klipsch vs the hi end

[Chris A]

...Often, when he tells the person the cost of the frame, they are shocked that it wasn't double the amount...

I have read with some interest the responses here. I don't comment on opinion much, but I believe there are a couple of things that haven't been said here yet (with regards to PWK):

1) What are you trying to accomplish? I'm aware that this is a strange question, but one that deserves serious consideration.

If you are saying "engineering" (...whatever that is in loudspeakers...) as the goal, then I'd ask what the objective is. If it is low distortion, low dynamic compression, correct in-room FR (my definition of accuracy) at lowest cost available for the consumer marketplace--then I think that you've come to the right place.

2) Cost always matters. Speakers can be made more expensive than anyone can afford - even the most wealthy people on the planet. That's not the point.

A poorly engineered approach usually results in exotic prices, but to me indicates ignorance of what is important unless your goal is to flaunt your supposed superiority of wealth--like those who drive very expensive automobiles down city streets. That says something else to me. Trust me on this: it's actually very easy to design things and build them using lots of money if you're using someone else's money. It's much more difficult to keep the costs down while satisfying the customer's needs, even if those demands may be complex.

Other manufacturers seem to drift from PWK's formula (low distortion, low dynamic compression, etc.) often resulting in a 10x cost increase of the resulting product. That's not my definition for an "engineered item"--it's a fool's recipe. I've even seen one manufacturer that got a portion of the mechanical engineering formula right (i.e., large horn-loaded speakers) except forgot about cost. This is engineering at its worst, IMHO. It's also not a very morally defendable endeavor.

3) Remember Hoffman's Iron Law. I'm quoting here:

"It is not possible to combine high efficiency (especially at low
frequencies) with compact enclosure size and adequate low frequency
response. One can, more or less, choose only two of the three parameters
when designing a speaker system. So, for example, if extended
low-frequency performance and small box size are important, one must
accept low efficiency." PWK said that high efficiency equals low distortion. I think that a lot of people try to forget this. However, don't forget about point "2", above.

4) Speakers are the most important element in your sound reproduction system, by far. Many people feel the need to spend more money on the upstream components than on their speakers. This isn't a very good engineering answer, IMHO--it shows me a general lack of knowledge on the subject, or at least that they aren't trying to achieve the most accurate sound reproduction but are instead trying to achieve something else.

Chris

[Hifi jim]

It seems this has turned into a debate about what the best speaker design is. I don't believe that was the original question at hand. Every speaker has some flaw or compromise which is the reason there are so many designs to choose from. A horn is not THE answer to every persons speaker need. Horns, for example, don't work well in small spaces compared with cones and domes (just one reason why they're not used for studio monitoring).

A poorly engineered approach usually results in exotic prices, but to me indicates ignorance of what is important unless your goal is to flaunt your supposed superiority of wealth--like those who drive very expensive automobiles down city streets. That says something else to me.

New technology is always expensive and some manufacturers break new ground in speaker design, which then trickles down into more mainstream products. Without the ultra expensive race car, performance car, etc., auto technology would slow down greatly.

It's much more difficult to keep the costs down while satisfying the customer's needs, even if those demands may be complex.

Yes, it is very difficult, but it's not always the goal. With this logic there'd be no Ferrari, no Porsche, no Corvette, just Camrys (does a Camry not satisfy the most basic task of transporting a person from point A to B?)

Speakers are the most important element in your sound reproduction system, by far. Many people feel the need to spend more money on the upstream components than on their speakers. This isn't a very good engineering answer, IMHO--it shows me a general lack of knowledge on the subject, or at least that they aren't trying to achieve the most accurate sound reproduction but are instead trying to achieve something else.

That seems more like a personal opinion to me. With the relatively low cost of used Heritage speakers, it is quite easy to spend more on the front end than the speakers. That has been the case in my system both with horns (that I've purchase used), and planars that I've purchased new. The Maggies were actually my least expensive component, and this is often the case with Magnepans because of their tremendous value (no cabinet to build, or finish), and their performance is far beyond that of a typical sub $2k speaker, therefore they benefit from better upstream components. How many forum members here have more just into their vinyl rig than their Heritage speakers? A fair amount given the number of modern hi end tables, and expensive vintage tables that I see around this forum.

