When did klipsch start to fudge their stats? And what was the reason?

[Heritage_Head]

I had brought this up in a different thread. It was suggested I should ask here to see what klipsch side is on this.

 

Klipsch seem to have 2 different ways of presenting data on speaker measurements. One thats right and well.... one thats wrong. And these are not random in any way. Its basically whole lines that have inflated stats. Now the older lines all the way up to.. I guess  around the kg line from what I recall are all really close to what klipsch said (at least from my research). But the modern stuff isn't passing the BS sensor as pwk might have said as he pointed. 

 

3p testing isn't the bible I know. But this is way past any little set up this or that. Its one is right and one is over stated consistently. Any idea why?

[JRH]

There might conceivably be a difference between "measurements" and "marketing's presentation" of the results.  It has been an ongoing battle since PWK hired the first salesman (1961) to keep things honest, and I would venture to say there is no other manufacturer that exceeds us.  Klipsch Engineering has always been very conscious and conservative in measurements.  We have "always" paid close attention to AES standards, and our procedures have not changed materially (any more than the standards themselves).

 

I might only guess that sensitivity measurements are the crux of the issue.  While I don't keep up with what hits the press these days, we at least used to be clear on measurement conditions, and they have not changed.  Conditions like a real room vs. anechoic chamber vs. 3P are critical.  Our final sensitivity ratings are based on performance in a real room which increases the number, dependent on the speaker's directivity.  BTW, out of necessity Paul Klipsch practically invented the three-position microphone technique (he got a patent on his "Logarator").  When he finally had enough money for an anechoic chamber he never looked back.  

 

If you consider the professional market, Klipsch submits data for inclusion in the industry standard EASE system, which forcibly puts manufacturers on a level playing field.  Even here we have some disagreements on exact conditions of measurement, but we comply with the professional industry standard.

 

Don't ya love how the Klipsch spell-checker doesn't recognize Klipsch?

[Heritage_Head]

As one example the rf-7ii as advertised to be 101db 1w. The many tests that have been done on them constantly come in 96db or less (and this continues with all the reference that iv seen tested). Still a great # but comparing that to say the cornwall that was rated around 99 nailed that number in all the tests that I have seen on them. They definitely did not have a huge gap from advertised number to testing numbers. If this was consistent with all klipsch speakers then and now it would be less a mystery I guess. But the way it looks now is something in the room stinks of bad advertising. Its bose like advertising imo. 

 

To be honest the question of if they do has long been answered many times over. Klipsch is straight up known for lying about their stats (not trying to be rude just being as direct as I can) . Thats really the reality of fudging members for so many years. Go to any forum and ask are klipsch stats legit and you will get a long standing hell no!! Not anymore!!

[Heritage_Head]

By the way thanks for your reply and input. This historian area is really cool. Really good info and fun reading. 

[teaman]

I noticed the same thing in the last couple of years. The magazines test them and the sensitivity is much lower than the official ratings from Klipsch. Since we all know how sensitive it is, and really we are not about to split hairs, it still gets confusing when two blatantly different ratings are shown in tests. I mean with the excellent reputation Klipsch has built I cannot imagine why they would do this. Then again, things may have changed a bit after VOXX bought them.

[Don Richard]

I doubt many of these magazines have anyone who can make proper measurements. Remember, these are the same folks who recommend magic wires and  cable elevators. Does Klipsch advertise in those publications? Advertisers get better reviews.

[Travis In Austin]

12 hours ago, Cinema_head said:

Klipsch is straight up known for lying about their stats (not trying to be rude just being as direct as I can) . Thats really the reality of fudging members for so many years. Go to any forum and ask are klipsch stats legit and you will get a long standing hell no!! Not anymore!!

Do you have an example of this you can reference where the outside testing didn't match the specs Klipsch was quoting?

[TasDom]

This is the one I remember on the AVS forum.

 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2128818-can-klipsch-speaker-actually-meet-s-specs-no-can-t.html

[Travis In Austin]

Here is one review, on Pallidums ,  where they note that their measured  sensitivity was within "experimental error.*

 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-palladium-p-39f-loudspeaker-measurements#JSjFR7AC78P5iMCQ.97

[Travis In Austin]

35 minutes ago, Tasdom said:

This is the one I remember on the AVS forum.

 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2128818-can-klipsch-speaker-actually-meet-s-specs-no-can-t.html

 

That thread references an earlier review on the same forum, different speakers, and it doesn't look like in the original reviewer tested sensitivity ,  only saying this:

 

"After profiling the RS-280Fs, I played a 24 Hz sine wave measuring 96 dB from the MLP; there was no sign of strain and no audible distortion. All I heard was deep and powerful bass."

 

I noticed that the Pallidums specs were listed as anechoic, in that one article I referenced.

