Klipsch The Fives Powered Bookshelf Speaker Review

[whazzup]

I can see why you say that. In the "Flat" mode, the bass is more closely aligned with the high treble.

I have to agree with @hardisj , though. I think the reduced bass mode will actually sound more flat, as the treble really doesn't start taking off until 2kHz. Almost all primary musical instrument notes are below 2kHz, and 2kHz+ is mostly harmonics. With the reduced bass mode, the speaker is essentially flat all the way up to 2kHz. Almost all the fundamental notes will be well balanced, with only the higher harmonics being accentuated. With the "Flat" mode, bass fundamental notes will be unnaturally loud relative to mid fundamental notes.

Just trying to make sense of the in room measurements versus Erin's listening impressions. The typical in room curve (as seen by the estimated response) is downward trending, whereas with these speakers and the bass cut, it's actually upwards trending. With some sort of boost/cliff in 400-1500hz range.

So one of the possible factors is the 3.5m listening position. So my first assumption is that the estimated response is 'only' accurate around 1m distance (correct me if I'm wrong)? How is an estimated response curve estimated to change for longer distances?

And given the speaker in-room measurements as seen (rising treble, 400-1.5k hump), my next assumption is that they should sound bright. Erin didn't think so though. But as you said, the impact of the rising treble might not be that obvious.

Finally, given Erin's comment about the 'bad' bass (in flat mode), the takeaway (for me at least) is that Klipsch selected a midrange with zero headroom and has distorted bass, hence the necessity for a bass cut mode that reduces bass (and distortion), which in turn made the speaker sound better.

Just my attempt at interpreting measurements, so feel free to correct my assumptions / takeaways.

 

[Jokerbre]

For more complete measurements.

 

[hardisj]

So my first assumption is that the estimated response is 'only' accurate around 1m distance (correct me if I'm wrong)?

2 meters is what the data is based on.

my next assumption is that they should sound bright. Erin didn't think so though.

I did actually say they were a bit bright:

Finally, given Erin's comment about the 'bad' bass (in flat mode), the takeaway (for me at least) is that Klipsch selected a midrange with zero headroom and has distorted bass, hence the necessity for a bass cut mode that reduces bass (and distortion), which in turn made the speaker sound better.

High frequency upward tilt is noticeable but harder to tell without a proper A/B, thanks to the smooth shape. Presents itself as a bit bright and sibilant, though.

Possibly. There is no reason for the bass to sound as bad as it did when I listened from a few feet away even with the boosted bass. I've heard other speakers with a similar - or even more peaky - bass response that did not sound nearly as bad as these when in "flat" DSP mode. It sounded more like terrible compression. But it was at a moderate level from a few feet away. Weird.

 

[hardisj]

I should have mentioned that I initially listened to the speakers (in "flat" mode) in my office and they were in the nearfield (placed in the center of the room; I swiveled my chair around to listen). The bass was garbage. And that didn't change when I listened to them in my living room in the farfield (which is where the in-room measurements were taken).

 

[dorirod]

Thank you for the review! Do you have any opinion as to how these would compare against the Elac Debut Reference? Probably don't get as loud, but any other difference? How would they compare at 9-10ft listening distance assuming you don't listen too loud?

 

[hardisj]

Thank you for the review! Do you have any opinion as to how these would compare against the Elac Debut Reference? Probably don't get as loud, but any other difference? How would they compare at 9-10ft listening distance assuming you don't listen too loud?

I honestly have no idea about a comparison to the Elac. As for output levels, I'd have to err on the side of caution here with the 86dB @ 1m test (as the 96dB shows high limiting). If one assumes 3dB of in-room gain + 6dB from adding a second speaker, this works out to be approximately a maximum volume of 95dB at 1 meter and 83dB at 4 meters, in-room for a pair.

 

[HammerSandwich]

Nice review again, @hardisj. Add me to the "I did NOT expect that!" list.

Now if the large-format speakers had similar engineering, they'd fill a niche almost impossible to find in their price range (eg. Heresy).

Yes, ignoring the factory EQ, the shortcomings are all about the small size. A big version could give the JBL M2 some real competition for $4k. But I can't imagine Klipsch wants to embarrass their traditional products, and that's a shame.

 

[hardisj]

Based on my recent discussion with Earl Geddes (discussion about it here), I decided to implement an additional compression test as I think this is another bit of data that can really help us understand how we may subjectively prefer one speaker over another. This differs from what I was already offering in that it is long-term. I have subsequently re-named my previous testing "Dynamic Range (Instantaneous Compression Test)" because I feel it is the most useful way of relaying speaker dynamics in test data. So, now I have two types of compression testing:
1) Short term (already had)
2) Long term (new test method)

I have updated my review with this new set of data but have also retroactively updated the text around #1 above. Here is a direct copy/paste of those two data sets.