[Mallette]

There is a basic dialectic here between "hobbyists" and "music lovers. These blend perfectly together, but at the edges the behaviors are very different and often cause friction.

The hobbiest is never satisfied. Those few who do become satsified often move to another hobby, as a hobby isn't fun unless you are jonsin' for something or fiddling with something.

The music lover's quest is ended when they hear nothing but music from their system. They still like to talk about their systems, but if they run into a hobbyist there may be a bit of confusion arise as to just what the discussion is trully about.

Both sides are perfectly valid. Everyone comes to the fountain to drink, though perhaps for different purposes.

Dave

[Ironsave]

There is a basic dialectic here between "hobbyists" and "music lovers. These blend perfectly together, but at the edges the behaviors are very different and often cause friction.

The hobbiest is never satisfied. Those few who do become satsified often move to another hobby, as a hobby isn't fun unless you are jonsin' for something or fiddling with something.

The music lover's quest is ended when they hear nothing but music from their system. They still like to talk about their systems, but if they run into a hobbyist there may be a bit of confusion arise as to just what the discussion is trully about.

Both sides are perfectly valid. Everyone comes to the fountain to drink, though perhaps for different purposes.

Dave

Well said......

I am a music lover; but enjoy trying new speakers or increasing the performance of the ones I own and love.

I suppose if I were to get Corns; Chorus' or KLFs, I would be back into that mode of maximizing and tweaking.

For now, my system sounds great; I still am pleasantly surprised on occasion as to how good my system sounds.....

So, I definitely think this is a valid point..... I am both; but the pendulum is closer to the music lover side right now.... (until the next upgrade).

[]

[Chris A]

Both sides are perfectly valid. Everyone comes to the fountain to drink, though perhaps for different purposes.

Nice try, Dave.

If you happen to find yourself in a confessional booth anytime soon...and remember to bring it up...you can say that you tried peace-making on the Klipsch forum at Christmas time, but failed to achieve your goal... [] Let me explain:

By way of analogy, let's take another pastime - HAM radio. By your definition, there would be (mostly) guys that like to talk on store-bought radios (not very many of those guys...) and guys that like to "hobby" (a bunch of those guys...). The hobbyists, though, aren't into the expensive, store-bought rigs. In fact, it's just the opposite - experimenters with old gear that is just good enough that can be used to drive something that they're investigating - some physics of RF propagation or new antenna design, or antenna placement, or weird loading networks, etc. These folks are clearly hobbyists.

Contrast that with folks that go to a store and buy their gear to bring it home and plug it in. "Consumerists" may be a much better term. Even if it is unbelievably expensive... [:S]

As for me, I'm trying to achieve the best, most accurate listening experience that I achieve (at some cost over time) to reproduce music like E Power Biggs, Virgil Fox, or any other acoustically performing musician (among other things). I'm aware that I can also get outstanding reproduction of other types of music/motion pictures with that same sound reproduction system.

In addition, I'm hobbying--presently on subwoofers (but also with other stuff) due to the lack of good subs that can affordably mate with really good full range horn-loaded speakers. I'm still tinkering. I'm also queued to tinker with the speakers and upstream gear, but not by trading budget that would otherwise go to the acquisition of quality horn-loaded speakers (i.e., avoiding things like expensive, low reliability and low-linearity tube gear, and other "nice to look at" electronics/electrical stuff). Fortunately, I'm about done with non-subwoofer speaker acquisition - upstairs and down (the significant other is also relieved to hear this...).

Which camp am I in? [*-)]

BTW - if your ever passing through the D/FW area anytime soon, drop in for a listen - you'd probably not be wasting your time...

Chris [6]

[BLSamuel]

The same goes for the drivers themselves; just because the frames use some rare metals doesn't mean that they work better than plain steel or aluminum.

I think I've heard Klipsch enigineering types say if they had their choice, treated paper would work better for many uses.

People are easily convinced that if something costs more, it must be better. Would you feel differently if Klipsch raised the price of K-horns to say 30 grand per pair, or Palladium 39s to 50 grand?

I think I've also heard or read somewhere where many snobbish audiophiles wouldn't consider Klipschorns as they weren't expensive enough. Paul W Klipsch's primary goal I think was to reproduce the sound of a live symphony orchestra in the home. I'm not sure any speakers, even those costing several times more, do that better than Klipschorn's. Very good sound quality backed by very good science. Maybe that's why a lot of high end audiophile types don't like Klipsch. Not enough smoke and mirrors and BS for them? And often not expensive enough.

