Klipsch R-41M Bookshelf Speaker Review

[Dimitri]

Others say that they only care about listening test reviews

Hmm sounds like the beginning of a "Not reviewed" thread

Company product requested , contact person , reason offered
ie
BillionDollarAudio, Megaspeaker, G Slime - VP of Dodging Measurements, "We are only interested in listening test reviews after we approve everything you are going to write using a pre approved font and paragraph indentation"

 

[tuga]

I have performed countless listening tests of such distorted products. The distortion is either not audible, or if it is audible, it makes the music brighter and more annoying. Now, if you substitute such facts for stories read on the internet, and without controlled testing, then sure, all of what you say is imagined every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Very much so. Most of the time measurements show such coloration to be well below audibility for audiophiles yet they perceive it and justify it on basis of "it is good distortion." Post a paper that we can read on such topics and then we have something real to chew on.

Until then, that "warm sound" is perceived because the unit has tubes, or lacks feedback as told by its designer, etc.

Toole seems to disagree with your view and experience:

It is important to note that this study has concentrated on defining the detection thresholds of resonances, the level at which any change in sound quality is just, or just not, noticeable. While a purist criterion for sound reproduction would require that all resonances (and delayed sounds) should be below these threshold levels, it should not automatically be assumed that audible resonances or delayed sounds are detrimental. Certain modifications of timbre, loudness, and spatial impression can be quite clearly annoying, while others may not. Some may even be preferred. The results of this study define the levels at which certain changes in system performance can just be perceived, and these preferential options set in.

The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement
Toole, Olive - J. AudioEng.Soc.Vol.36.No.3. 1988 March

 

[edechamps]

Toole seems to disagree with your view and experience:

It is important to note that this study has concentrated on defining the detection thresholds of resonances, the level at which any change in sound quality is just, or just not, noticeable. While a purist criterion for sound reproduction would require that all resonances (and delayed sounds) should be below these threshold levels, it should not automatically be assumed that audible resonances or delayed sounds are detrimental. Certain modifications of timbre, loudness, and spatial impression can be quite clearly annoying, while others may not. Some may even be preferred. The results of this study define the levels at which certain changes in system performance can just be perceived, and these preferential options set in.

The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement
Toole, Olive - J. AudioEng.Soc.Vol.36.No.3. 1988 March

The paragraph you quoted is from the "discussion" section of that study. It is not backed by the data in the study, which only studied detection thresholds, not preference. In other words, you're merely quoting @Floyd Toole's opinion - and, I might add, his opinion in 1988 (I suspect that if you ask him today he will not include "timbre" in that list). As a reminder, expert opinion is a much lower standard of evidence than a randomized controlled study (i.e. the preceding sections). Even when the expert in question is Toole himself.

You're reading too much into this. You can't just quote out of context an opinion Toole expressed in 1988 about audio "modifications" in general and take it to mean he is in favor of adding distortion in the context of sound reproduction to the end user. That's ridiculous.

 

[tuga]

The paragraph you quoted is from the "discussion" section of that study. It is not backed by the data in the study, which only studied detection thresholds, not preference. In other words, you're merely quoting @Floyd Toole's opinion - and, I might add, his opinion in 1988 (I suspect that if you ask him today he will not include "timbre" in that list). As a reminder, expert opinion is a much lower standard of evidence than a randomized controlled study (i.e. the preceding sections). Even when the expert in question is Toole himself.

You're reading too much into this. You can't just quote out of context an opinion Toole expressed in 1988 about audio "modifications" in general and take it to mean he is in favor of adding distortion in the context of sound reproduction to the end user. That's ridiculous.

Where did I write that Toole is in favour of adding distortion?
What is ridiculous is how you came barking in his defense without even reading my post properly.

I quoted Toole saying that "Certain modifications of timbre, loudness, and spatial impression can be quite clearly annoying, while others may not. Some may even be preferred" in the context of some (I'd say many) people enjoying distortion, something that Amir doesn't think possible. His expert opinion is that their preference for distortion is not real but due to bias...

 

[pma]

Opinions usually do not mean much

 

[QMuse]

Opinions usually do not mean much

That is because they are like a$$hole - everybody has it.

 

[Thomas savage]

I have. If you watch to the end, I am the one asking him question.

This is a good comeback.

