The ‘house’ corrected the frequency response with version 2.0 of this speaker. Something to think about.
Useless discussions, this speaker reacts good to eq. Get a way to peq and have fun with them.
The ‘house’ corrected the frequency response with version 2.0 of this speaker. Something to think about.
No it’s not a useless discussion. There is no reason to buy this speaker and mod when version 2.0 is great out of the box.Useless discussions, this speaker reacts good to eq. Get a way to peq and have fun with them.
No it’s not a useless discussion. There is no reason to buy this speaker and mod when version 2.0 is great out of the box.
I used mine at my fraternity house, so ya... I was pushing as hard as I could. But the amp fixed everything. Definitely wish I had known though about high efficiency designs, as a behringer powered speaker still would have done as well as the polk speakers I had, with far more output.Ya... square wave clipping from overdriving under powered amps is a driver killer. Hehe
This statement is so moot. I'll bet that a lot of folks will prefer the RP600M gen 1 over gen 2. No graphics or 'science' will explain that. Incoming threads: "Klipsch doesn't sound the same anymore".The ‘house’ corrected the frequency response with version 2.0 of this speaker. Something to think about.
Like you demonstrate, anyone will say anything. So what? This type of noise is the curse of the internet. If you allow me to attempt to bring some actual research into this: Harman/Revel is the only major speaker company that publicly discloses that it conducts blind listening tests as part of their speaker development. They don't release a new speaker unless it bests the competition in such tests. They have done so much work to develop their preference curve and thus they can say that their Harman curve can be expected to be preferred curve by the general population given proper blind testing and comparison. Of course some will prefer something else and further research can change its status--science is not static--but unless you can demonstrate any kind of intellectual endeavor to suggest otherwise you are not saying anything. So, yes, "science" can explain this better than a say-anything youtuber. If we can say that the new model curve is closer to the Harman curve we are allowed to say and can expect that it will be preferred. And think twice about what that statement means--it doesn't mean everyone, but it does mean that it is not an empty statement. People here, thankfully, are not talking out of their butts. The research is well-known.This statement is so moot. I'll bet that a lot of folks will prefer the RP600M gen 1 over gen 2. No graphics or 'science' will explain that. Incoming threads: "Klipsch doesn't sound the same anymore".
Right, then you can buy 2.0The ‘house’ corrected the frequency response with version 2.0 of this speaker. Something to think about.
If the steel nut is in direct contact with the conductor in the binding post (i.e. in the signal path), then it will negatively affect the sound.… apparently steel nuts for the binding posts would negatively affect the sound
Except no, no it doesn't.If the steel nut is in direct contact with the conductor in the binding post (i.e. in the signal path), then it will negatively affect the sound.
Any amplified audio signal passing through a ferromagnetic material will be affected by hysteresis distortion, and this distortion worsens with increasing frequency. This is the reason why you get can get away with using iron core inductors on the crossover for woofers, but you won't see any competent designer putting an iron-core inductor on a tweeter crossover.
Somebody tested that with some iron nails:If the steel nut is in direct contact with the conductor in the binding post (i.e. in the signal path), then it will negatively affect the sound.
Well, you don’t see them because the values are generally low enough not to need an iron core to make a cheap enough coil. Obviously the lower distortion is an added plus.Any amplified audio signal passing through a ferromagnetic material will be affected by hysteresis distortion, and this distortion worsens with increasing frequency. This is the reason why you get can get away with using iron core inductors on the crossover for woofers, but you won't see any competent designer putting an iron-core inductor on a tweeter crossover.
If the steel nut is in direct contact with the conductor in the binding post (i.e. in the signal path), then it will negatively affect the sound.
Any amplified audio signal passing through a ferromagnetic material will be affected by hysteresis distortion, and this distortion worsens with increasing frequency. This is the reason why you get can get away with using iron core inductors on the crossover for woofers, but you won't see any competent designer putting an iron-core inductor on a tweeter crossover.
This needs to be included..who decides what the competition is?...I'm actually *not* questioning the legitimacy , but it's a factor as to who is viewed as the competition.. Do the bean counters decide what the competition is, or do audiophiles, or speaker makers??.. It's a variable....Like you demonstrate, anyone will say anything. So what? This type of noise is the curse of the internet. If you allow me to attempt to bring some actual research into this: Harman/Revel is the only major speaker company that publicly discloses that it conducts blind listening tests as part of their speaker development
I'd hate to think I'm so frozen by a purchase of a Klipsch speaker where I think the hopeful alternative is to modify it....just never been that much of a Klipsch fan either. Some of their old legacy giant corner speakers were interesting but not interesting enough to ever want to buy otoh....I imagine this is aimed at people who already bought the speaker, not at people in the market for a new pair of speakers.
There is a lot of info strewn about on this site: research paper links, power point presentations, write-ups by blind test participants. If I recall correctly Magico speakers were included at some point. I think their old list of best speakers measured by them is also available (look for references to the Infinity IL60). Look for these if you are interested or even contact Harman if you'd like. But note that since this older research is becoming more well-known and is being used more and more by other companies, Harman is not making current research public anymore.This needs to be included..who decides what the competition is?...I'm actually *not* questioning the legitimacy , but it's a factor as to who is viewed as the competition.. Do the bean counters decide what the competition is, or do audiophiles, or speaker makers??.. It's a variable....