If it sounds good. It is good. It's as simple as that.

[dtel]

I like to turn it on and walk away, I am in it for the music. The on-off buttons and the volume knob get 99.00 % of the use.

On the rare occasion I "may" even dust things off.

[BLSamuel]

Of course, I would need to hear a pair of Palladiums to make an actual comparison

Yes you do Jim. They do sound very very good.

but dollar for dollar the 802D is a more advanced speaker and your money goes further there. Diamond tweeters, FST midrange in Marlan enclosure, Rohacell woofers, Mundorf silver/gold/oil capacitors, and the cabinet and driver manufacturing and all assembly takes place in the UK.

But does all that fancy stuff actually sound better? Hard to tell but B&W does make some incredible sounding speakers. I've only really listened to one pair - more on that later. And if they do it all in the UK that probably does increase the cost.

Palladium is designed, made and assembled as a "global effort". Can we say China?

I'm not sure where everything for the Palladium is built but designed in the US and I think the cabinets are built in China with final assembly in Hope? At least for some models. I'd rather it all be done in the US but sadly the more global effort may attract more high dollar buyers?

Both are great speakers from great companies, and the only thing that matters is what sound you prefer.

Quite trur on both accounts. I've never heard the 802D so can't comment but sure I would find the sound spectacular. Nor have I heard the Nautilus and am sure it sounds spectacular and looks uber cool.

The Palladium are of course designed to by a narrower cabinet but by no means are small.

What I can comment on in terms of sound quality is I did a blind A/B comparison with my daughter at the last Klipsch Pilgrimage in Indianapolis. Both speakers sounded extremely good. We behaved ourselves and did not look behind the curtain. Only later did we learn it was a pair of P-38F and a pair of B&W 802D. I'm asusming comparably priced. Level matched as closely as possible with crazy amounts of amplification available- something like 800 watts continuous.

My daughter and I both had the same impressions and helped demonstrate some audiophile type listening terms. Intitially these thoughts were speaker A and B

• The B&W sounded distant, sort of like sitting in the back of the auditorium
• The Klipsch sounded more forward like sitting in the 5th row
• The B&W sounded more refined and laid back I suppose, a very pleasant sound, maybe a bit constrained
• The Klipsch sounded more in your face and like it was about to lose it at times but much more like live sound to me
• In some ways the B&W would be more appropriate for background music, where you didn't want to be as involved in the music, and was much better than doctor's office music as someone likened it to - I've never heard music sound that good in any doctor's office I've been in
• You couldn't ignore the music from the Klipsch - it pulled you in and would be hard to ignore. They both sounded so good just the Klipsch sounded so much more like live music to both my daughter and myself.

• I suspect we were hearing room overload when the Klipsch were about to lose it? It would be interesting to see what kind of SPLs we were hitting when we cranked it up a bit.
• I also suspect that things were getting a bit compressed from lack of more amplifier power with the B&W as I think they require quite a lot more power than the Klipsch. 10 times the power for the B&W might have made for a fairer test?

• My daughter was busy wirting notes throughout the tests and I let her have most of the control of the switching device. We listened to all the tracks and went back and listened to many or at least parts of many at high volume levels. No ringing ears but she's kind of hard of hearing in hear left ear, and now has a hearing instrument for that ear. But I'm sure we were listening at some insane levels especially on the peaks.
• Myself on the other hand, I had to think about what to write. I guess too many years reading speaker reviews probably made me try to think in speaker review terms?

After much searching, the results of the test are posted here as Listening Test Results. 5 of 7 preferred the P-38F. 2 of 5 preferred the B&W 802D. This was Pilgrimage 2008. Pilgrimage 2007 there was a waiting line for the A/B listening test results. I think there are more comments in another thread before the speakers and equipment were revealed and finally found the Speaker A or speaker B redux? thread from Pilgrimage 2008.

OK. I have heard B&W 802Ds and prefer the Klipsch Palladium P-38F to them.

I will say that I would be quite happy with either in my home, but more happy with the P-38Fs. With that kind of budget I'd probably have more Klispch and have a nice 7.1 set up and separate 2 channel setup.

