Klipsch Roy Delgado explaining why Klipsch measures so bad.

[Chris A]

I sort of agree on your point if cost is the manufacturing cost, and not the consumers price, but we never know the manufacturing cost and it could be anywhere from 2% (audiophool cables) to 50% of the consumer price. And there are other factors involved in cost, economy of scale is huge, marketing, servicing, etc.

I think you give yourself too little credit here in being able to bound product costs. For most loudspeakers on the market, the drivers are also available from third parties retail, and these driver prices tend to be a lot less volatile looking from vendor to vendor (i.e., price competition is strong), so it is pretty straightforward to bound what the wholesale prices are.

Manufacturing loudspeaker boxes is basically a time-and-motion exercise to estimate touch labor costs. MDF or plywood has a fairly uniform price, and prices are also available in larger quantities from suppliers. Veneer varies widely in pricing, but if you make one assumption, this can be bounded: manufacturers don't tend to use very expensive veneers in their products in order to either keep their prices down or to maximize their profit margins (and you can see this in the type of veneers that are made available), this, too is a bound-able cost. Passive crossovers are also basically time-and-motion, even if assembled robotically or manually by humans. DSP is always bought from suppliers by loudspeaker companies, and these same products are generally available in retail format (with pricing available).

So manufacturing cost really can be estimated or bounded. Then it can be used as a divisor on list price (MSRP) in order to see the total materials-based price ratio. For Klipsch (a large loudspeaker manufacturer), this markup is something like 3x (for lowest-priced models) to 10x (for their most expensive models), depending on market segments addressed.
__________________________________________________________

However, you took issue with the method that I posted above: the CAIV (cost as an independent variable) process. All real examples of using this process are of course proprietary, so that example given above is the only example that a quick Google search produced. It's the same process used for designing the JSF (now known as the F-35), and was originally a customer-championed process that was extensively expanded by the contractor.

Note that all measures of merit for all tradeable components and options must first be converted to a life cycle "utility" measure that can added together with other options on other parts of the product. That is a very interesting process--and quite extensive for the application cited, much more extensive than meets the eye. However, the very same process is easily tailored to almost any product size or complexity--even household products like loudspeakers and associated electronics.

Chris

 

[DSJR]

In a purely subjective sense and apologies if this isn't following the thread track, I spent an evening listening to the Klipsch-Horns around twenty five years ago. Room was 20' x 13' or so, the speakers set in the corners of a long wall, so rather too far apart. Driving system was a Quad 99, which was more than powerful enough, Quad's amp designers at this point well able to get the grain-free and honest 'Quad Sound' from an AB amp design. Sure these speakers were by convention, too far apart, but there was a palpable soundstage between them, vocalists planted centrally, the balance pretty good too (like the Quad 57, easily adjusted to in a minute or so after some hours listening to smaller boxy sounding speakers) and the whole rig was one that you could turn on, pop a disc into the player (or tune in a radio station) and then easily forget the system in favour of the music itself. very few of this speaker system found its way over here, but I'm glad I got to hear a more modern set and have warm positive vibes about that session all these years later.

I'd really like to hear how the current babies in the range sound, now they've been tweaked and refined a little. A pair of smaller floor standers with copper-coloured-cones in the early noughties, screamed too much to be taken seriously here, but things seem to have hugely moved on now

 

[Keith_W]

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.

This is the root of the whole discussion, which I feel got lost in the noise in this thread.

Toole does not think that the power response should be flat, rather he thinks that the power response should be smooth and downward tilting.

Now I am not so sure if Delgado meant "flat power response" to mean "flat horizontal line" or "straight line". The former would certainly be something I haven't heard of before. The latter ("straight line") may refer to downward tilting straight line, in which case what he says be consistent with Toole. I haven't come across him before, so perhaps you might be better placed to answer that question?

FWIW @PristineSound , an anechoic measurement / Klippel measurement is a "full space" (pi) measurement. A ground plane measurement is half-space (pi/2). If the DUT is against a wall and floor, it is quarter space (pi/4). If the DUT is in a corner (2 walls and a floor), it is an 8th space (pi/8). It is not the same as an in-room measurement as you seem to mention in one of your posts. (And please, don't take criticism or correction as a personal attack, I am not attacking you; and I don't think the other guys in this thread are doing that either).

What I found so interesting is the different measurement approach and different philosophy to design. Obviously, stereo speakers designed for corners won't suit many rooms (for e.g. some rooms don't have corners, or you may not be able to place your speaker in a corner) so it seems to me that the market would be quite limited. The thought of owning a corner loaded speaker has never occurred to me, and I haven't even thought about how a speaker like that would measure, and how a speaker optimised for 8th space would perform in a "full space" measurement. Would love to hear some insights.

Also @Chris A in one of your PDF's ("How to upgrade your 1st gen Klipsch Jubilees to 2nd gen" you said something interesting:

You showed this graph and said that the large EP spike in the 2nd graph is audible. Then you went on to say that eliminating it creates more bass impact and eliminates harshness. I find this very interesting because I have heard Klipsch Jubilees, and found them virtually unlistenable due to harshness. Maybe this is the explanation.

