• 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 RP-600M Speaker Review

Maiky76 said:
EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
  • Large boost at the bottom of the Tweeter passband requires caution not to break it. You have been warned!

Score EQ LW: 6.4
with sub: 8.3

Score EQ Score: 6.6
with sub: 8.5


Code: 
Klipsch RP-600 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October142021-110409

Preamp: -5 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 46.17,    0.00,    1.30
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 149.66,    -0.69,    2.47
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 290.71,    1.37,    2.35
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 679.45,    -1.35,    3.99
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 853.25,    -1.95,    3.38
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1501.38,    3.46,    2.53
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2042.92,    3.94,    2.05
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3786.64,    0.93,    3.99
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 4778.09,    -0.59,    3.20
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 12394.25,    -0.97,    2.84


Klipsch RP-600 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October142021-105550

Preamp: -5 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 45.60,    0.00,    1.30
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 150.16,    -0.69,    2.53
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 291.21,    1.37,    2.85
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 678.45,    -1.24,    3.99
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 855.20,    -2.02,    2.68
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1503.38,    3.53,    2.33
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2006.79,    3.94,    2.05
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3805.89,    1.08,    3.99
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 4675.26,    -0.96,    3.94
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 4406.52,    -0.49,    0.49
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 12599.72,    -1.72,    2.69
Click to expand...

I tried these EQ settings, they didn't sound good at all on the rp-600m. I also watched that video that compares original vs upgraded PCB and still preferred the original sound.

I have them bi-amp (dual channel) with my Onkyo 55w 8ohm, 75w 6ohm, 100w max. Looking at the impedance chart, the tweeter should be 55 and woofers could be just below 75w.

On the receiver,amp side I used +1dB for tone (10Khz) and +2dB for woofers.

For EQ I settled for this, cut low,high that don't play and very small adjustments for smooth power delivery. I did upgrade to 12awg which did improve alot; I think that's mostly because it's a 20year old amp which doesn't like below 6ohm loads or high resistance wires.

They sound very clear at low volume and can play very loud. I can pick-up details in songs that were not there before. It's really annoying on bad mixes.

I laughed at the mixing on one of the Metalica song. The guitar was on the left horn, right horn had his voice, left woofer had some drums, right woofer the hats and some other drums... Like wtf


I added my old 10" sub, 80hz cross-over; not too loud volume, wanted to add some hint of deep bass to the sound.


1642302926934.png
 
Has anyone seen measurements for the rp-160m. (The previous itineration of these)
I am wondering if there is much if any difference. The 160's can be had for $250 right now new. The directivity and post PEQ Harman score of the 600' here is quite good so if the 160's match that could be good for some buyers.
 
ROOSKIE said:
Has anyone seen measurements for the rp-160m. (The previous itineration of these)
I am wondering if there is much if any difference. The 160's can be had for $250 right now new. The directivity and post PEQ Harman score of the 600' here is quite good so if the 160's match that could be good for some buyers.
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain it’s the exact same speaker. Exact same crossover components as my 600 M crossover says 160 as well
 
Nwickliff said:
I’m fairly certain it’s the exact same speaker. Exact same crossover components as my 600 M crossover says 160 as well
Click to expand...
Wow, same crossover board.
I had feeling they were basically the same though the tweeter has ferrofluid now which may or may not matter at all. Hmmm, well if anyone wants the 160m and doesn't already know, in the USA the RP-160m is on sale in Cherry @ newegg for $249.99 (also sold on eBay by newegg for the same price)
www.newegg.com

Klipsch RP-160M Reference Premiere Monitor Speakers with 6.5" Cerametallic Cone Woofer - Pair (Cherry) - Newegg.com

Buy Klipsch RP-160M Reference Premiere Monitor Speakers with 6.5" Cerametallic Cone Woofer - Pair (Cherry) with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
www.newegg.com www.newegg.com
www.ebay.com

Klipsch RP-160M Reference Premiere Monitor Speakers with 6.5" Cerametallic Cone | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Klipsch RP-160M Reference Premiere Monitor Speakers with 6.5" Cerametallic Cone at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
www.ebay.com
 
Why was is rated as a top speaker by so many reviewers, when it is so flawed!
 
