Klipsch RP-600M Speaker Review

[MZKM]

Can you infer that from the LS3/5a white paper?

This is what it says:

(c) Units

The low-frequency unit is a KEF type B110 unit specially selected to BBC specification; the nominal impedance is 8 ohms and the free-air resonance frequency is 35 Hz (with a statistical spread having 95% confidence limits at 33 and 40 Hz).
The high-frequency unit is a KEF tweeter type T27 with a nominal impedance of 8 ohms and a nominal resonance frequency of 1200 Hz (95% confidence limits of 1000 and 1450 Hz). As the diaphragm of this unit is exposed and could therefore be easily damaged in use, it has been protected by a domed perforated metal cover. This has a small effect on the frequency response of the T27, which is wholly beneficial as it raises the output somewhat at high frequencies. The radiating surface of the T27 is small and the radiator is therefore nearly omnidirectional; in order to prevent the acoustic discontinuity presented by the edge of the cabinet from setting up an interference pattern, the tweeter is surrounded by a thick felt strip mounted on the baffle front surface.

(d) Equaliser/crossover network

The circuit diagram of the network used for this purpose is shown in Fig. 2. The inductance L1 and the resistor R1 are employed to equalise the generally rising axial response/frequency characteristic of the bass unit; the group C5 , L 2 , R2 , compensates for a hump in this characteristic and the crossover frequency to the high-frequency unit is at about 3 kHz. Forthehigh-frequencyunit,inductorL3 servessimultaneouslyas a shunt inductor for the crossover network, and as an auto transformer to allow different relative sensitivities of individual l.f. and h.f. units to be matched. When used for this purpose, capacitor C2 is adjusted to keep the crossover frequency constant. This convenient form of network was first used in the design of the LS5/1 loudspeaker3 and has proved to be very useful. R3 serves as a damping resistor to prevent ringing, whilst R4 , and C6 serve to adjust the frequency response at the upper end of the band.
Physically the circuit board is mounted just behind the T27 unit and is prevented from resonating mechanically by means of a thick felt pad, placed between the board and the unit.

Not sure what you are asking of me.
But, in the measurements in that white paper, we see a dip on-axis around 4kHz, and that the off-axis is louder.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Or maybe this was the best that they could do with the available drivers.

No, the drivers are just fine, see the modified crossover and measurements by Danny Richie from GR-Research here:
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=166535.0
http://gr-research.com/Klipsch/new crossover.jpg

 

[Cahudson42]

speaker with an uneven frequency response out of the box but a smooth directivity curve can be corrected much closer to ideal than

Does this suggest - that with EQ (and electronic crossover?) - this uneven fr but apparently reasonable directivity 'pigs ear' could be made a 'silk purse' - even if only at moderate SPL so as to minimize resonance effects?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...a2034-spinorama-audio-measurements-png.49741/

 

[QMuse]

Does this suggest - that with EQ (and electronic crossover?) - this uneven fr but apparently reasonable directivity 'pigs ear' could be made a 'silk purse' - even if only at moderate SPL so as to minimize resonance effects?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...a2034-spinorama-audio-measurements-png.49741/

This does.

P.S. No digital XO needed. This filters would do the job assuming inter-specimen variation is small

 

[BYRTT]

Does this suggest - that with EQ (and electronic crossover?) - this uneven fr but apparently reasonable directivity 'pigs ear' could be made a 'silk purse' - even if only at moderate SPL so as to minimize resonance effects?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...a2034-spinorama-audio-measurements-png.49741/

Naaah.... directivity index curve there ain't really smooth, below spinorama DRAMA... should be some educating a look in they all EQed flat as pancake on axis within telephone band 80Hz-7kHz which help the eye stair out the overall tendency compared to stair them non EQed where tons of wiiggles kind of confuse the eye, also there is two target curves overlaid there one for PIR and one for power response, not that those targets are the one and only but they probably good tonality guides.

