Klipsch Roy Delgado explaining why Klipsch measures so bad.

[PristineSound]

Yes.

"Klipsch jest jednak aktywnym partnerem EISA, a więc stowarzyszenia ekspertów, a nie influencerów, i bez oporów dostarcza nam do testów wszelkie produkty"

Translation:
However, Klipsch is an active partner of EISA, i.e. an association of experts, not influencers, and they provide us with all their products for testing without hesitation.

Very bold of them as it led to this measurement:

I'll let the data speak for itself. BTW this Jubilee is an eye watering amount of money, $36k/pair, the cost of a pre-tariff car.

 

[DMill]

Very bold of them as it led to this measurement:
View attachment 447752


I'll let the data speak for itself. BTW this Jubilee is an eye watering amount of money, $36k/pair, the cost of a pre-tariff car.

View attachment 447753

These legacy speaker designs cater to a different audience than will be popular here. I applaud transparency. They are what they are, high sensitivity designs that people must be buying. I see no reason Klipsch should discontinue these models if people want them. They are quite lovely to look at if you like that kind of thing. Very nicely crafted… but get $36k is stupid money. I no longer feel sorry for people who spend stupid money. The information is out there.

 

[PristineSound]

This doesn't strike me as a speaker from people that don't follow engineering.

Indeed, I said the same thing about some of their newer non-heritage lines. They are not too shabby.

They are proper Klipsch bookshelves that retailed for around $800 in the late 1990s, early 2000s. Certainly doesn't cut it today despite internet nostalgia (more so because of the lack of low end starting too high up for proper sub integration). Seems like they went for showroom appeal tuning shortly after these.

Yes, that is why I started the post with a rather strong opening statement: "For fully transparency I have nothing but negative perceptions and thoughts on Klipsch." Because that period is all of my experience with Klipsch. My apologies to all for strong opening statement.

 

[Arindal]

And if you are getting significant room gain than your tonal balance is likely off.

In a large fullrange horn concept which provides controlled directivity down to 70Hz, I would not bet on that.

I don't think anyone of us would know if we didn't work at Klipsch, so we can only go what what we read and see that is publicly available.

I have seen a sufficient number of speaker measurements plus doing corresponding listening tests in my life to know what is most likely an intentional decision by the designers, what poses a compromise and what is evidence of ignorance.

Roy said, he was told by Paul to not get too deep with published AES papers so that he doesn't go down the "beaten path," in which Roy obliged.

Sounds reasonable to me, if the underlying design philosophy and priority of which parameter is important in sound reproduction and which is rather not, vastly differ from the mainstream opinion expressed in the papers.

These papers are peer reviewed and they are scientific studies with data to back. It doesn't make any sense to me to not read them for the knowledge.

I do not see any scientific fact that Klipsch development team was disputing. They seem to pretty solidly stand on the ground of physics.

The design prioritization in question is purely a matter of subjective preference, and preference expressed in some peer-reviewed papers is just as legitimate as striving for the opposite goal when it comes to sound reproduction. There is no right or wrong even if anyone in the past might have made a survey about what his specific group of listeners was preferring under given circumstances back then.

If their customer like it, it is right for them. If the aforementioned surveys on average listening preference would be universally valid, most of manufacturers would do speakers according to that and sell them in vast quantities, while speakers following opposite goals would be close to impossible to sell. Me thinks, the market situation reflects quite a different conclusion.

 

[Mart68]

In a large fullrange horn concept which provides controlled directivity down to 70Hz, I would not bet on that.



I have seen a sufficient number of speaker measurements plus doing corresponding listening tests in my life to know what is most likely an intentional decision by the designers, what poses a compromise and what is evidence of ignorance.



Sounds reasonable to me, if the underlying design philosophy and priority of which parameter is important in sound reproduction and which is rather not, vastly differ from the mainstream opinion expressed in the papers.



I do not see any scientific fact that Klipsch development team was disputing. They seem to pretty solidly stand on the ground of physics.