BTW you also recommend a Xilica DSP processor to remove the EP spike. I'm not sure how you would do that, because it would require a time reversed AP filter or zero-phase filtering ... for which you need FIR.

 

[PristineSound]

FWIW @PristineSound , an anechoic measurement / Klippel measurement is a "full space" (pi) measurement. A ground plane measurement is half-space (pi/2). If the DUT is against a wall and floor, it is quarter space (pi/4). If the DUT is in a corner (2 walls and a floor), it is an 8th space (pi/8). It is not the same as an in-room measurement as you seem to mention in one of your posts.

I must have mistyped or wasn't being clear. I believe I was responding to Chris's statement that the spinaroma assumes room placement, etc. To be fair, Chris' statement is probably misunderstood or he could have been more clear.

(And please, don't take criticism or correction as a personal attack, I am not attacking you; and I don't think the other guys in this thread are doing that either).

I absolutely don't think you are attacking me at all. But statements like "since the OP here and the interviewer seem to be well out of their comfort zones" and "I don't think you really understand what a great measuring speaker is." maybe that's border line insult? But statements like "I would careful to judge and critize something one doesn't have much insight into." probably hit the finished line on the insult level?

It's just not necessary, just point out the flaws of my interpretation of the data that I considered good vs not so good speakers, let the science and data do the talking.

Anyway, back to the discussion, was Roy's answer to why Klipsch doesn't measure well satisfactory? Has anything he said justify why these speakers would sound good despite the fact that they don't measure well on the Spinaroma and the various representation of the underlying data?

 

[Chris A]

This is the root of the whole discussion, which I feel got lost in the noise in this thread.

If it matters at all, I never got lost. However, memeplexes are strong around here re: spinorama, etc., and the unknown that presents itself when you step away from that is very scary to many people here.

People are not asking themselves what is missing from the spinoramas--and Roy just made it very clear in the video: efficiency first, then directivity. Then amplitude response can be dialed-in in-room.

Toole does not think that the power response should be flat, rather he thinks that the power response should be smooth and downward tilting.

I don't believe Roy has ever said that power response should be flat at the listening position. I think he and Toole are actually fairly simpatico on this point (speaking from long experience in discussions with Roy). I think the real difference is:

1) high efficiency/low modulation distortion, and then
2) controlled directivity (full range)

In these areas, I believe that Roy diverges from Toole. You have picked power response, since Toole talked about this in his book, but really, this isn't a strong point in the discussion. That subject was raised by Roy to question what he thinks is "proper measurement" more than anything else, and he brought in the corner horn as the point of discussion in order to differentiate the different methods.

I think that Roy is much more oriented in what the loudspeakers actually sound like in real rooms than even Toole does. This has been my direct experience with him. He takes a lot of time to dial-in his designs in the chamber, then an equal amount of time to do the same in-room.

Toole always tried to standardize measurements at Harman/JBL so that the then-ailing JBL product line could regain focus, which I think was experiencing divergence by the lead engineers working there. I'm not sure that Toole was successful overall in achieving much greater sales revenue for JBL at that time (the decade of the 2000s).

Even in his book, Toole's first edition was a bit schizophrenic in that he acknowledged that the big horn-loaded model K2 and later hybrid horn/direct radiator loudspeakers always topped the subjective listening ratings (something he talked about in his first edition of his book, but removed from the third edition). There were clearly competing design philosophies at JBL and UREI, etc. that were fairly well known at the time (1990s-2000). I think Toole was brought in to corporate Harman from Canada to help them regain corporate focus in this area.

Chris

 

[Chris A]

Has anything he said justify why these speakers would sound good despite the fact that they don't measure well on the Spinaroma and the various representation of the underlying data?

I'm pretty sure that Roy likely said what you are referring to, but it was edited out in the video, as I indicated above. I think the subject was so far advanced from what the interviewer was looking for that he didn't really understand what he deleted. There were other viewers on YT that asked for the full interview (over 1 hour) to be posted. To my knowledge, the interviewer has not obliged yet.

Chris

 

[PristineSound]

I'm pretty sure that Roy likely said what you are referring to, but it was edited out in the video, as I indicated above. I think the subject was so far advanced from what the interviewer was looking for that he didn't really understand what he deleted. There were other viewers on YT that asked for the full interview (over 1 hour) to be posted. To my knowledge, the interviewer has not obliged yet.

Chris

I'll have a search and have a watch when I get some time this week.

 

[Keith_W]

If it matters at all, I never got lost. However, memeplexes are strong around here re: spinorama, etc., and the unknown that presents itself when you step away from that is very scary to many people here.

People are not asking themselves what is missing from the spinoramas--and Roy just made it very clear in the video: efficiency first, then directivity. Then amplitude response can be dialed-in in-room.


I don't believe Roy has ever said that power response should be flat at the listening position. I think he and Toole are actually fairly simpatico on this point (speaking from long experience in discussions with Roy). I think the real difference is:

1) high efficiency/low modulation distortion, and then
2) controlled directivity

Listen to what Delgado says from time stamp 3min 20sec into the video. The three most important things for him are:

1. High efficiency ("because that gives you low distortion"). Not sure I agree with him on this one, but i'll put that out of the way for now. It's not as if high eff is not a worthwhile goal to pursue, I just think it is less relevant in 2025.