001_JBL_Control_1_Pro
002_JBL_305P_Mark_ii
003_NHT_Pro_M-00 (Disclaimer: this one is non optimal in its based on only horizontal spindata)
004_Kali_Audio_IN-8
005_Revel_C52
006_Yamaha_HS5
007_Neumann_KH_80
008_JBL_One_Series_104
009_Harbeth_Monitor_30
010_KEF_LS50
011_Emotiva_Airmotiv_6s
012_Selah_Audio_RC3R
013_Micca_RB42
014_Realistic_MC-1000
015_Pioneer_SP-BS22-LR
016_Dayton_Audio_B652-AIR
017_ADAM_S2V_Studio_Monitor
018_Elac_Adante_AS-61
019_Klipsch_R-41M
020_Genelec_8341A_SAM
021_Polk_T15
022_Ascend_CMT-340_SE_(HT_Centerchannel)
023_Ascend_Sierra_2
024_Ascend_BM-170_SE
025_Revel_M16
026_Tannoy_System_600
027_JBL_705P_Studio_Monitor
028_KEF_Q100
029_KEF_R3
030_Revel_F35
031_Zaph_Audio_ZA5.2_DIY_KIT
032_Klipsch_RP-600M
033_Pioneer_Elite_SP-EBS73-LR_Atmos

 

[Cahudson42]

001_JBL_Control_1_Pro
002_JBL_305P_Mark_ii
003_NHT_Pro_M-00 (Disclaimer: this one is non optimal in its based on only horizontal spindata)
004_Kali_Audio_IN-8
005_Revel_C52
006_Yamaha_HS5
007_Neumann_KH_80
008_JBL_One_Series_104
009_Harbeth_Monitor_30
010_KEF_LS50
011_Emotiva_Airmotiv_6s....etc...

How about some members more adept at reading Spinoramas than I taking a shot at suggesting/ranking a few Passives that might EQ nicely into much better performing versions?

Maybe with/without digital XO replacement?

Explaining the reasons behind your picks would also be very helpful to educate us non-adept, too

 

[QMuse]

Naaah.... directivity index curve there ain't really smooth, below spinorama DRAMA... should be some educating a look in they all EQed flat as pancake on axis within telephone band 80Hz-7kHz which help the eye stair out the overall tendency compared to stair them non EQed where tons of wiiggles kind of confuse the eye, also there is two target curves overlaid there one for PIR and one for power response, not that those targets are the one and only but they probably good tonality guides.

001_JBL_Control_1_Pro
002_JBL_305P_Mark_ii
003_NHT_Pro_M-00 (Disclaimer: this one is non optimal in its based on only horizontal spindata)
004_Kali_Audio_IN-8
005_Revel_C52
006_Yamaha_HS5
007_Neumann_KH_80
008_JBL_One_Series_104
009_Harbeth_Monitor_30
010_KEF_LS50
011_Emotiva_Airmotiv_6s
012_Selah_Audio_RC3R
013_Micca_RB42
014_Realistic_MC-1000
015_Pioneer_SP-BS22-LR
016_Dayton_Audio_B652-AIR
017_ADAM_S2V_Studio_Monitor
018_Elac_Adante_AS-61
019_Klipsch_R-41M
020_Genelec_8341A_SAM
021_Polk_T15
022_Ascend_CMT-340_SE_(HT_Centerchannel)
023_Ascend_Sierra_2
024_Ascend_BM-170_SE
025_Revel_M16
026_Tannoy_System_600
027_JBL_705P_Studio_Monitor
028_KEF_Q100
029_KEF_R3
030_Revel_F35
031_Zaph_Audio_ZA5.2_DIY_KIT
032_Klipsch_RP-600M
033_Pioneer_Elite_SP-EBS73-LR_Atmos
View attachment 55467

Wow - this is extremely usefull for comparison!

I wouldn't want to sound ungrateful but have you thought of doing the same but with flat LW instead with flat on-axis?

 

[BYRTT]

How about some members more adept at reading Spinoramas than I taking a shot at suggesting/ranking a few Passives that might EQ nicely into much better performing versions?

Maybe with/without digital XO replacement?