----------------------------------------------


Dynamic Range (Instantaneous Compression Test)
The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.

The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
2. 86dB at 1 meter (red)
3. 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
4. 102dB at 1 meter (purple)

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously.

Based on my results above, it is obvious the output is quite limited somewhere above the 86dB @ 1m output level. Both the 96dB and the 102dB show significantly lowered output (>3dB loss of expected gain). This is certainly audible when listening, too, as the bass of the speakers dwindled while the highs remained as I increased the system volume. I haven’t confirmed with Klipsch if this is a built-in limiter, though, I assume it is.




Long Term Compression Tests
The below graphics indicate how much SPL is lost or gained in the long-term as a speaker plays at the same output level for 2 minutes, in intervals. Each graphic represents a different SPL: 86dB and 96dB both at 1 meter.

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components).

The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. “Cold” logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand)
2. Multitone stimulus played at desired SPL/distance for 2 minutes; intended to represent music signal
3. Interim logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand) (Red in graphic)
4. Multitone stimulus played at desired SPL/distance for 2 minutes; intended to represent music signal
5. Final logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand) (Blue in graphic)

The red and blue lines represent changes in the output compared to the initial “cold” test.

 

[PurdueDeep]

New member so excuse the ignorance. How would one go about adding eq to this equation without adding another piece of hardware? Para-eq apps for desktop/mobile?

The klipsch team also had an app called Connect that they featured an eq in. They've since removed it and have hinted at a possible redesign. Hopefully a Para-eq!

 

[NTK]

New member so excuse the ignorance. How would one go about adding eq to this equation without adding another piece of hardware? Para-eq apps for desktop/mobile?

The klipsch team also had an app called Connect that they featured an eq in. They've since removed it and have hinted at a possible redesign. Hopefully a Para-eq!

Welcome to ASR!

Here is a list of software EQ options compiled by @Doodski
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ows-linux-macos-ios-ipados-and-android.18450/

 

[PurdueDeep]

Welcome to ASR!

Here is a list of software EQ options compiled by @Doodski
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ows-linux-macos-ios-ipados-and-android.18450/

oh super cool! Thanks .

Ive got a bunch of discrete questions, like how or why i should use the provided PEQ settings vs something like room correcting(or both?!).
Also trying to put together a system using some purifi components and I’d appreciate being able to message anyone who will help! Tried reaching out to Alan from March audio but cant get to his mail.

Lastly, huge shout out to this wonderful forum. As a undergrad engineering engineering major I can’t tell you how proud I am to finally find a community of audio enthusiasts who are data driven. It’s normally sickening/ really saddening to have to try and pursue this hobby when there is just so much subjectivity. Sigh, rant aside. Thanks for having me!

 

[NTK]

oh super cool! Thanks .

Ive got a bunch of discrete questions, like how or why i should use the provided PEQ settings vs something like room correcting(or both?!).
Also trying to put together a system using some purifi components and I’d appreciate being able to message anyone who will help! Tried reaching out to Alan from March audio but cant get to his mail.

Lastly, huge shout out to this wonderful forum. As a undergrad engineering engineering major I can’t tell you how proud I am to finally find a community of audio enthusiasts who are data driven. It’s normally sickening/ really saddening to have to try and pursue this hobby when there is just so much subjectivity. Sigh, rant aside. Thanks for having me!

Unfortunately, Alan is no longer part of this forum (he got banned). You'll need to contact him through March Audio's website.

Here is some reading for you to understand some basics behind how to choose good sounding loudspeakers and make them sound the best in your room.
http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/Altr...ker Performance in Rooms (Floyd E. Toole).pdf

The short answer is you want the on-axis or listening window anechoic frequency response to be flat. That's the reasoning behind the EQ's for the frequencies about 300-500 Hz. However, you can't separately EQ on-axis (or listening window) response and the off-axis response. Therefore you will need start with speakers will good directivity. EQ can't help much with loudspeakers with poor directivities.

Below about 300-500 Hz, the interactions between your room, the loudspeakers, and the listening position dominate the frequency response. You'll therefore need to measure the frequency response in-room at these frequencies, and correct the FR with EQ based on the in-room measurements.

 

[PurdueDeep]

Super cool response. Thanks NTK.

Will definitely read the link this weekend.

Sorry. I actually got on this forum looking for more info about Purifi amps and I remember seeing the relative SINAD graph and found March audios offering to be extremely Competitive. Ive actually spent easily over 24hrs looking up how to build a (to me) high grade system with the sointuva and the p452 amp. Is there some reason I shouldn’t/ am underinformed? Just read the post between Alan and John but still really don’t know what to make of it. Any help/ objectivity here would be appreciated!