The design prioritization in question is purely a matter of subjective preference, and preference expressed in some peer-reviewed papers is just as legitimate as striving for the opposite goal when it comes to sound reproduction. There is no right or wrong even if anyone in the past might have made a survey about what his specific group of listeners was preferring under given circumstances back then.

If their customer like it, it is right for them. If the aforementioned surveys on average listening preference would be universally valid, most of manufacturers would do speakers according to that and sell them in vast quantities, while speakers following opposite goals would be close to impossible to sell. Me thinks, the market situation reflects quite a different conclusion.

Isn't this just a long way of expressing the flawed audiophile statement of 'All that matters to me is that I like how it sounds'?

We know that the problem with any speaker that strays too far from linearity is that it becomes recording dependant - that is some recordings sound good or even enhanced, whilst others become poor or even unlistenable.

If you look at how most people buy speakers it's usually based on hearing them in a demo over a fairly short period of time with only a small selection of recordings.

Even if some of those recordings don't sound so good this is usually blamed on the recordings and not the loudspeaker. Nevertheless, the speaker is limiting the choice of acceptable music programme.

 

[Arindal]

Very bold of them as it led to this measurement:

What is wrong with that one? Astonishingly even dispersion and wide sweet spot given the size of the horn and its freq range.

The only problematic bands seem to be the transition between woofer and horn (200-400Hz), which seemingly led to problems with mic and floor position, hence the decrease in level under multiple angles towards the lower end of the horn´s range. And secondly everything above 4K which might also be a result of the mic being too close. Note the width of the horn (1.2m or so) which is designed for 4m of listening distance or more so it is expected to measure poorly with the mic too close.

 

[Heinrich]

What is wrong with that one?

RTFM: https://d2um2qdswy1tb0.cloudfront.net/product-manuals/Jubilee-2022_Manual_v01.pdf?v=1657636312

It's adjustable.

It's like with dogs. Some prefer little poodles, always nervous, barking all day long, others opt to size up for easy going serenity.

 

[Arindal]

Isn't this just a long way of expressing the flawed audiophile statement of 'All that matters to me is that I like how it sounds'?

No. This is not about subjective liking, but about identifying which behavior in the measurements not following common standards is most likely the result of a conscious decision, and which is not. I can accept that people set other priorities than I would set.

We know that the problem with any speaker that strays too far from linearity is that it becomes recording dependant - that is some recordings sound good or even enhanced, whilst others become poor or even unlistenable.

I wholeheartedly agree, but would add that off-axis linearity, directivity index, issues in the time domain and interaction with the room are even more important here as they cannot be equalized just like on-axis response. Funnily, I have this issue with the majority of recordings, including the ones I have produced myself, sounding poor particularly with speakers offering linear on-axis response and poor off-axis behavior. Some of them are regularly recommended and praised as exemplarily linear.

As mentioned, I would disagree with several decisions Klipsch team have taken regarding compromises, but the underlying philosophy what really matters seems pretty solid to me (except for the importance of sensitivity as a goal in its own right, maybe).

If you look at how most people buy speakers it's usually based on hearing them in a demo over a fairly short period of time with only a small selection of recordings.

That might have been the case some 20+ years ago. Nowadays people seemingly tend to compare more, order speakers to try at home for an extended period, and be ready to flip speakers if it turns out they have bought something dissatisfying.

 

[Chris A]

And secondly everything above 4K which might also be a result of the mic being too close.

And too far off-axis...

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...psch-jubilee-measurements.54797/#post-2012676

The original post of the amplitude response here failed to link back to where it was posted.

If that link had been posted, then you would have seen my post below it questioning the competence of the person that was the OP of that thread. Then the entire brouhahah would have been short-circuited.

Chris

 

[PristineSound]

In a large fullrange horn concept which provides controlled directivity down to 70Hz, I would not bet on that.

That that was in response to speakers in general not just horn and specific to significant room gain.

I have seen a sufficient number of speaker measurements plus doing corresponding listening tests in my life to know what is most likely an intentional decision by the designers, what poses a compromise and what is evidence of ignorance.

