR and directivity but with mid 80's dB effeciencies (often over stated) they have no chance to accurately play back a 110 dB transient peak. FR issues can be mitigated to some extent but SPL / compression issues can not. Of course having everything (like a JBL M2) is ideal but to dismiss everything about Klipsh speakers because of FR issues is missing a big part of the story. If you ever heard a pair of Khorns decently set up in a large room, while they may some FR issues, they also deliver a listening experience with some positives that are for the most part unmatched by other speakers old or new.

 

[PristineSound]

I don't have a dog in this fight but it seems like all the focus is on poor FR and directivity (which is also kind of FR). What about the things Klipsh measures off the charts good at like effeciency and lack of compression and transient reponse? Many modern speakers have nice FR and directivity but with mid 80's dB effeciencies (often over stated) they have no chance to accurately play back a 110 dB transient peak. FR issues can be mitigated to some extent but SPL / compression issues can not. Of course having everything (like a JBL M2) is ideal but to dismiss everything about Klipsh speakers because of FR issues is missing a big part of the story. If you ever heard a pair of Khorns decently set up in a large room, while they may some FR issues, they also deliver a listening experience with some positives that are for the most part unmatched by other speakers old or new.

I agree with everything you said.

I have not heard the Klipsch horn, would absolutely be delighted to, and I will promise that I do so with as little preconceived bias as possible. Although, I believe Erin didn't have much good things to say about the Forte and Heresy, can't remember exactly what he said but I don't recall it being memorable.

 

[Chris A]

I think you need to hear a pair of Klipschorns with the new tweeter and midrange horns/drivers, tri-amped and dialed-in with DSP. Anything less than that...well, I think you get the picture.

Chris

(My setup: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?members/chris-a.347/#about)

 

[M240i]

My comment is the sonic performance, or lack of, and the designer's explanation as to why it doesn't measure well, which we can have a fairly high confidence on why it will likely not perform well sonically. If course there is a possibility that it performs well enough, I have not listened to there Klipsch horn.

You really should audition these. They bring some things to the table that most speakers can't.
They do not check the objective boxes that many have on their checklists these days. All speakers have trade-offs. Klipschorns are not exceptions.

 

[GXAlan]

The way I think of it is that we have active studio monitors with dip switches to adjust for boundary gain compensation. In the case of Klipschorns, it is intended for placement in the corner of traditional U.S. homes.

Frequency response irregularities are masked by stereo playback.

Amplifier clipping is not masked.

If you look at the discussion about the DSP tri-amp’s Klipschorns, they do say that the improved measurements sound better…

Mountain out of mole hill…

 

[Heinrich]

Well. . .I'll just leave it at that.

For the time being, well, the spinorama is a tool for the industry. Customers may benefit. Selecting fewer models for auditioning, or better, un-selecting many, mostly poor two-ways. The latter will go extinct sooner or later. And to have a standard for the studios is gold. But standards there were in Europe and in a variety of surround formats already.

If my recollection doesn‘t trick me, I often read from Dr. Toole that the flat on-axis is prime, while the diffuse follows, depending on the room, and that people would automatically correct for the room quickly. But what I also see as often is flattened in-room responses using DIRAC, sometimes even without individual measurement, but addressing the predicted (!) in-room response. Which side is right?

When it comes to Klipsch, radiation is limited to +/- 45 degrees horizontally by the horn and huge woofer, and speakers are placed in the corner, and angled at 45 degrees, means 15 degrees invard relative to the stereo triangle, how much sidewall reflections would I get? All, but from the other side, but too late to interfere with the direct sound. And nil from the frontwall either.

 

[PristineSound]

You really should audition these. They bring some things to the table that most speakers can't.
They do not check the objective boxes that many have on their checklists these days. All speakers have trade-offs. Klipschorns are not exceptions.

I will give it a shot, now only if I can find a damn dealer who has them in the showroom!

 

[PristineSound]

I think you need to hear a pair of Klipschorns with the new tweeter and midrange horns/drivers, tri-amped and dialed-in with DSP. Anything less than that...well, I think you get the picture.

Chris

(My setup: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?members/chris-a.347/#about)

Perhaps your specific setup has a very different experience. And I would be delighted to give it a little, not sure I am inviting myself over

I just take exception to Roy's explanation that Klipsch are designed specifically to be placed in corners, that is either a cop out or unsatisfactory of an answer. But I do recognize the audience his interview is aimed for.

 

[Heinrich]

Perhaps your specific setup has a very different experience. And I would be delighted to give it a little, not sure I am inviting myself over

I just take exception to Roy's explanation that Klipsch are designed specifically to be placed in corners, that is either a cop out or unsatisfactory of an answer. But I do recognize the audience his interview is aimed for.

The corner placement for the bass horn is self-explanatory. Peerless (?) had a slotted (!!) line array of small woofers some time ago, to be placed in the corner. The efficiency came close to that of a horn