Descartes said:
Why was is rated as a top speaker by so many reviewers, when it is so flawed!
Click to expand...
because money and because it was at least a departure for their old designs. Finally a horn that doesn’t sound like a squawker. (Cause it’s not, it’s a waveguide). It images like a mofo (center image at least), and if you can eq it the directivity is pretty good so the on axis mirrors the off axis. And it looks pretty.

I can’t get my wife to look at other speakers because she likes the looks of these with the chamfered edges, waveguide, and golden cone. Everything else (that I can afford) looks like an ugly box with some ugly black drivers.
 
Descartes said:
Why was is rated as a top speaker by so many reviewers, when it is so flawed!
Click to expand...
I ordered the 160m's.
Very interested to test them after my experiences with the JBL 4309.

I have very limited experience with Klipsch but they have a large fan base and many reviewers might be catering to them a bit. They may also like the speakers. Reviewers are not always assessing the same things that ASR is and might find the experience of testing them interesting and different in face of many uninteresting budget/upper budget speakers.

The directivity as already stated by @Nwickliff is very good. They will respond well to PEQ. The narrow beam width might really work for some folks and the speaker is likely dynamic which these objective tests here can not measure.
For myself I rate great dynamics as one of the top qualities a speaker I love must have.

For instance my JBL 4309 set is much more dynamic then my KEF R3 test set.
& at any rate while there is much more to say, I currently prefer( in sighted) testing the 4309 to the excellent R3 as an example of how things may play out in real life.

Anyway post PEQ predicted Harman scores of 6.6/8.5 are seriously good and while I take that score with a bit of salt it is deff a high score. Add potential dynamic ability and I may like this speaker. In any case it will be fun to test before spring. I have learning to do before a take on some new DIY projects, but have to wait as it was -18f here last night.
 
ROOSKIE said:
I ordered the 160m's.
Very interested to test them after my experiences with the JBL 4309.

I have very limited experience with Klipsch but they have a large fan base and many reviewers might be catering to them a bit. They may also like the speakers. Reviewers are not always assessing the same things that ASR is and might find the experience of testing them interesting and different in face of many uninteresting budget/upper budget speakers.

The directivity as already stated by @Nwickliff is very good. They will respond well to PEQ. The narrow beam width might really work for some folks and the speaker is likely dynamic which these objective tests here can not measure.
For myself I rate great dynamics as one of the top qualities a speaker I love must have.

For instance my JBL 4309 set is much more dynamic then my KEF R3 test set.
& at any rate while there is much more to say, I currently prefer( in sighted) testing the 4309 to the excellent R3 as an example of how things may play out in real life.

Anyway post PEQ predicted Harman scores of 6.6/8.5 are seriously good and while I take that score with a bit of salt it is deff a high score. Add potential dynamic ability and I may like this speaker. In any case it will be fun to test before spring. I have learning to do before a take on some new DIY projects, but have to wait as it was -18f here last night.
Click to expand...
I think the narrow dispersion also really lens itself to post home theater and untreated rooms. The trouble is hot hot hot however.
 
Klipsch advertises 90x60 90x90 dispersion. Is that really considered narrow dispersion?
 
Last edited:
I tried the Klipsch twice and wasnt impressed. The sound is ok but nothing remarkable. I find it funny reviewers keep talking about "horns" in regards to the 600M where it´s simply a regular tweeter sitting in a slightly recessed cone (aka waveguide). The plastic veneer is abysmal and the signature bronze-colored woofer keeps jumping in your face ("look at me, I'm a Klipsch, you have seen me on YouTube, yes thats me").
 
Nwickliff said:
Well, that is why you do not completely believe the companies advertised specs. If you go to the review on this thread itself you’ll see it’s 40°
Click to expand...
More Dynamics Please said:
Klipsch advertises 90x60 dispersion. Is that really considered narrow dispersion?
Click to expand...

This is the main reason I want to test them.
They are quite narrow.
Coupled with their PEQ potential it is a really good opportunity to continue to learn.
It will be fairly easy to blind test some things.