Very satisfying haha

 

[Rockfella]

I have too much to review as is. So it makes no sense for me to go and ask someone give me gear. That said, I made such a request recently and the outfit said they want to review and approve anything I test. Others say that they only care about listening test reviews. Some others make me feel like an insurance salesman with, "what is in it for us for you to review our gear?"

The core of what we/I do here is to test products from members. And a few others I buy. And manufacturers who see the value in what we do and offer their gear on their own. It is a system that is working well and much better than requesting free gear from companies and relying on just that.

Hmmm .... just a matter of time .....

Later don't be surprised if they up their game (improve their gear) and then beg you to test it ROFL.

 

[Dimitri]

That is because they are like a$$hole - everybody has it.

Not always a hole! So...not everybody

"Affected Populations
Imperforate **** and other related abnormalities of the **** and rectum (anorectal malformations) occur in approximately one in 4,000 to 5,000 newborns in the United States. Reported instances of imperforate **** include affected individuals in whom the condition appeared to occur sporadically, members of certain multigenerational families (kindreds), and individuals in whom the condition occurred in association with other birth defects or malformation syndromes (e.g., VACTERL association)."
from Link here

 

[QMuse]

Not always a hole! So...not everybody

"Affected Populations
Imperforate **** and other related abnormalities of the **** and rectum (anorectal malformations) occur in approximately one in 4,000 to 5,000 newborns in the United States. Reported instances of imperforate **** include affected individuals in whom the condition appeared to occur sporadically, members of certain multigenerational families (kindreds), and individuals in whom the condition occurred in association with other birth defects or malformation syndromes (e.g., VACTERL association)."
from
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/imperforate-****/

I meant that opinions are like a$$holes.

 

[tuga]

I meant that opinions are like a$$holes.

Hairy?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Where did I write that Toole is in favour of adding distortion?
What is ridiculous is how you came barking in his defense without even reading my post properly.

I quoted Toole saying that "Certain modifications of timbre, loudness, and spatial impression can be quite clearly annoying, while others may not. Some may even be preferred" in the context of some (I'd say many) people enjoying distortion, something that Amir doesn't think possible. His expert opinion is that their preference for distortion is not real but due to bias...

I agree with @edechamps insofar as there's not much in Toole of the past three decades to suggest he still holds this view, and to be fair to him, I think it was more widespread as accepted wisdom back in '88. I'm fairly certain it's not a topic Toole ever studied scientifically.

FWIW though, there are a couple of studies I know of that provide it with some scientific basis. Googling now, I can't find any of the main ones online though. Gaskell, in a 2015 study of the subjective effects of modelled opamp and capacitor distortion, gives a summary of some of the studies that made findings like this:

A select few publications do report that some distortion may actually increase perceived sound quality. Petri-Larmi et al found that in the study of TIM, many participants preferred a distorted signal to an undistorted one... Tan et al presented listening test results where, in one condition, distortion produced a slight increase in listener preference before an inevitable drop-off... Simpson suggested that due to the bandwidth limiting characteristics of loudspeakers, peak compressing distortions that occur before the loudspeaker may help to maintain a more natural sense of dynamic range...

He goes on to speculate:

Distortion's perceived beneficial effects are likely related to changes in frequency response and loudness. The results of [this study] indicate that it is possible for distortion to increase preference and make source material sound "brighter" or "darker", "warmer" or "more aggressive", etc... Certainly, since harmonic distortion is a cue for loudness, it is conceivable that distortion can increase preference based solely on loudness perception alone...

Etc.

 

[restorer-john]

That said, as it currently stands, it would be trivial for an unscrupulous manufacturer to create fake user account(s) that send amirm their "personal" gear (ringer samples) for testing.

Or the opposite. They could send competitor's gear they had deliberately modified so it performed poorly...

 

[tuga]

I agree with @edechamps insofar as there's not much in Toole of the past three decades to suggest he still holds this view, and to be fair to him, I think it was more widespread as accepted wisdom back in '88. I'm fairly certain it's not a topic Toole ever studied scientifically.

FWIW though, there are a couple of studies I know of that provide it with some scientific basis. Googling now, I can't find any of the main ones online though. Gaskell, in a 2015 study of the subjective effects of modelled opamp and capacitor distortion, gives a summary of some of the studies that made findings like this:



He goes on to speculate:



Etc.