Based on what data is available on these Klipsch I am not convinced it's intentional decision for the entirety of the design. But I do believe there is not much need for them to fix much of the flaws as I have stated here:

I have my theories: I don't think Roy and Klipsch are incapable of designing an excellent measuring and sounding speakers at all. In fact, I think they are more capable then many companies because they generate so much revenue and can afford the R&D resources. I think what it comes down to is:

(a) The current formula and business model works, enough people are buying, they are selling and they are making money, so don't fix it if it's not broken.

(b) Many of their customers buy based on nostalgia, it's kind of a like a muscle car, sure it's fast off the line, but there is no way in hell will you ever get a good lap time, but who cares? People who wants to buy a muscle car, because they want a muscle car. So instead of designing from the ground up for a very expensive pair of speakers, retrofitting fixes to a 80 year old model that was design with fairly primitive knowledge of modern science 80 years ago, is what this specific group of customers want.

Sounds reasonable to me, if the underlying design philosophy and priority of which parameter is important in sound reproduction and which is rather not, vastly differ from the mainstream opinion expressed in the papers.

This I would have to respectfully but vehemently reject with utter disagreement. Such said scientific papers, studies the scientific nature of something, even if it's about a specific design or application, it will provide data and/or behavior on the scientific nature. In essence, it's scientific knowledge, whether you apply it to a specific design or not. Such said knowledge at worse is neutral to your design philosophy as it is completely not applicable; at best, it can evolve your design philosophy to take it to the next level, with the remaining providing additional inside to reinforce your existing design philosophy. No credible scientist nor engineer would reject the idea of learning about scientific studies as it pertains to their field of work; not having enough time is a different matter.

I do not see any scientific fact that Klipsch development team was disputing. They seem to pretty solidly stand on the ground of physics.

Roy said "how it measures matters" implying the spinaroma is not applicable to Klipsch. And somehow a speaker that was designed just for corners based on a 80 year old concept will somehow magically cure all the ailments and flaws of how these Klipsch performs on the spin. Which BTW, this is the initial premise of this whole thread. I simply do not buy it.

The design prioritization in question is purely a matter of subjective preference, and preference expressed in some peer-reviewed papers is just as legitimate as striving for the opposite goal when it comes to sound reproduction. There is no right or wrong even if anyone in the past might have made a survey about what his specific group of listeners was preferring under given circumstances back then.

If their customer like it, it is right for them. If the aforementioned surveys on average listening preference would be universally valid, most of manufacturers would do speakers according to that and sell them in vast quantities, while speakers following opposite goals would be close to impossible to sell. Me thinks, the market situation reflects quite a different conclusion.

In agreement as I stated above in my theories (a) and (b) above. However, I want to reiterate, this entire thread started based on the premise that (1) Roy is saying "how it measure makes a difference" implying that the spinaroma does not apply to Klipsch and hence measuring poorly on the spin does not carry weight (2) the concept that speakers designed just for the corner is sufficient to justify all the ailments and flaws as these Klipsch shows in the data.

 

[DSJR]

What is wrong with that one? Astonishingly even dispersion and wide sweet spot given the size of the horn and its freq range.

The only problematic bands seem to be the transition between woofer and horn (200-400Hz), which seemingly led to problems with mic and floor position, hence the decrease in level under multiple angles towards the lower end of the horn´s range. And secondly everything above 4K which might also be a result of the mic being too close. Note the width of the horn (1.2m or so) which is designed for 4m of listening distance or more so it is expected to measure poorly with the mic too close.

HiFi Choice (Martin Colloms) used to run 2m response sweeps as well as in-his- near IEC-room. Speakers like these larger horn models would be, I suggest, optimised for 3 - 4m listening at least?

 

[Arindal]

Such said scientific papers, studies the scientific nature of something, even if it's about a specific design or application, it will provide data and/or behavior on the scientific nature.

I am not aware of any scientific papers, and I mean the really scientific aspects touching physics and acoustics, in existence which are ignored or contradicted by the Klipsch designers. I am not following everything, admittingly. Could you specify one aspect falling under that category, please?

In essence, it's scientific knowledge, whether you apply it to a specific design or not.