 

[NTK]

Super cool response. Thanks NTK.

Will definitely read the link this weekend.

Sorry. I actually got on this forum looking for more info about Purifi amps and I remember seeing the relative SINAD graph and found March audios offering to be extremely Competitive. Ive actually spent easily over 24hrs looking up how to build a (to me) high grade system with the sointuva and the p452 amp. Is there some reason I shouldn’t/ am underinformed? Just read the post between Alan and John but still really don’t know what to make of it. Any help/ objectivity here would be appreciated!

This discussion is far off topic from this thread. I'd suggest starting a new thread.

 

[PurdueDeep]

Hi,


Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:


Score no EQ: 5.4
With Sub: 7.7

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Fairly smooth
• Decent directivity, beaming towards HF as opposed to constant directivity
• Horn probably a bit small for a smooth transition
• Port...
• too much HF but you gotta hear these horns ;-)

View attachment 126799

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
View attachment 126801

View attachment 126804
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.

Score EQ LW: 6.5
with sub: 8.6

Score EQ Score: 6.7
with sub: 8.8

Klipsch the Fives APO EQ LW 96000Hz
April282021-172040

Preamp: -2.4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 93.3 Hz Gain -1.07 dB Q 1.29
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 487 Hz Gain -1.45 dB Q 3.3
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1039 Hz Gain -0.56 dB Q 6.17
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3693 Hz Gain -1.35 dB Q 2.03
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 10278 Hz Gain -1.27 dB Q 0.46
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 10486 Hz Gain -0.91 dB Q 7.25
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 14433 Hz Gain -2.3 dB Q 3.52

Klipsch the Fives APO EQ Score 96000Hz
April282021-171414

Preamp: -2.3 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 38.75 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 97.3 Hz Gain -1.00 dB Q 0.89
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 490.5 Hz Gain -1.78 dB Q 2.8
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1067 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 4.5
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3695 Hz Gain -1.53 dB Q 1.8
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 10292 Hz Gain -2.15 dB Q 0.38
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 10157 Hz Gain -0.91 dB Q 6.63
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 14411 Hz Gain -3.18 dB Q 4.38

View attachment 126794

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 126798

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 126797

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 126795

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 126796

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
some small improvements
View attachment 126793

The rest of the plots is attached.

Thanks a Ton for the Effort. If I'm not using APO as my Para Eq, could you point out the following terms used please?:
- HPQ and PK, I do not believe my Eq provides this.
- The 96000Hz part is just the label and not a param right.

Thank you

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: for anyone reading after this, official docs:
https://sourceforge.net/p/equalizerapo/wiki/Configuration reference/

HPQ: High pass filter
PK: Peaking filter

 

[PurdueDeep]

and because choice is always good, here is another EQ that change the score from 5.6 to 6.7:
Score details below:

NBD  ON 0.29 0.20
NBD  LW 0.28 0.16
NBD PIR 0.26 0.19
SM  PIR 0.73 0.97
SM   SP 0.90 0.97
LFX       48   45
LFQ     0.49 0.51
-----------------
Score    5.6  6.7
-----------------
+5.61 +6.75 Klipsch The Fives

EQ is below (I would keep only the first 9):

EQ for Klipsch The Fives computed from EAC data
Preference Score 5.6 with EQ 6.7
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.7
Dated: 2021-04-28-10:43:49

Preamp: -1.0 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc 14680 Hz Gain -4.17 dB Q 0.15
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  7231 Hz Gain +1.05 dB Q 2.04
Filter  3: ON PK Fc   490 Hz Gain -1.71 dB Q 4.36
Filter  4: ON PK Fc 14604 Hz Gain -1.25 dB Q 4.10
Filter  5: ON PK Fc   602 Hz Gain -0.41 dB Q 12.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc  1048 Hz Gain -0.86 dB Q 7.44
Filter  7: ON PK Fc   735 Hz Gain +1.46 dB Q 12.00
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  7169 Hz Gain -0.21 dB Q 12.00
Filter  9: ON PK Fc  3608 Hz Gain -0.71 dB Q 4.60
Filter 10: ON PK Fc  5460 Hz Gain +0.42 dB Q 4.67
Filter 11: ON PK Fc   936 Hz Gain -0.52 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc   815 Hz Gain +0.87 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc  1291 Hz Gain +0.42 dB Q 12.00
Filter 14: ON PK Fc   763 Hz Gain -0.51 dB Q 12.00
Filter 15: ON PK Fc  9050 Hz Gain +0.29 dB Q 6.63
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  2676 Hz Gain -0.54 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 11428 Hz Gain +0.37 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 10228 Hz Gain -0.34 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc  2390 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 12.00
Filter 20: ON PK Fc  2254 Hz Gain +0.54 dB Q 12.00

View attachment 126820View attachment 126822View attachment 126821

My Q on the Allo Boss 2 dac only goes up to 8. Is this a cause for, uhm, i wanna say concern but that seems over the top.

https://www.sageaudio.com/blog/mixing/how-to-set-the-q-of-an-equalizer-to-an-octave.php
looking at this, maybe. but not too much.