I polluted other ASR threads in the past with this debate over objectivity'. You represent the ASR mindset of imposing a particular sound profile (typically harman curve) by force. Any deviation from the 'ideal curve' is heresy on ASR. This leads to the obsession with measurements and ranking speakers based on that.Like you demonstrate, anyone will say anything. So what? This type of noise is the curse of the internet. If you allow me to attempt to bring some actual research into this: Harman/Revel is the only major speaker company that publicly discloses that it conducts blind listening tests as part of their speaker development. They don't release a new speaker unless it bests the competition in such tests. They have done so much work to develop their preference curve and thus they can say that their Harman curve can be expected to be preferred curve by the general population given proper blind testing and comparison. Of course some will prefer something else and further research can change its status--science is not static--but unless you can demonstrate any kind of intellectual endeavor to suggest otherwise you are not saying anything. So, yes, "science" can explain this better than a say-anything youtuber. If we can say that the new model curve is closer to the Harman curve we are allowed to say and can expect that it will be preferred. And think twice about what that statement means--it doesn't mean everyone, but it does mean that it is not an empty statement. People here, thankfully, are not talking out of their butts. The research is well-known.
Edit: of course there are other variables at play when it comes to speakers (the preference rating list is not a part of the site, after all), but here the big difference between the models is the curve.
Why are you yacking about a Harman curve when the speaker here had a severe crossover design defect? What Curve? It was a black hole. It may not even have been intentional. Just lazy manufacturing.I polluted other ASR threads in the past with this debate over objectivity'. You represent the ASR mindset of imposing a particular sound profile (typically harman curve) by force. Any deviation from the 'ideal curve' is heresy on ASR. This leads to the obsession with measurements and ranking speakers based on that.
I am not seeking to prove anything. What do you say to the guy who prefers the RP600M over the KEF LS50?
I say that the ideal curve is like an average curve based on a huge sample size. But it's evident that a lot of people (including myself) don't fit on that curve. Key words: harman curve is expected to be preferred. The opposite is also true, but with a lesser probability.
Ultimately, like-minded people will group together into clans. Please accept that there are Klipsch fans out there and that it is so futile to argue that a particular product is overrated based on A + B + C "harman curve", "science" yadi yada. You could just point out the flaws and conclude with a recommendation or score.
I don't mean to sound rude, but maybe try to listen to a speaker that is considered well-engineered? It may change that person's mind about what to expect out of a speaker. Also, its a damn treat to listen to one. (Personally I don't like either speaker--each has its own problems; remember that FR is only one aspect of speakers--so I don't really care in this case.)What do you say to the guy who prefers the RP600M over the KEF LS50?
Have you not read a single review here? There is a subjective portion to the reviews too (which to me is the less important part of the review but whatever). And if you need ANOTHER anecdote, I have heard these and they are awful. So we cancel each other out? What now? Do we need more random internet opinions? If you hate science so much why don't you go to another place where everything is special? At least here there is serious thought behind accolade or criticism. Debate is certainly welcome here, but be respectful enough to try to understand the basic engineering concepts and ideas that go into actually making speakers and don't just blather on as if an anecdote means anything. Do you not believe that measurements can tell us things our ears can't? Would you dismiss microscopes? Would you prefer a subjective review of television color accuracy? Or do you believe in golden eyes? Imagine the stupidity of such a youtube channel and you'll understand a lot of these audio reviewers. You are welcome to like more green tint, that is your choice, but do you not recognize the benefits of color accuracy and range? Or even of how it can help you with your preferences?You could just point out the flaws and conclude with a recommendation or score.
Yeesh ! These are all valid points but it looks like you're physically incapable of recognizing subjectivity. Just let the guy enjoy his Klipsch speakers. You don't have to lecture him about bad engineering and more neutral speakers. In fact he doesn't care. He's not on this forum.I don't mean to sound rude, but maybe try to listen to a speaker that is considered well-engineered? It may change that person's mind about what to expect out of a speaker. Also, its a damn treat to listen to one. (Personally I don't like either speaker--each has its own problems; remember that FR is only one aspect of speakers--so I don't really care in this case.)
Have you not read a single review here? There is a subjective portion to the reviews too (which to me is the less important part of the review but whatever). And if you need ANOTHER anecdote, I have heard these and they are awful. So we cancel each other out? What now? Do we need more random internet opinions? If you hate science so much why don't you go to another place where everything is special? At least here there is serious thought behind accolade or criticism. Debate is certainly welcome here, but be respectful enough to try to understand the basic engineering concepts and ideas that go into actually making speakers and don't just blather on as if an anecdote means anything. Do you not believe that measurements can tell us things our ears can't? Would you dismiss microscopes? Would you prefer a subjective review of television color accuracy? Or do you believe in golden eyes? Imagine the stupidity of such a youtube channel and you'll understand a lot of these audio reviewers. You are welcome to like more green tint, that is your choice, but do you not recognize the benefits of color accuracy and range? Or even of how it can help you with your preferences?