Good morning, I was going to say that it feels chilly around here but I haven't checked the weather forecast nor blind tested and wouldn't won't to sound rude...


The perceptual effects resulting from changes in specific bands of the audible frequency range are well documented by sound engineers:

http://alexiy.nl/eq/ (if you haven't seen this before, move the cursor over the instruments as well as the frequency band to get info)

And this piece from Sound on Sound describes the perceptual effects of some signal-correlated distortions which result from the use of analogue equipment.

There used to be an VST plugin that one could use on Audacity to add harmonic distortion to a recording, can't remember what it was called. Very educational.

 

[edechamps]

And this piece from Sound on Sound describes the perceptual effects of some signal-correlated distortions which result from the use of analogue equipment.

This is about sound production, not home playback. The distinction is important. Here's why: if there's some processing/distortion one can apply on the audio signal that makes it sound better to most people, then one would expect most mastering/mixing engineers to apply such processing, because their goal is to make their tracks sound most pleasant to most people. Which in turn means that you don't need to apply this processing on your home playback system: it's already been done for you at the production stage. If you do it anyway, you're more likely to make things worse because the processing would be applied twice, and I think we can both agree that there is such a thing as too much distortion.

The above is why I'm very skeptical of claims that some kind of distortion can be beneficial in home listening: if it was, it would have been applied at the production stage already.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Good morning, I was going to say that it feels chilly around here but I haven't checked the weather forecast nor blind tested and wouldn't won't to sound rude...


The perceptual effects resulting from changes in specific bands of the audible frequency range are well documented by sound engineers:

http://alexiy.nl/eq/ (if you haven't seen this before, move the cursor over the instruments as well as the frequency band to get info)

And this piece from Sound on Sound describes the perceptual effects of some signal-correlated distortions which result from the use of analogue equipment.

There used to be an VST plugin that one could use on Audacity to add harmonic distortion to a recording, can't remember what it was called. Very educational.

Sorry if the previous post came across as cool. I had to manually type out the sections of the paper I was quoting, the "etc" at the end was just me tiring of that

 

[tuga]

This is about sound production, not home playback. The distinction is important. Here's why: if there's some processing/distortion one can apply on the audio signal that makes it sound better to most people, then one would expect most mastering/mixing engineers to apply such processing, because their goal is to make their tracks sound most pleasant to most people. Which in turn means that you don't need to apply this processing on your home playback system: it's already been done for you at the production stage. If you do it anyway, you're more likely to make things worse because the processing would be applied twice, and I think we can both agree that there is such a thing as too much distortion.

The above is why I'm very skeptical of claims that some kind of distortion can be beneficial in home listening: if it was, it would have been applied at the production stage already.

I never claimed that they were beneficial (do you mean subjectively or objectively?) but that many audiophiles (half?) enjoy the aptly named "euphonic" distortions. English is not my first language but I don't think that I am expressing myself that badly.

I think that you failed to understand my point which is that people perceive these specific narrow-band FR effects whether they've been put in by the sound engineer or by the speaker designer.

I am not advocating for "coloured" or "tailored" gear (in my anecdotal experience this tends to draw attention to the system / away from the music), merely suggesting that the effects are audible regardless of whether they're used at the production stage or at the reproduction stage. I agree with the point about tolerating distortion to a point (though this will surely vary from person to person).

One example which refers to the subjective benefit of a dip in the presence region for the reproduction of orchestral music:

Some factors in loudspeaker quality
H.D. Harwood, R. Matthews - Wireless World, May 1976

https://pdfhost.io/v/Ff4nP~MG_Some_...arwood_R_Matthews_May_1976_Wireless_World.pdf


P.S.: by the way, the BBC conducted blind tests in anechoich chamber as well as controlled tests in studios using trained listeners (experienced professional sound engineers) as well as direct comparison between sound sources (from broadcast presenters to orchestras).

 

[edechamps]

I never claimed that they were beneficial (do you mean subjectively or objectively?) but that many audiophiles (half?) enjoy the aptly named "euphonic" distortions. English is not my first language but I don't think that I am expressing myself that badly.

To me, if it's something "many audiophiles enjoy" then by definition it is "beneficial", or very close to it. I'm a bit surprised that this is controversial. (Well, okay, I guess it's not necessarily "beneficial" if it makes it worse for others.)