Explaining the reasons behind your picks would also be very helpful to educate us non-adept, too

A dirty quick guide is look for smooth as possible a directivity index and notice the printed ones have its own step of 3dB vertical scale at plots right side, where left side step of 5dB is for the other response curves. In general there is many technical reasons why directivity index can woble up and down be it a smooth transistion as frequency increase and sometimes some ugly steep directly vertical drops or increases in curve, directivity index at 0dB means output is omni as seen for low frequencyes and as curve increase with frequency output gets more and more directive (beaming), bigger diameter transducers is more directive as frequency increase than smaller diameter but above say 4-6kHz area small diameter transducers will also beam because wavelenght is so small that its impossible make them omni up there, when we see those ugly interference directly vertical drops or increases into woofers or mids area reason is often a same distance 360deg difraction/interference physical point relative to center of transducer or some port leaking or resonances inside enclosure, for coxial arrays XO region is normal invinsible in directivity index curve where for transducers that have some distance being spaced apart that distance in mm together order of the XO slope will dictate a predictable bump or hill in directivity index curve, constant directivity is when directivity index curve stay flat over a certain area and not the same as the more normal smooth controlled directivity.

One could imagine that probably a directivity index curve at 0dB from 20Hz-20kHz would sound great being omni and constant directivity as many real world instruments probably are but thats not how most speakers work, but think rember its often referenced that in Tooles book some study point to as wide a directivity as possible is prefered in tests.

About with/without digital XO replacement for those speakers will say okay if one know what to do then go ahead and improve if possible, else let it be as is because its not as simple as buy a miniDSP unit and set slope there to a named textbook fllter.

Sausalitoaudio have a pdf guide for interpreting spinorama charts, here is link: https://www.sausalitoaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Interpreting-Spinorama-Charts.pdf

Hope above helps a bit else suggest ask @napilopez because he is super at this stuff, about really reading those Spinoramas and learn from it suggest take your time and study them close and remember they already EQed, for fun i can point out one better looking preference per row but think the rest of it is more or less interest and self education.

row 01: 002_JBL_305P_Mark_ii
row 02: 004_Kali_Audio_IN-8
row 03: 007_Neumann_KH_80
row 04: 010_KEF_LS50
row 05: 015_Pioneer_SP-BS22-LR
row 06: 017_ADAM_S2V_Studio_Monitor
row 07: 020_Genelec_8341A_SAM
row 08: 023_Ascend_Sierra_2
row 09: 025_Revel_M16
row 10: 029_KEF_R3
row 11: 032_Klipsch_RP-600M

 

[QMuse]

How about some members more adept at reading Spinoramas than I taking a shot at suggesting/ranking a few Passives that might EQ nicely into much better performing versions?

Maybe with/without digital XO replacement?

Explaining the reasons behind your picks would also be very helpful to educate us non-adept, too

Here is how a speaker correction might look with Klipsch:

Fliter:

The idea behind this correction was to keep on-axis as flat as possible while smoothing LW, ER and SP.

Btw, this is an attempt to correct anechoic response of the speaker. Room EQ would still be needed on top of this correction to make things sound right in your room.

 

[BYRTT]

Wow - this is extremely usefull for comparison!

I wouldn't want to sound ungrateful but have you thought of doing the same but with flat LW instead with flat on-axis?

Ha ha i can see it be usefull its just that on axis transfer curve in software is hammer easy command where LW calculation will take more messy clicks into another calculator window for a bit too lazy operator that said go out buy 007_Neumann_KH_80 and LW is almost a overlay to on axis ...

 

[QMuse]

that said go out buy 007_Neumann_KH_80 and LW is almost a overlay to on axis ...

Ehh, I think I'll keep my Castle's. My listening room is 45m2 and LP is 4 meters from the speakers so I think they may have some trouble filling it with sound.

 

[Cahudson42]

Sausalitoaudio have a pdf guide for interpreting spinorama charts, here is link: https://www.sausalitoaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Interpreting-Spinorama-Charts.pdf

Wow! Lots of great info! Particularly for someone like me coming from the much simpler world of headphones I suggest this link be promoted somewhere so it isn't just buried in this particular review...Again, thanks!