It was very enlightening to experience how different 2 very good speakers can sound. Even more so doing it with my daughter. She now gets why I want better sound and she wants Cornwalls or Klipschorns etc. So do I. She'll probably score some nice big Klipsch before I do.

Now to find a doctor that has 802Ds in their office..... we might not mind the waiting so much.

[BLSamuel]

I like to turn it on and walk away, I am in it for the music. The on-off buttons and the volume knob get 99.00 % of the use.

On the rare occasion I "may" even dust things off.

Dust? Is that why most of my black boxes look gray? Gotta agree with Dtel. In it for the music. On-off and volume get most of the use, along with source selector. Maybe dust cancels out unwanted high frequency sounds in one's listening room? Yeah. That's my story. Less dusting = impvoved sound.

Maybe I should market audio dust to the audio nutjobs who spend hundreds and thousands of $ a year on snake oil? Hmmmmm.....

[Mallette]

As for me, I'm trying to achieve the best, most accurate listening experience that I achieve (at some cost over time) to reproduce music like E Power Biggs, Virgil Fox, or any other acoustically performing musician (among other things). I'm aware that I can also get outstanding reproduction of other types of music/motion pictures with that same sound reproduction system.

That could be the mantra of either side...that's why we often don't recognize why we are fighting. That's where my head is, and I am there. The hobbyist, OTOH, can never be there. What they consider a "revelation" or a "whole new ball game" is to us simply a slight different take on accuracy. I chaired a project once to move a pipe organ from Sarasota, FL to my church in the DFW area. I knew it would sound better in my church at first listen down there. Same organ, but change of venue. It sounded MUCH better in our place...but it was the same system and no more or less accurate than before.

And I've considered the homebrew subwoofer. That is an area where I feel my present sub doesn't merge as seamlessly as it should, and I believe it's because it's of the sealed chamber variety and working too hard to match the effortless sound of the Klipsch heritage.

The vast majority of us are not radical hobbyists or music lovers, but somewhere in between.

Makes my point, though, because the majority of rumbles I've experienced here over the years are people speaking different languages and it isn't surprising they don't understand each others motivations.

Dave

[Mallette]

I think I've also heard or read somewhere where many snobbish audiophiles wouldn't consider Klipschorns as they weren't expensive enough. Paul W Klipsch's primary goal I think was to reproduce the sound of a live symphony orchestra in the home.

Yes, he told me his goal was the cheapest accurate speaker physics could offer. Of course, at the time I was flabbergasted as 'horns were something I never expected to be able to afford. Of course, now I understand much better.

He was dead right. You can build a cheaper speaker, but it will not meet the goal. You can build a more expensive speaker...say one with a smaller footprint...but it will cost much more and will never be any better.

I am a PWK disciple and proud of it. The man was a genius...bit weird, but aren't they all...and his accomplishment defies substantial improvement.

Dave

[Chris A]

I like to turn it on and walk away, I am in it for the music. The on-off buttons and the volume knob get 99.00 % of the use. On the rare occasion I "may" even dust things off.

Well, when you get right down to it, me too. Except I don't walk away too far, and I tend to turn it up a bit louder than people can talk over...(shame on me...)

But we've come a long way from those '60s record-changers, haven't we? The toys are now bigger.

Chris

[Hifi jim]

but dollar for dollar the 802D is a more advanced speaker and your money goes further there. Diamond tweeters, FST midrange in Marlan enclosure, Rohacell woofers, Mundorf silver/gold/oil capacitors, and the cabinet and driver manufacturing and all assembly takes place in the UK.

But does all that fancy stuff actually sound better?

I think so. We've all been exposed to the many stories on this forum of those who have upgraded their crossovers from the likes of Bob Crites, among others. Crossover components have a very large impact on a speakers sound IMO. The Palladiums use some very high tech woofers that also use Rohacell. But my original point was more about how very few companies could produce such products at "relatively" low prices. When one considers that the Palladiums and B&Ws compete with speakers far above their price range, and given their respective pedigrees and new technologies, these speakers are offering a lot at their price points (albeit a far higher price point than I'll ever afford).