Could you give an example please of scientific knowledge which is violated by a popular Klipsch design?

No credible scientist nor engineer would reject the idea of learning about scientific studies as it pertains to their field of work; not having enough time is a different matter.

I agree, but I do not see any evidence of scientific knowledge being widely ignored here. If you are talking about results of psychoacoustical or just subjective findings, well, that is a different story, as I would not file it under scientific knowledge. Rather completely subjective opinions, even if someone has undertaken the effort of blind testing them with a bunch of listeners and applying some statistical methods to find an average taste or mostly preferred way or whatever.

Every credible engineer would ignore findings which do not support his or her own primary design goal in terms of sound quality or which are simply not applicable to the application being developed.

 

[Chris A]

However, I want to reiterate, this entire thread started based on the premise that (1) Roy is saying "how it measure makes a difference" implying that the spinaroma does not apply to Klipsch and hence measuring poorly on the spin does not carry weight (2) the concept that speakers designed just for the corner is sufficient to justify all the ailments and flaws as these Klipsch shows in the data.

I think this thread is actually about something else (to be honest) now that 150 replies have gone by.

I wish that a bit more useful loudspeaker engineering knowledge is offered up (I'm now talking to the OP), other than just the original YT video of Roy. I've actually offered a lot of references (most of which I've generated myself over the years) that seem to be subjected only to cursory picking and choosing what he wants to use to yet again try to confirm his original beliefs.

To the other readers here:

I think it's wise to simply acknowledge that Roy is a lot smarter, capable, and wiser than some people want to admit, and increasing sales of his loudspeakers by apparently well informed customers seem to confirm that premise. Just sit and listen to well dialed-in Jubilees and it will take you but a moment to realize the truth in this observation.

I guess the shallowness of sound bite answers to confirm pre-existing belief systems seems to be fashionable to post online nowadays--that real science and understanding of the truths involved is not really what is sought, but rather the "feel good" experience to confirm beliefs already held by readers...that just ain't so.

Chris

 

[PristineSound]

I am not aware of any scientific papers, and I mean the really scientific aspects touching physics and acoustics, in existence which are ignored or contradicted by the Klipsch designers. I am not following everything, admittingly. Could you specify one aspect falling under that category, please?



Could you give an example please of scientific knowledge which is violated by a popular Klipsch design?



I agree, but I do not see any evidence of scientific knowledge being widely ignored here. If you are talking about results of psychoacoustical or just subjective findings, well, that is a different story, as I would not file it under scientific knowledge. Rather completely subjective opinions, even if someone has undertaken the effort of blind testing them with a bunch of listeners and applying some statistical methods to find an average taste or mostly preferred way or whatever.

Every credible engineer would ignore findings which do not support his or her own primary design goal in terms of sound quality or which are simply not applicable to the application being developed.

In that video interview that Roy said he was told by Paul to not go too deep into AES papers, this implies any research or scientific papers in the field of acoustics and physocacoustics. Much of Toole and associates' papers are on AES.

I wish that a bit more useful loudspeaker engineering knowledge is offered up (I'm now talking to the OP), other than just the original YT video of Roy. I've actually offered a lot of references (most of which I've generated myself over the years) that seem to be subjected only to cursory picking and choosing what he wants to use to yet again try to confirm his original beliefs.

I want to clarify on few things:

1) The believe in the CEA 2034, or the "Spinaroma", because of the decades of research that went into it along with the data.

One very important oversight on the idea that the spinaroma "doesn't give you the entire picture."

While the spinaroma proper only specifies 6 curves, but one of these curves is the sound power curve, which requires 70 measurement points that encircles the speaker vertically and horizontally. And guess what you can do with this data? You can get very high-resolution polar maps. So while the spinaroma proper does not include the polar maps, but in essence, polar maps are inextricably part of the spinaroma, meaning if you did the spinaroma properly, you will inherit very high-resolution polar maps (albeit you do need to do some additional processing of the data).

You have made several references to the importance of the polar maps and directivity as it pertains to Klipsch, they are there (at least what is publicly available) and reflected sound is the cornerstone of Toole's research and the spinaroma.

