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

[Travis In Austin]

EIA was 1mW at 30' right?  Add 49 dB.  54 dB +49=103?

 

+4 dB for room gain, mystery solved.

 

This some how reminded me of that Forum member who set up his LaScalas in the middle of the California desert, the photos even sounded good.

[seti]

On 11/17/2016 at 10:31 PM, Cinema_head said:

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!!

 

That wasn't exactly rude. It seems you don't understand anechoic measurements and room gain. Were you on the Bose forum or B&W? Careful of forums there is tons of BS out there. No matter your intention you did elicit some very good responses. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boom3]

This is why the industry has always resisted being forced into one measurement standard. The IEC standard, 60268-5 is great provided everyone adheres to it, but few do, outside of Europe, and for consumers faced with myriad designs, it is of little use. If the industry was forced into one standard method for sensitivity (just one of many factors) we would see uniformity but to what advantage?  Ultimately, the consumer will turn it up to a comfortable level and then to the point of pain. Most consumers have no grasp of the "loudness" concept anyway. I told a non-technical friend that my system approaches room overload at 102 dB at the listening position with peaks as high as 106 dB. "Is that all?" he responded, in sincerity.

 

Standardized measurements would (a) not relate to the real world of our listening rooms and (b) eliminate the freedom manufacturers have to hype their products and declare that objective measurements are useless, you "just gotta" go with the ballyhoo and make sales.

We went through this with amplifier ratings in the 60s and 70s. The manufacturers were dragged kicking and screaming into the FTC standards. For some reason, the Class T and Class D amps being sold via the big retailers are not listed according to FTC but we are seeing a return to "peak power" ratings with no distortion specified. Guess they got lobbyists to weaken the rules.

 

I wouldn't vilify Klipsch about ratings.I believe they are sincere, even if there will always be discrepancies between the printed figures and measurements by some other lab under other conditions. Speaking of honesty, Paul once showed me (in a group of devotees) curves he'd run on the AR-3a, reputed to be the flattest consumer speaker around. It was pretty shocking to see how rough it actually was. Klipsch fell victim to measurement faux pas when High Fidelity reviewed the LaScala and published a completely misleading curve.

[Don Richard]

There is no measurement  standard with regard to loudspeakers, or anything else in audio. FTC standards were implemented in response to bullshit specs for stereo amplifiers quoted by some manufacturers. This standard does not cover home theater, autosound, or pro sound amplifiers, or any other equipment including loudspeakers.

 

In the pro sound world speaker specs are fudged far more than you might expect. A subwoofer might have a rated sensitivity of 100 dB, with the measurement taken at 200 Hz. Nobody uses a sub out to 200 Hz for sound reinforcement purposes, but hey, its a bigger number. Marketing department bullshit.

[Chief bonehead]

On November 17, 2016 at 10:31 PM, 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 (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!!

You are not rude. Just wrong. 96 dB under what conditions?  Full space?  Half space?  Closet space?  AES?  Pink noise? Playing a Madonna tune?  Marketing or not, to infer that we are lying gets both barrels from me. Paul was around for most of the definitions of words and techniques. And he taught us well. So before you get on your high horse,  make sure he has shoes. 

[Chief bonehead]

5 hours ago, Don Richard said:

There is no measurement  standard with regard to loudspeakers, or anything else in audio. FTC standards were implemented in response to bullshit specs for stereo amplifiers quoted by some manufacturers. This standard does not cover home theater, autosound, or pro sound amplifiers, or any other equipment including loudspeakers.

 

In the pro sound world speaker specs are fudged far more than you might expect. A subwoofer might have a rated sensitivity of 100 dB, with the measurement taken at 200 Hz. Nobody uses a sub out to 200 Hz for sound reinforcement purposes, but hey, its a bigger number. Marketing department bullshit.

Every reputable manufacture states the conditions of power, sensitivity (which by the way is not efficiency), max spl, coverage, etc. we follow AES STANDARDS as paul and several of us are members and they closely match the real world. There are conditions that have to be met and spell out how the tests is. So the specs are there. Read the fine print. 

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Chief bonehead said:

to infer that we are lying gets both barrels from me.

 

So before you get on your high horse,  make sure he has shoes. 

 

By any chance are you from Texas?

 

I would have thought that people would have understood there are testing standards . 

 

I will post a FB link on how Trey does his testing, he is apparently trying to develop a new standard he hopes AES will adopt called the Cannon Factor.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/KlipschOwners/permalink/1354750727902551/

 

 

[WMcD]

I held my tongue 'til now.

 

 Roy was very graceful in saying that CH was not rude.  I think he was very rude in presenting a question like the classic: "When did you stop beating your wife."  It is very accusatory.   He follows with anecdotal reports that the fudging, or beating, has stopped.  Goodness!.  CH says he read about it on the Internet.  It is more a pooling of ignorance than a pooling of fact. 