 

In Jim's  response  above I saw there is an industry standard for testing Professional lines, but doesn't appear there is one for consumer?  Maybe there should be?  Or, even better,  require it to be anechoic so everyone is on same playing field.

 

 

 

 

[ATLAudio]

http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/2010-1k-faceoff/copy3_of_1k-faceoff-comparisons

 

Audioholics notices that the RF 62 is at 92dB, not 97

[Travis In Austin]

I'm not technical enough to know the intricacies of all that was being discussed in the AVS thread, but I did notice that that the OP tested a center channel speaker outside using a ladder.  As Jim mentioned, their sensitivity ratings are "real room" and higher than anechoic.

 

Looks like apples and oranges to me.  I think that's was Jim'Shore point.  You have to know what a manufacturer means by a number, how the test, etc. before you can even begin to compare.  

 

If I was somebody who was really concerned about the sensitivity or impedance curves to that degree I would ask the manufacturer, whether it was Klipsch, or anyone else, for their anechoic numbers and impedance curves.  At least with Klipsch you can get those.  They are all over this forum.

[ATLAudio]

I just assume that everything that isn't Heritage line is -6 dB for comparison purposes.

[Deang]

18 hours ago, Cinema_head said:

As one example the rf-7ii as advertised to be 101db 1w. The many tests that have been done on them constantly come in 96db or less ...

 

Jim had mentioned "real room vs. anechoic ..."

 

I brought up the same issue a decade ago regarding the RF-7, where Sound and Vision published 99dB/2.83v to the Klipsch 102dB figure. What we learned then was that Klipsch was factoring in room gain, which is typically 3-4 dB. 

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Deang said:

 

Jim had mentioned "real room vs. anechoic ..."

 

I brought up the same issue a decade ago regarding the RF-7, where Sound and Vision published 99dB/2.83v to the Klipsch 102dB figure. What we learned then was that Klipsch was factoring in room gain, which is typically 3-4 dB. 

Those damn liars, how dare they.

[Deang]

We don't listen in anechoic chambers - I prefer the real world number. 

[DaMuffinMan]

All the more reason to find you some old Cornwalls.

[dBspl]

1 hour ago, Deang said:

 

Jim had mentioned "real room vs. anechoic ..."

 

I brought up the same issue a decade ago regarding the RF-7, where Sound and Vision published 99dB/2.83v to the Klipsch 102dB figure. What we learned then was that Klipsch was factoring in room gain, which is typically 3-4 dB. 

 

That is correct. All Klipsch loudspeakers include a factor of 4 dB for room gain.  This would be equivalent to the SPL you would measure at 1 meter in an average listening room.  The specification has been in use longer than I've been with the company (30 years), and I believe it originated with the implementation of the anechoic chamber (around 1980). Measurements before that were always made in listening rooms and I would imagine the engineers at that time needed a way to equate what they measured in the chamber with the real world. At that time a free space measurement was of little use, and of course, it isn't the way you normally listen to loudspeakers.  You also have to keep in mind (early on, at least) Klipsch considered the room boundaries as an integral part of the equation by suggesting the loudspeaker should be positioned in the corner.  The Klipschorn takes it a step further by actually using the corner of the listening room as an extension of the horn.     

 

Kerry   

[Deang]

Sure is nice having you out here Kerry. 

[garyrc]

4 hours ago, dBspl said:

 

That is correct. All Klipsch loudspeakers include a factor of 4 dB for room gain.  This would be equivalent to the SPL you would measure at 1 meter in an average listening room.  The specification has been in use longer than I've been with the company (30 years), and I believe it originated with the implementation of the anechoic chamber (around 1980). Measurements before that were always made in listening rooms and I would imagine the engineers at that time needed a way to equate what they measured in the chamber with the real world. At that time a free space measurement was of little use, and of course, it isn't the way you normally listen to loudspeakers.  You also have to keep in mind (early on, at least) Klipsch considered the room boundaries as an integral part of the equation by suggesting the loudspeaker should be positioned in the corner.  The Klipschorn takes it a step further by actually using the corner of the listening room as an extension of the horn.     

 

Kerry   

 

And, of course, it would be inappropriate to measure the Klipshorn anywhere except in a corner, whether that corner was in a real room, or the corner built into Klipsch's revolving door anechoic chamber.  When I started reading Klipsch info, the Khorn was advertized as producing 104 dB at 1 watt at 4 feet.  That was before the corner containing anechoic chamber, so it was probably measured in a real room.  Klipsch said that 104 dB at 1 watt at 4 feet was the equivalent of an EIA rating of 54 dB.  JBL had a speaker that was rated at that same 54 dB EIA that they rated at 103 dB at 1 watt, 1 meter.    Then, I believe, when Klipsch started using 1 Meter, instead of 4 feet, they did not change their rating for a while, but maintained it at 104 dB.  When they got around to it, they changed the spec to 105 dB