My belief is indeed in the spinaroma, which does cover the directivity performance of speakers. It would require significant amount of science and data to disprove the significance of the spinaroma, not just for me. Yes agree, there are other measurements that are also important.

2) I know this may have been lost or misled, but I actually have great interest in horn speakers. I am on a quest to listen to a multi-entry horn for over a year and have yet to be successful. So if you know where I can go to listen to one, please let me know. I have considered building one using DIY blueprints, but it's just too much investment for something I have not tried.

EDIT: Linking to a copy of the CEA/CTA-2034 standards, courtesy of Ascend Acoustics. There are just so much hidden goodies in this standard that the 6 curves alone just doesn't justify.

 

[Keith_W]

2) I know this may have been lost or misled, but I actually have great interest in horn speakers. I am on a quest to listen to a multi-entry horn for over a year and have yet to be successful. So if you know where I can go to listen to one, please let me know. I have considered building one using DIY blueprints, but it's just too much investment for something I have not tried.

Where are you located? If you are in Australia, I know owners of Red Spade PSE-144 in most states. I know the designer, he might know whether he has exported any of these horns overseas.

 

[PristineSound]

Where are you located? If you are in Australia, I know owners of Red Spade PSE-144 in most states. I know the designer, he might know whether he has exported any of these horns overseas.

I am in the eastern part of US, specifically the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania area. I have not heard of this manufacturer but that MEH looks pretty darn nice and I would be delighted if I can hear them in person. I don't see a "dealer list" on their website. If you happen to know if they have a showroom/dealer in my neck of the woods, I will definitely give them a visit!

My only options left are audio shows to find a MEH. Axpona always coincides with my kids' spring break, which we tend to take family vacations instead. The next shows I'm going to is the New York Audio Show and Capital Audio Fest later this year. I will be on the lookout for a MEH and other horns, including the Klipsch heritage line as to not pass judgement.

 

[M240i]

I think this thread is actually about something else (to be honest) now that 150 replies have gone by.

Yeah, I would say so. Clearly there is some sort of underlying agenda at work.
All sorts of declarative statements from a fella that, apparently, has no direct experience with any of the Klipsch speakers in the Heritage lineup.

Thanks for posting some of your references Chris.

Unwatching.

 

[PristineSound]

Yeah, I would say so. Clearly there is some sort of underlying agenda at work.

Really? Let's just blame it on conspiracy theory when you can't convince people to buy the story or blame it on the person who's poking holes in it.

All sorts of declarative statements from a fella that, apparently, has no direct experience with any of the Klipsch speakers in the Heritage lineup.

Let's just forget about the others who has experience with the heritage line and did not have much impressive things to say, such as Erin of Erin's Audio Corner.

But nevertheless, I will be on the lookout for these heritage line at upcoming audio shows along with other horn speakers. Don't want to be hit with the classic "how do you know if you never tried it" argument.

 

[Cbdb2]

I guess it depends on the room. And if you are getting significant room gain than your tonal balance is likely off.

Unless its anechoic all rooms have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_distance
Where the spl from the direct sound (your speaker) equals the spl of reflected sound (room).
In living rooms that distance is usually between 1 and 3 meters. Bigger room larger distance. When your further than twice the critical distance the spl stops dropping (noticibly) with further distance.

 

[kma100]

I am in the eastern part of US, specifically the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania area. I have not heard of this manufacturer but that MEH looks pretty darn nice and I would be delighted if I can hear them in person. I don't see a "dealer list" on their website. If you happen to know if they have a showroom/dealer in my neck of the woods, I will definitely give them a visit!

My only options left are audio shows to find a MEH. Axpona always coincides with my kids' spring break, which we tend to take family vacations instead. The next shows I'm going to is the New York Audio Show and Capital Audio Fest later this year. I will be on the lookout for a MEH and other horns, including the Klipsch heritage line as to not pass judgement.

There is a DIY option for MEH speakers too (https://www.diyaudio.com/community/attachments/meh-pdf.1116142/)