 

The related problem is that CH does not present any objective data.  If he has a set of speakers and some sound level measuring equipment, then he can show the data which must include his testing conditions and an appreciation of Klipsch's testing conditions before he claims Klipsch's data is fudged.  That was not forthcoming.  And therefore the accusations have no validity.

 

It is difficult to put a single number on frequency response (related to sensitivity or efficiency at at any given freq) in any given room.  It changes from place to place.

 

My ear-opening experience was to play a 200 Hz tone though one speaker and walk around.  You can do this yourself and I hope you will.  Because of standing waves at some spots the sound drops to near zero.  You can change the freq and the position of these nodes move around. Try it, please.

 

 Obviously, some sort of averaging or multi-microphone approach is needed.   Which ones are more valid is difficult to say.  Reputable sound engineers make a good approximation. Paul and Roy are the most reputable of course.

 

That is just for one room.  How do you put a number on the "true level" when there are many rooms and many locations therein?  

 

Treble is easier to experiment with at home.  For example, I have two Sony Tap Tunes.  Tuned to the same station, in different rooms and locations there are appreciable differences in sound.  Which of them are a valid appraisal?  

 

Overall, I have a lot of faith in:Paul and Roy. Their goals are objective, and subjective performance.   It is annoying that people come in and accuse them of lying without any data or knowledge.

 

WMcD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boom3]

10 hours ago, Don Richard said:

There is no measurement  standard with regard to loudspeakers, or anything else in audio. FTC standards were implemented in response to bullshit specs for stereo amplifiers quoted by some manufacturers. This standard does not cover home theater, autosound, or pro sound amplifiers, or any other equipment including loudspeakers.

 

In the pro sound world speaker specs are fudged far more than you might expect. A subwoofer might have a rated sensitivity of 100 dB, with the measurement taken at 200 Hz. Nobody uses a sub out to 200 Hz for sound reinforcement purposes, but hey, its a bigger number. Marketing department bullshit.

"There is no measurement  standard with regard to loudspeakers, or anything else in audio"

 

Umm, yes there are. Check out IEC 60268-5. It's _a_ standard, but you can't compel anyone to follow it unless you write it into a contract. 

 

"In the pro sound world speaker specs are fudged far more than you might expect"

 

I've worked in that world and yeah, I know all about "creative specifying". 

[garyrc]

Another source of variation is whether the SPL of the speaker is measured at 1 Khz only, or with band limited pink noise (e.g. 500 to 2K) or over the specified bandwidth of the speaker. 

[Don Richard]

20 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

Every reputable manufacture states the conditions of power, sensitivity (which by the way is not efficiency), max spl, coverage, etc. we follow AES STANDARDS as paul and several of us are members and they closely match the real world. There are conditions that have to be met and spell out how the tests is. So the specs are there. Read the fine print. 

 

I am sure Klipsch follows that group of standards, and I am also sure the magazines don't, therefore part of the reason for the discrepancies in numbers. The AES standards are not used by all manufacturers, particularly those companies who make consumer audio products but do not have a pro sound division.

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 1:10 PM, JRH said:

I might only guess that sensitivity measurements are the crux of the issue. 

After seeing this thread and it reminded me of several I started over at AVS trying to find answers to similar questions: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2038306-how-do-companies-rate-speak.html and this one earlier:  http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532635-would-i-benefit-external-amp.html

 

I realize both are OT for this section and thread, but was confused why people were claiming that the RF-7s needed so much power to drive efficiently.  {EDIT: For the record, I still listen to the system listed below in my sig every night and hear no distortion at loud volume being driven by an upper end AVR for over 13 years--Thank you folks at Klipsch! :)}

 

 

[IB Slammin]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 4:01 PM, ATLAudio said:

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

 

Big smile!!   Not that I agree or disagree but too funny. 

Just know that the present  Klipsch Pro lines are just devastating in the home environment.

tc  

[IB Slammin]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 2:01 PM, Chief bonehead said:

You are not rude. Just wrong. 96 dB under what conditions?  Full space?  Half space?  Closet space?  AES?  Pink noise? Playing a Madonna tune?  Marketing or not, to infer that we are lying gets both barrels from me. Paul was around for most of the definitions of words and techniques. And he taught us well. So before you get on your high horse,  make sure he has shoes. 

 

Understand  that Roy's favorite cut is "Pink Noise".......  smile....

[ATLAudio]

1 hour ago, IB Slammin said:

 

Big smile!!   Not that I agree or disagree but too funny. 

Just know that the present  Klipsch Pro lines are just devastating in the home environment.

tc  

 

Not including Pro Line in my assessment. 

[DrWho]

A lot of the newer stuff is putting all those woofers in parallel, which means the AC impedance is dipping pretty low at some frequencies. So with a 2.83V measurement signal, you're often getting a lot more than 1W into the speaker. Some people conduct true 1W measurements (based on the minimum impedance), which in turn lowers the voltage used in the test and therefore reduces the SPL measured for a "1W/1m" test. Klipsch has been pretty good about specifying a 2.83V source signal.