My daughter and I both had the same impressions and helped demonstrate some audiophile type listening terms. Intitially these thoughts were speaker A and B

• The B&W sounded distant, sort of like sitting in the back of the auditorium
• The Klipsch sounded more forward like sitting in the 5th row
• The B&W sounded more refined and laid back I suppose, a very pleasant sound, maybe a bit constrained
• The Klipsch sounded more in your face and like it was about to lose it at times but much more like live sound to me
• In some ways the B&W would be more appropriate for background music, where you didn't want to be as involved in the music, and was much better than doctor's office music as someone likened it to - I've never heard music sound that good in any doctor's office I've been in
• You couldn't ignore the music from the Klipsch - it pulled you in and would be hard to ignore. They both sounded so good just the Klipsch sounded so much more like live music to both my daughter and myself.

• I suspect we were hearing room overload when the Klipsch were about to lose it? It would be interesting to see what kind of SPLs we were hitting when we cranked it up a bit.
• I also suspect that things were getting a bit compressed from lack of more amplifier power with the B&W as I think they require quite a lot more power than the Klipsch. 10 times the power for the B&W might have made for a fairer test?

• My daughter was busy wirting notes throughout the tests and I let her have most of the control of the switching device. We listened to all the tracks and went back and listened to many or at least parts of many at high volume levels. No ringing ears but she's kind of hard of hearing in hear left ear, and now has a hearing instrument for that ear. But I'm sure we were listening at some insane levels especially on the peaks.
• Myself on the other hand, I had to think about what to write. I guess too many years reading speaker reviews probably made me try to think in speaker review terms?

After much searching, the results of the test are posted here as Listening Test Results. 5 of 7 preferred the P-38F. 2 of 5 preferred the B&W 802D. This was Pilgrimage 2008. Pilgrimage 2007 there was a waiting line for the A/B listening test results. I think there are more comments in another thread before the speakers and equipment were revealed and finally found the Speaker A or speaker B redux? thread from Pilgrimage 2008.

Excellent review, and thanks for taking the time to rewrite it here. It was with much interest that I read that original thread as it was unfolding. I'm very familiar with the 802N, 802D and D2, but I've yet to hear a Palladium. And although the 802D has since been significantly redesigned into the 802D2, I doubt your findings would change much as their sound is still very similar. I think I too, would prefer the Palladium for music. I prefer Klipsch and Maggies for music, and B&W for HT (but thats just me and more specifically, the environment I live in; horns are just too imposing in my small HT room). Now I just have to wait about 10-15 years until I can afford a "slightly" used pair of Palladiums. []

[quadklipsh]

skonopa: And to add - 'heli001' is right about closing the eyes bit. I love it when I can just sit back and take in the MUSIC that I am hearing. You know you got a good setup when it really does seem to sound like actual MUSIC playing in the room, not just a recording being heard through some speakers.

can i get that sound through my rf3s in my pitiable acoustics room here[:'(]?

[Hifi jim]

The vast majority of us are not radical hobbyists or music lovers, but somewhere in between.

Makes my point, though, because the majority of rumbles I've experienced here over the years are people speaking different languages and it isn't surprising they don't understand each others motivations.

Well said. [Y]

[BLSamuel]

I am a PWK disciple and proud of it.

Me too.

The man was a genius...bit weird, but aren't they all...and his accomplishment defies substantial improvement.

I'm a bit wierd (maybe a lot) does that make me a genious? Of course not. [:$]

"defies substantial improvement" I think that sums it up Dave. PWK got it right in the 40's and 50's and has there been substantial improvement?

Mr Mallette rests his case.

[BLSamuel]

Excellent review, and thanks for taking the time to rewrite it here.

Thank you. The A/B was fun probably even more so with my daughter. I'm sure her comments were better in that uncluttered by decades of reading about really good sound often written by the snobby types. Very eye opening that 2 uber expen$ive speakers could sound so different and both so good.

For years I've thought I'd love Klipschorns. I do. Probably can't be beat for the co$ts. I also thought one couldn't go wrong with B&W and I still think that.

I have heard a couple of Palladium demos at Klipsch HQ. A pair of P-39F in 2008 and then a Palladium 7.1 set up during Indyfest 2009 when there wasn't really a Pilgrimage but Klipsch gave a nice tour for those that were in town for Indyfest 2009 including CP1's MCM +++ stacks in Broadripple park for TAMF09. And especially with the video, I'm not sure I've heard better than the Palladium. That said I'm not sure Indyklipschfan's HT with 7 split LaScala's as mains wasn't almost, if not quite as good. It was a couple of hours later. When it gets that good it may be time to just kick back and enyoy the music or the movie. I think the Palladium mid and tweeter drivers and horns are even more efficient and have lower distortion than Klipshorn equivalents. I'm sure a bit more distortion in the bass but the do sound otherwordly good.