One example which refers to the subjective benefit of a dip in the presence region for the reproduction of orchestral music

I'm not saying I agree with the article you cited, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that's true. In that case the next question is: if that dip really is an improvement in sound quality, then why isn't it baked into the recording by the sound engineer who produced it? Why would the producer pass on an opportunity to make the recording better for everyone? And if that dip is, in fact, added to the recording, then what's the point of discussing it in the context of the playback system?

 

[andreasmaaan]

The perceptual effects resulting from changes in specific bands of the audible frequency range are well documented by sound engineers:

http://alexiy.nl/eq/ (if you haven't seen this before, move the cursor over the instruments as well as the frequency band to get info)

One example which refers to the subjective benefit of a dip in the presence region for the reproduction of orchestral music:

I agree with both these points, but I see them as matters for the recording/mixing engineers to concern themselves with. It's common knowledge among engineers that tweaking the lower treble tends to result in changes to the perceived distance of the image, and indeed this is why the name for this part of the spectrum is "presence region". And, particularly with multitrack/close-mic recordings, engineers have a lot more precise control over the perceived distance of an image by making adjustments in this region than speaker designers do, as any deviation from a flat response in the speaker will affect the image of the entire signal, whereas engineers in the recording/mixing part of the process can make much more surgical adjustments to specific tracks and so forth.

So I find it a bit surprising that the BBC engineers back in those days saw the issue from the reproduction side rather than the production side.

PS I'm actually surprised to hear English is not your first language. Could have fooled me!

EDIT: just a thought... Perhaps the BBC engineers conducted this testing on a mono speaker? Stereo reproduction results in a dip in precisely this "presence region" relative to mono reproduction due to interaction between the channels and the listener's HRTF.

IIRC, this effect of stereo reproduction was only documented for the first time by Keele at least a decade after the date of the BBC paper, so it's somewhat plausible to imagine the BBC engineers overlooked it in their testing.

Ofc, this is all 100% speculation, and not relevant to my previous comments.

See for example:

 

[tuga]

To me, if it's something "many audiophiles enjoy" then by definition it is "beneficial", or very close to it. I'm a bit surprised that this is controversial. (Well, okay, I guess it's not necessarily "beneficial" if it makes it worse for others.)

This is why I disagree with the reasoning behind a listener preference survey since listener preference may or may not equate to accuracy depending on many factors including the listener (his taste in music, his taste in sound, his experience with live and with reproduced sound, etc.) and his room.

I'm not saying I agree with the article you cited, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that's true. In that case the next question is: if that dip really is an improvement in sound quality, then why isn't it baked into the recording by the sound engineer who produced it? Why would the producer pass on an opportunity to make the recording better for everyone?

Good question. But again it is a matter of preference, the artists', the engineer's, the producer's.
Multi-mic'ing an orchestra produces an hyper-realistic representation and not what someone would have listened would she/he have been seated in the audience at the original event. Yet many engineers/producers do it (i.e. Reference Recordings, Channel Classics), and many listeners like the results.

And if that dip is, in fact, added to the recording, then what's the point of discussing it in the context of the playback system?

Another good question. And again it is a matter of preference, the listener's.

Classical music recording uses a documental approach aiming at recreatiing in the listener's home the illusion of being in the audience at the original event. Minimalist real-stereo distant mic'ing will provide a more accurate timbral and visual soundscape than multi-mic'ing.

People who listen to classical music will probably have different requirements to someone who listens to techno or heavy metal.

Besides most studios productions are the result of a manipulated mix of close-mic'ed mono takes, akin to a photo collage, and often not really supposed to sound realistic (as you'd listen live) but good in the context of the artistic concept of the recording (they may even be intentionally bad sound-wise, i.e. REM tried recording Stipe singing under a hanging metal bin).
Some people defend that they want to have a say on what they call "presentation" and many frequency response anomalies produce, as previously mentionened, particular effects (a dip in the mid-bass will make the sound subjectively "faster" and the bass subjectively "dryer" and "tighter"; an exaggeration of the top octave, so typical of speakers designed this century, will add "air"; a dip in the presence region will push back the soundstage).
Soundstage has become an audiophile obsession and some signal-correlated distortions sound a bit like reverb. Side-wall reflections also contribute to that effect.