Jump to content

Sonus faber vs what model Klipsch?


AaronH

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Would they be compared to K-horns or Palladium's sound wise?

Here are the curves from the anechoic, independent lab tests.

what kind of music do you like? Is there a particular Klipsch speaker you are familar with, prefer? I see you have RF 7IIs.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1285:nrc-measurements-sonus-faber-olympica-iii-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a genre omnivore. Just curious to see if the mains I have could even come close. My best guess would be the PF-39's as a comparison to the OIII. That's why I am seeking out you wise gentleman. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the data graphs that Stereophile put out on the P-39F testing, it looks as if the off-axis performance is better in the Palladium tweeter than the Sonus Faber.

 

The differences that you will hear are 1) much low modulation distortion of the midrange and high frequency drivers and 2) the better high frequency off-axis performance. 

 

Comparing THD figures is basically a waste of time; what you want to see are dual-tone tests and graphs of higher order modulation distortion spectra levels.  Looking at phase isn't very productive, but looking at group delay (GD) plots is productive, but neither loudspeaker test article provides GD plots. 

 

Looking at decay plots and impulse plots is good, but all you have are the step and decay plots for the Palladium.  I don't see impulse plots.

 

Looking at crossover disturbances is probably the most audible artifact after polar coverage horizontally and vertically, but alas, no plots for the Sonus Faber.  Differences in frequency response can easily be EQed out, and even phase, if that floats your boat (but it doesn't float mine, though).

 

Looking at input impedance plots is basically a waste of time for this level of loudspeaker performance.

 

Overall, the indication is that the Palladiums are better, especially in terms of modulation distortion, which is very audible, but the presented data is much poorer for the Sonus Faber, so not a lot can be said other than subjective listening tests.

Edited by Chris A
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I compared these franco serblin accordos to rb-81 iis... and the accordos sounded much better..266664de6e7fb6d4d9d53fa6f8baaa6f.jpg

 

 

I would hope so at more than 10 times the price. :o  ;)  :D

 

They sure are beauties with the matching stands.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klipsch will be a much more in your face sound.  The Sonus Faber will be a much more laid back speaker.  Lower efficiency also though in the right rooms with the right electronics, will likely sound very good.

 

It will really depend on the presentation you like.  Since you are looking at two totally different types of speakers and sounds, you should audition in your room to really understand the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the thread on comparing Klipschorns to Palladiums at the Klipsch Pilgrimage (sorry, I don't have a linc ...).

 

Listen, for sure.

 

My guess is that any Klipsch would sound like you are sitting close, and the SF like you are sitting back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...