"I have seen the future and it is measurement and DSP"

 

[tuga]

No, the drivers are just fine, see the modified crossover and measurements by Danny Richie from GR-Research here:
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=166535.0
http://gr-research.com/Klipsch/new crossover.jpg

View attachment 55447

The decay looks reasonably clean after the mod with only a low-level ridge followed by a small dip in the frequency response.

A weird but perhaps a marketing-driven design decision?
Such speakers would stand out at a dealer's demo.

 

[QMuse]

No, the drivers are just fine, see the modified crossover and measurements by Danny Richie from GR-Research here:
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=166535.0
http://gr-research.com/Klipsch/new crossover.jpg

View attachment 55447

This looks much better than the original!

 

[wwenze]

Btw, this is an attempt to correct anechoic response of the speaker. Room EQ would still be needed on top of this correction to make things sound right in your room.

Still useful for the few of us with no room EQ systems.

Which begs the question, if we assume everyone has auto EQ systems, does it still makes sense to judge speakers by their raw frequency response, or should post-EQ FR be a third metric alongside normal and w/sub

 

[Cahudson42]

post-EQ FR be a third metric alongside normal and w/sub

Since this can be derived from the data amir develops (correct? Not?) and to reduce the load on amir so he can measure more speakers, might this not be something a knowledgeable volunteer could take on? Like the Olive ratings? And Loudspeaker Explorer? (I'm not competent to do it - yet )

 

[QMuse]

Still useful for the few of us with no room EQ systems.

Which begs the question, if we assume everyone has auto EQ systems, does it still makes sense to judge speakers by their raw frequency response, or should post-EQ FR be a third metric alongside normal and w/sub

Sure, speakers should be judged by spinorama. It makes sense to do speaker's correction under 2 assumptions:

1.) corrections are made acccording to precise measurements (like the ones you see here made with Klippel equipment)
2.) inter-variations between specimen is small (so your correction will be equally valid for the speakers you purchase as their response will be similar as the one measured here)

Room EQ is there to ensure you actually do have in-room response similar to the one predicted by spinorama (PIR) and should be done according to in-room measurements either by your autoamted EQ system or manually. In either case it is always a good idea to check with REW the results of automated EQ.

 

[ta240]

At this point I'm convinced the "Klipsch sound" is intentional.

It seems like that is the case since GR-Research was able to correct the issues fairly easily. And a lot of people seem to like the sound.

The biggest gripe I have is the exaggerated sensitivity ratings. Klipsch are often recommended on forums to people with lower power amps because of the sensitivity.

I also wonder if some of the way the lower end speakers sound is to help them sound better in stores, since the lower end products don't make it into the small listening rooms. I know fewer and fewer people shop in stores but it could be a left over design factor. Several years ago when I was looking at speakers at the big warehouse store Frys (back when they had stuff in their big stores) and the little Pioneers that tested decently here were the blandest sounding out of the bunch. But a huge, noisy, open warehouse was not a good listening environment so the speakers with proper output probably get lost in the mess. It would be a bit like if TVs only had one picture setting so that the manufactures had to decide between permanently picking a super bright in-store display setting or a normal in-home setting and customers, in the bright stores, would think the home setting looked bland.

 

[Xyrium]

EQ can fix this. Do you use EQ?

It can get close, but you'll need a tight Q on it if you don't expect to impact the rest of the spectrum. That said, I do not EQ currently, as my PC is a source for more than one input (set of amps and speakers). I have a listening system, a guitar rig, and a drum rig; each with different speakers, but all receiving output from the PC in one form or another.

So, while I may EQ something I'm recording, I don't EQ the output to the speakers. Therefore, I prefer something that isn't as bad as these are.

 

[civi]

The biggest gripe I have is the exaggerated sensitivity ratings. Klipsch are often recommended on forums to people with lower power amps because of the sensitivity.

They still have "top of the class" sensitivity given their size so its not a bad recommendation for this criterion.