 

[AnalogSteph]

My Q on the Allo Boss 2 dac only goes up to 8. Is this a cause for, uhm, i wanna say concern but that seems over the top.

As does using 20 EQ bands in the first place. I don't think there is much point in using tons of super-fine adjustments (a lot of which may be below the limits of sample variation and measurement accuracy). Better stick with @Maiky76's far more sensible set that at the end of the day does pretty much the same.

 

[PurdueDeep]

As does using 20 EQ bands in the first place. I don't think there is much point in using tons of super-fine adjustments (a lot of which may be below the limits of sample variation and measurement accuracy). Better stick with @Maiky76's far more sensible set that at the end of the day does pretty much the same.

How does one make a high pass with only peak filters?

 

[io53]

I found a new firmware for the fives on klipsch webpage

The Fives - USB Firmware Update

The Fives include special software, called firmware, that controls how the product works. By updating the firmware, you can get bug fixes and additional features. This article will walk you through...

support.klipsch.com

There is a bit.ly link there that leads to https://pubklipschfirmwarefiles.s3....Files/2021-09-25_Fives_Combo_Update_Step1.zip
The update is not on https://www.klipsch.com/firmware?product=115490 and there are no release notes to be found.

Looking at the files tells us that they are newer, and there is more stuff.

Old update ("5.8.0")
8.0K Mar 23 15:31:34 2020 FIVESDSP.bin 30K Jan 14 21:21:03 2020 FIVESHDM.bin 36K Sep 5 15:48:40 2020 FIVESMCU.bin

New update (2021-09-25)
10K Mar 17 13:23:52 2021 DSPTFV02.bin 10K Aug 4 17:20:50 2021 DSPTFV03.bin 8.0K Sep 2 13:03:08 2021 FIVESDSP.bin 30K Sep 2 13:03:08 2021 FIVESHDM.bin 59K Sep 2 13:03:08 2021 FIVESMCU.bin 30K Jan 14 15:21:04 2020 HDMTFV02.bin 28K Jul 1 09:57:06 2021 HDMTFV03.bin 43K Sep 25 08:27:00 2021 MCUTFV02.bin 38K Mar 4 16:15:36 2021 MCUTFV03.bin

I wish Klipsch would get their shit together with software, guess the changes in the update will be a mystery for now.

 

[021TFT]

I found a new firmware for the fives on klipsch webpage

The Fives - USB Firmware Update

The Fives include special software, called firmware, that controls how the product works. By updating the firmware, you can get bug fixes and additional features. This article will walk you through...

support.klipsch.com

There is a bit.ly link there that leads to https://pubklipschfirmwarefiles.s3....Files/2021-09-25_Fives_Combo_Update_Step1.zip
The update is not on https://www.klipsch.com/firmware?product=115490 and there are no release notes to be found.

Looking at the files tells us that they are newer, and there is more stuff.

Old update ("5.8.0")
8.0K Mar 23 15:31:34 2020 FIVESDSP.bin 30K Jan 14 21:21:03 2020 FIVESHDM.bin 36K Sep 5 15:48:40 2020 FIVESMCU.bin

New update (2021-09-25)
10K Mar 17 13:23:52 2021 DSPTFV02.bin 10K Aug 4 17:20:50 2021 DSPTFV03.bin 8.0K Sep 2 13:03:08 2021 FIVESDSP.bin 30K Sep 2 13:03:08 2021 FIVESHDM.bin 59K Sep 2 13:03:08 2021 FIVESMCU.bin 30K Jan 14 15:21:04 2020 HDMTFV02.bin 28K Jul 1 09:57:06 2021 HDMTFV03.bin 43K Sep 25 08:27:00 2021 MCUTFV02.bin 38K Mar 4 16:15:36 2021 MCUTFV03.bin

I wish Klipsch would get their shit together with software, guess the changes in the update will be a mystery for now.

I checked last week and the firmware update page was up and working. I bought The Fives last week after reading one reviewer of the new update stated that the boomy bass issue was solved with the 9/25 update and the signature Klipsch sound was now present. The Fives were delivered yesterday so I went to the webpage where the firmware download was located on the Klipsch site and it has now been taken down. Any idea what is going on? This is extremely frustrating.