2. Dynamic linearity, i.e. same freq response at different volume levels. Also agree, this is a worthwhile design goal.

3. Power response. He goes on to say that a flat power response is more important than a flat frequency response. (I am going to assume that when he says "flat power response" and "flat FR", he means at 1m, and not at the listening position).

It's not only Toole who says a flat frequency response is more important. JJ has said that we should equalise to the on-axis frequency response, because that is what our ears lock on to first. The power response arrives later as reflections (see the powerpoint presentation here). So if he says "for us, it's the power response", he is saying something different, and I am interested to find out why he thinks that.

If you add on the unusual measurement technique (8th space instead of full space) and unusual design goal, it is easy to see why conventional measurements might look bad. The real question IMO is how well his speakers hold up against his own design goals and whether he has done listener preference studies to justify that design goal. Now Toole's listener preference studies have their own issues (which I discussed somewhere else on ASR) but at least he did them.

BTW I edited my earlier post with more questions. I'm not sure if you saw those.

 

[kyuu]

People are not asking themselves what is missing from the spinoramas--and Roy just made it very clear in the video: efficiency first, then directivity. Then amplitude response can be dialed-in in-room.

That's a pretty big straw-man you've assembled there. Neither efficiency nor directivity are "missing" from the Spinorama. It actually gives us the ability to see the real sensitivity of a speaker over the entire frequency range, unlike the complete BS efficiency numbers that Klipsch likes to put in their spec sheets.

 

[Chris A]

1. High efficiency ("because that gives you low distortion"). Not sure I agree with him on this one, but i'll put that out of the way for now. It's not as if high eff is not a worthwhile goal to pursue, I just think it is less relevant in 2025.

2. Dynamic linearity, i.e. same freq response at different volume levels. Also agree, this is a worthwhile design goal.

3. Power response. He goes on to say that a flat power response is more important than a flat frequency response. (I am going to assume that when he says "flat power response" and "flat FR", he means at 1m, and not at the listening position).

I think he said something different. Listen carefully:

Your points 1 & 2 are the same point. Your third point--power response--is different from the power response that Toole talked about in his book (trust me on this one). Roy is talking about controlled directivity, but he pulls in power response for this discussion.

His third point is "controlled frequency response". (I believe Roy is talking about controlled amplitude response.)

Chris

 

[ernestcarl]

I can also refer you to his book (co-authored with Thomas Dunker) as a very good source for answering many questions about horns and horn loading, both theoretically and historically: https://www.hornspeakersystems.info/, the first such general source on that subject that I can recall since both the Beranek and Olson texts of the 1950s

Different surnames

 

[Chris A]

Different surnames

The book "High Quality Horn Loudspeaker Systems" by Bjørn Kolbrek and Thomas Dunker was released in November 2019.

 

[kharan]

People are not asking themselves what is missing from the spinoramas--and Roy just made it very clear in the video: efficiency first, then directivity. Then amplitude response can be dialed-in in-room.

I'm confused as to why you think the spinorama lacks directivity when at it's very core, it's a spherical measurement of sound amplitude at every frequency in both the horizontal and the vertical plane. Furthermore, systems like the Klippel adds multiple measurements at different heights rather than just a horizontal and vertical circle.

You can generate horizontal and vertical isobars from the spin data.

You can generate sound power curves as well. The standard chart representation of the spinorama data does include those.

 

[Chris A]

I'm confused as to why you think the spinorama lacks directivity when at it's very core,

I didn't.

 

[kharan]

I didn't.

You said,

People are not asking themselves what is missing from the spinoramas--and Roy just made it very clear in the video: efficiency first, then directivity. Then amplitude response can be dialed-in in-room.

making it clear you think, like Roy, those are missing.

 

[Chris A]

I guess we have a common misunderstanding of the language.

Do you understand that precedence of requirements changes the design? If all requirements are at the same importance, the designer can do almost anything s/he wants. When you say "X" is more important than "Y", then you get entirely different answers.

I suppose this discussion arises because not everyone is familiar with how requirements are specified and verified, and how that changes everything...

Chris

 

[M240i]

@Chris A Two different Bjorn's. Bjorn Omholt....Bjørn Kolbrek
I don't know how many Bjorn's there are in Norway. But it can't be too many.

 

[Chris A]

Thanks. Noted.

 

[kharan]

I guess we have a common misunderstanding of the language.

Do you understand that precedence of requirements changes the design? If all requirements are at the same importance, the designer can do almost anything s/he wants. When you say "X" is more important than "Y", then you get entirely different answers.

I suppose this discussion arises because not everyone is familiar with how requirements are specified and verified, and how that changes everything...

Chris

The spinorama is nothing more than a data set of directional sound volumes at different frequencies, and if you want to extend the definition, you could say that the CEA2034 chart is also a spinorama since it's its most common representation.

It is not a set of loudspeaker design requirements, there is no X more important an Y or the reverse.

Those two things are orthogonal to each other.

 

[Chris A]

What does the word "verify" mean to you in this context?