They also have really good HD distortion levels given the 10v input and extremely good Hd3 levels.
I also see the bass response as appropriate given that I listen fairly loud and tend to like speakers with a slightly shelved down anechoic bass (KEF R3, JBL 4309, among others)
At loud volumes to much bass gets worse in terms of fidelity.

If the treble is hot I can easily deal with that via PEQ or sometimes I like a bit of treble boost, harshness is another issue though. My JBL 4309 is slightly hot but never overly bright sounding likely as it is never harsh (unless it is a harsh recording) - ever and I like that.

Anyway who knows, I will find out and it is at least fun to try.
 
I think they got due to panther ranking a much more bad image here than they deserve just because of that narrow dip around 2 kHz, for their street prices these current RP reference series (and the previous RP series which are very similar) offer very good value for money, having over the average directivity and distortion behaviour. I have recommended them to several people asking me for low budget speakers with good performance also for home cinema and all really enjoy them.

Here are by the way more measurements of models of those series which show their very decent objective performance:


Source of above reviews as well as more reviews https://osirisaudio.de/tests-fachpresse/
 
thewas said:
I have recommended them to several people asking me for low budget speakers with good performance also for home cinema and all really enjoy them.
Click to expand...

There is a major difference between stereo hifi ("audiophiles") and home cinema. Klipsch are perfectly fine for watching movies. They are also probably fine for enjoying music for 99% of people.
 
Nwickliff said:
Well, that is why you do not completely believe the companies advertised specs. If you go to the review on this thread itself you’ll see it’s 40°
Click to expand...
I see, untrustworthy dispersion specs along with the exaggerated sensitivity ratings. Also I just corrected my previous post citing advertised dispersion as 90x60 when the actual claim is 90x90. That 90-degree horizontal dispersion claim is common for pro speakers if not in home audio.
 
More Dynamics Please said:
I see, untrustworthy dispersion specs along with the exaggerated sensitivity ratings. Also I just corrected my previous post citing advertised dispersion as 90x60 when the actual claim is 90x90. That 90-degree horizontal dispersion claim is common for pro speakers if not in home audio.
Click to expand...
It's nuts what these companies are allowe to post about their speakers. The sensitivity thing has to do with how they test and I think it's "in room". 90x90, that's hillarious. Thank god for sites like this one!
 
Baris said:
There is a major difference between stereo hifi ("audiophiles") and home cinema. Klipsch are perfectly fine for watching movies. They are also probably fine for enjoying music for 99% of people.
Click to expand...
This is a load of crap, IMO! A distortionless speaker is a distortionless speaker. Distortion, as it pertains to, the signal in, is the same signal out.

We can talk about different qualities like sensitivity as it pertains to being able to be driven by an AVR, or dispersion, in which it might be better to have more narrow dispersion the more speakers (surround) you introduce into a room, and or SPL achievable without harmonic distortion so you can crank the volume without worry of compression or distortion with the wild dynamic range swings of cinema. BUT....a speaker that truthfully reproduces music is just that. If it doesn't sound "musical" or "exciting" that's the fault of the content, not the speaker.
 
From what I can find the main advertised difference between the RP-160 and RP-600 is that the RP-600 has a vented tweeter whereas the RP-160 tweeter is unvented:

VENTED TWEETER DESIGN

The new vented tweeter housing reduces standing waves that create unwanted harmonics, resulting in enhanced detail and clarity in high frequency reproduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Limited depth dilemma - need help to find equivalent of Klipsch RP-600M II
Replies
12
Views
1K
studyinemerald
S
2Sunny
Newbie intro and first 2 questions. Where to learn about equalization or?
Replies
17
Views
818
2Sunny
2Sunny
2Sunny
Do Atmos speakers really have "secret stuff"?
Replies
6
Views
510
2Sunny
2Sunny
amirm
  • Poll
Cambridge Audio Minx XL Speaker Review
2 3
Replies
47
Views
16K
375HP2482
3
S
Home Theatre Upgrade Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
AVphile
A
Back
Top Bottom