 

To complicate all this further, using a broadband signal (like pink noise) means the energy is spread equally across frequency - which means the impedance dips at the lower frequencies aren't affecting the total sound energy very much. Due to the higher impedance at higher frequencies, a 1W broadband signal could yield an even higher total SPL rating than just a straight up 2.83V signal. This kind of testing would be really hard to control though, but I bring it up just to highlight that higher frequencies dominate the total sound energy of a system (by factor of the square root of frequency).

 

It's also worth noting that measuring SPL at 1m isn't a very good test because you're in the nearfield behavior of the speaker at that point - which will skew results even further. A 10W/10m test yields the same number as 1W/1m for a truly spherical source. This has become a somewhat newer "standard" for measuring sensitivity. It's probably better to say that's a more common trend. Very large line array PA systems would be another animal entirely and should probably be measured even further away 100W/100m? I've see a rule of thumb for 10x the acoustic size of the speakers (so if your speakers are 1m tall, then measure 10m away).

 

 

Getting back to the real world - what exactly are people doing with this data? The only thing I use sensitivity numbers for is to help with amplifier selection.

 

 

[dBspl]

37 minutes ago, DrWho said:

It's also worth noting that measuring SPL at 1m isn't a very good test because you're in the nearfield behavior of the speaker at that point - which will skew results even further. A 10W/10m test yields the same number as 1W/1m for a truly spherical source. This has become a somewhat newer "standard" for measuring sensitivity. It's probably better to say that's a more common trend. Very large line array PA systems would be another animal entirely and should probably be measured even further away 100W/100m? I've see a rule of thumb for 10x the acoustic size of the speakers (so if your speakers are 1m tall, then measure 10m away).

 

For the sake of clarity, Klipsch does measure the sensitivity at 3 meters in the chamber and then we convert it to the 1 meter equivalent (add 9.5 dB). The 3 meter measurement is a fairly standard distance for most loudspeaker measurements.

 

We've been using the 2.83V reference for quite a while. The 1 watt reference is really meaningless for the reason you point out.  In addition, amplifiers are a constant voltage source...and not a constant power source.  It's hard to screw up a voltage setting since it's as simple as setting a dial. Whereas the 1 watt reference is almost never really 1 watt, and very prone to setup errors. 

 

Kerry

[ATLAudio]

On 11/20/2016 at 5:16 PM, Zen Traveler said:

After seeing this thread and it reminded me of several I started over at AVS trying to find answers to similar questions: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2038306-how-do-companies-rate-speak.html and this one earlier:  http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532635-would-i-benefit-external-amp.html

 

I realize both are OT for this section and thread, but was confused why people were claiming that the RF-7s needed so much power to drive efficiently.  {EDIT: For the record, I still listen to the system listed below in my sig every night and hear no distortion at loud volume being driven by an upper end AVR for over 13 years--Thank you folks at Klipsch! :)}

 

 

 

It's not distortion, it's a fuller sound that you'll get from a rock solid 4 ohm stable amp separate; that will also come with more power, but that's not the deal. When I put an Emo XPA 2 on my RF 62 II, it was less "OMG I need to change my pants," and more, "ok, I can see what some folks are saying."

 

I still have the amp because I thought it was worth it. 

 

One no cost choice is to see if there's a friendly local audio store in your area that will allow a take home demo for a couple of weeks. 

[DrWho]

16 hours ago, dBspl said:

In addition, amplifiers are a constant voltage source...and not a constant power source.

Depends on the amplifier output impedance

 

Several of them flea powered amplifiers are matching output impedance to the source impedance (or at least they think they are).

 

This is of course obfuscating your point, which isn't intentional. Good amplifiers are constant voltage sources and that's the assumption throughout the entire audio path. For some reason some audiophile brands decide the constant voltage encoding no longer applies. Of course those are the same guys complaining about swamping resistors that flatten their frequency response.

 

You could always go to reactive components to flatten the impedance response - and then theoretically there's no real power loss. That might require unobtanium parts though. I've not bothered running the numbers because those passive parts are too non-linear for my taste. I like that clean clinical sound

[dBspl]

2 hours ago, DrWho said:

Depends on the amplifier output impedance

 

Several of them flea powered amplifiers are matching output impedance to the source impedance (or at least they think they are).

 

This is of course obfuscating your point, which isn't intentional. Good amplifiers are constant voltage sources and that's the assumption throughout the entire audio path. For some reason some audiophile brands decide the constant voltage encoding no longer applies. Of course those are the same guys complaining about swamping resistors that flatten their frequency response.

 

You could always go to reactive components to flatten the impedance response - and then theoretically there's no real power loss. That might require unobtanium parts though. I've not bothered running the numbers because those passive parts are too non-linear for my taste. I like that clean clinical sound

 

I can just imagine how well it would go over if I bought a few 3.5 watt SET amplifiers to replace the audio amplifiers in our test racks. Nothing would ever test quite right, but on the other hand, the sine waves would sound more life-like. 

 

Kerry