At home we have a modest pair of Heresy 1 Extremes (Heresy 1's resurrected by Groomlakearea51 and pimped with Crites tweeters and crossovers - better than the original? I don't know, Marshall thinks so. I'll have to get some stock Heresies to see some day) and a pair of Tannoy SRM 12B studio monitors. 12" 2 way with 2" horn tweeter in the woofer voice cool. One uber cool driver and I think the same one Tannoy uses in uber cool Edinburgh floorstanding home system. I've yet to compare though we have switched from one to another and nobody's complained. But the they screamed when I said maybe I'll run the TV sound through the crappy 8" 2 way with 1" soft dome tweeter I started late in college and completed during our 1st year of marriage that we've used for years. Anyway, Alea says she thinks she likes the sound of the Tannoy's better. I think I like the Heresies better and think a bit more pronounced midrange. The Tannoys with the dual concentric driver do have time alignment going for them so I need to fix my big 5 channel amplifier so we can easily switch back and forth. Should be fun. My 5 channel A/V amp has level controls and I have a simple switch box and a couple of simple mixers that I think I could make it easy to switch from one to another. No double blind equipment but that's ok. Just want to try for my own fun and edutainment.

It would be interesting to hear Palladium P-38F or P-39F compared with Klipschorns. Or RF-7 II's for that matter.

My first demos of Klipschorns and P-39Fs I think both gave me goosebumps. Same design philosphies though probably slightly different goals.

You're probably right that B&W and Klipsch are both big enough that a smaller company couldn't produce sound at the quality they do for anything near the price.

Of course with Klipsch I think that argument could be made even when they were a really small company.

[Ironsave]

skonopa: And to add - 'heli001' is right about closing the eyes bit. I love it when I can just sit back and take in the MUSIC that I am hearing. You know you got a good setup when it really does seem to sound like actual MUSIC playing in the room, not just a recording being heard through some speakers.

can i get that sound through my rf3s in my pitiable acoustics room here[:'(]?

Quad,

Do you have that sound now?

What have you done to try and acheive it?

Room treatments? Perhaps a different amp or receiver?

Speaker position vs. listening position?

I suspect your snswer lies in different speakers; such as KLFs suggested above; or perhaps Corns; Fortes or LaScalas......

[russ69]

dudes ,

is klipsch really hi end , or is it just in a different a league that specializes in high sensitivity speakers with acceptable sound quality

The top of the line Klipsch products are fine loudspeakers according to the people that review loudspeakers for a living. However none of the major players in this arena use Klipsch loudspeakers as their reference system. Now here's where I get kicked to the curb by the Klipsch loyal followers, lol. All of the top of the line loudspeakers from all the manufacturers sound different from Klipsch and different from each other. Some sound vastly different. That does not make them wrong, just different, with different design goals. Klipsch is not the only usable design on the market. Klipsch are not a compromised design or an inferior design compared to other loudspeakers, however PWKs design constraints have trade-offs just the same as any other design. What matters the most is if you find the sound pleasing. If you do, then you have selected the right loudspeaker for your taste.

Personally, I have/had many loudspeaker systems and I would not want to limit myself to one design type and not listen to products from other manufacturers. I have heard many great stereo systems over the years and each had their strengths and weaknesses. Klipsch is no exception.

Thanx, Russ

[Mallette]

manufacturers sound different from Klipsch and different from each other. Some sound vastly different. That does not make them wrong, just different, with different design goals. Klipsch is not the only usable design on the market. Klipsch are not a compromised design or an inferior design compared to other loudspeakers, however PWKs design constraints have trade-offs just the same as any other design.

I must assume you've not read PWK's 8 Cardinal Rules. PWK's "constraints" with the K'horn have not been improved upon by any designer since. In fact, it appears they will not be until entirely unknown principles are discovered.

All the other designs have constraints largely by not being a K'horn.

Read the paper, make every effort to refute it. Good luck. I'll be looking forward to it.

Dave