Palladium Trickle Down

[YK Thom]

I may be mistaken but it seems we are not seeing much in the way of (obvious anyway), trickle down from the Palladium line. When the RF7III was rumoured I was hoping to see a Palladium style tweeter midrange horn set up on it. I’m sure Klipsch invested a small fortune in the R&D involved with the Palladium series; one would assume some of this would begin to appear as refinements in the other products over time. 

[willland]

Yeah, I was(am still) hoping for something similar myself.  

 

Bill

[Schu]

Yeah... that makes three of us

[Schu]

Although the reference series 7's have never suffered from to little brightness...

[robert_kc]

I own Palladium P-37F (and P-312W), and RF-7II (and R-115SW).

 

IMO, the Palladium are a luxury product, that feature exotic (i.e., expensive) cabinet shape, and veneers.   IMO, the RF-7II sound better (when paired with the right tube amp), but have plain boxes and lower grade veneers.

 

I need speakers with a tower form factor, due to space limitations.    I have hoped for a mythical “RF-9” – i.e., an upscale version of the RF-7III.  Given Klipsch's current product line, I might buy a single RF-7III for my mono system in my bedroom.

[YK Thom]

I’m surprised to hear that. I would have thought the dual horn configuration would add a lot to the overall clarity of the mids. Stereophile raved about them ( they aren’t exactly Klipsch fans). I know they gave the 17s a class A rating, I think the 39s received it as well. 

[robert_kc]

My frame of reference:  I listen to classical music and opera.  I use tube amps for music.  (Solid-state amps for movies.)

 

Nothing against the Palladium.  I have the smallest towers - the P-37F.   They need a sub - and the P-312W is a beautiful match.   

 

The RF-7II don't need a sub for most music, unless you want to experience the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ, or the full impact of a bass drum.  (I have RF-7II for left, center, and right in a surround sound system.)

 

IMO, both the Palladium and RF-7II need tube amps in order to reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments.  The RF-7II sound great with 6L6GC (e.g., Scott 296, or my Inspire SEP amp).   I like 7591 amps with my Palladium P-37F (e.g., McIntosh MC225, Scott 299C, Fisher 800B.)   BTW, I have a pair of McIntosh MC30s (6L6GC) in another system, and they sound wonderful.

 

If you use a solid-state amp, I suggest tone controls - you might need to attenuate the treble - and possibly give a slight boost to the bass.

 

I've not heard the RF-7III (vs. RF-7II).   Nonetheless, if I were buying speaker(s) today - I'd buy RF-7III in either walnut or cherry.

 

It will be interesting to see if Klipsch introduces a new tower speaker positioned above the RF-7III.

[rebuy]

You would think if anything was passed down from the Palladium line it would 

be the Rohacell cone Bass/ Mid Drivers and not the horn drivers.

I think the Rohacell cone drivers are probably superior to the copper drivers

Klipsch uses in most of the towers.

I know they use the copper and Black ad campaign but for a speaker

such as the Flagship RF 7 III, the Rohacell cones might make a sound improvement.

[YK Thom]

The Stereophile people really liked the smoothness and detail of the horn combo, in fact the reviewer stated he was not a horn fan and was surprised by the presentation. It wasn’t what he was expecting at all. I have yet to hear a pair myself but they look fantastic and have received high praise from unexpected quarters.

[Chris A]

14 hours ago, YK Thom said:

I may be mistaken but it seems we are not seeing much in the way of (obvious anyway), trickle down from the Palladium line. When the RF7III was rumoured I was hoping to see a Palladium style tweeter midrange horn set up on it...

You've asked a question that I've also asked myself.  It seems odd that Klipsch would not find a way to extend the concept of a three-way hybrid horn-loaded/DR woofer tower loudspeaker aimed at the HT market.  They have now apparently abandoned that approach. 

 

The Palladium series was obviously designed for a certain type of buyer and a certain type of marketplace "image".  The entire line of loudspeakers was designed right before 2007 and was apparently aimed at certain slice of marketplace buyers...then the world changed.  I suppose that the Palladium line did what it was designed to do--except that the market changed rather dramatically in 2007-2008.  The buyer markets in these countries have never really recovered in the most affected counties like most of the EU, Russia and North America, but rather changed the marketplace buyer profiles.  I'm relatively sure that the Palladium line never lived up to its marketing projections due to that wider economic event.  Klipsch was not alone.

 

To understand what distinguished the Palladium line, I think a focus on the engineering parts that really make a difference in sound is warranted: horns, drivers, crossover networks (in the case of passive crossovers), and how those elements are arranged spatially relative to each other.  The box that they're assembled into is more or less a marketing point: it's just a box from an acoustics performance viewpoint.  So what was different about the Palladium series was its 3-way design using horn loading for the midrange and tweeter, and cone-type direct radiating woofers, and apparently a higher quality crossover network design that handled the frequency response better than their other HT loudspeaker line(s)...plus perhaps a couple of other design points that aren't discussed here.  The drivers and crossover networks had design and material features that may not be readily apparent to the casual observer. 

 

So why don't we see those improvements in the present Reference series?  Cost.  The Palladium line always cost more than the Reference line--quite a bit more.  Three-way designs cost more than the lowest-cost two-way designs because you have an extra driver, horn and two extra passive crossover filters, as well as the added integration tasks to consider. 

 

Why hasn't Klipsch incorporated lower cost approaches in order to incorporate the three-way design (two horns and woofers) into the Reference line (i.e., the "mainstream" line for 95% of all HT sound system buyers of Klipsch products)?  Because if you're going to make a lower cost loudspeaker, it's easier to do it using fewer drivers/crossovers than to decrease the costs of all three drivers/horns/crossover filters at the same time.  Most listeners of products at this price point maybe have a less fussy set of requirements for their loudspeakers (as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread).  Not all ears are created equal, and the idea of hi-fi varies from individual to individual, and especially when different cost regimes are thrown in for good measure.  (I'll stop exploring this subject at this point, but I believe that you get the drift.)

 

Can Klipsch again design and market a "Palladium line"? Certainly--if the market exists for those slightly higher priced products.

 

Chris

[YK Thom]

Good post Chris A. The three way with a mid horn actually seems more in line with the traditional Heritage formats. But you are most likely correct about the cost factor. One can hope that time and efficiencies may see this change at some point.

[Chris A]

By efficiencies, I take from that you're talking about costs and relative performance of the elements that make up the loudspeakers.  I would agree that there is some movement in this area, particularly in the area of crossover filters: active DSP-based solutions are beginning to become less expensive than passive, and they yield better results.  Some of these gains in performance/cost are particularly impressive and will strongly affect not only the improvement sound quality, but also the ability to integrate other features into their products that historically haven't been integrated, such as wireless operation and powered loudspeakers, which to date have only been integrated into their "non-hi-fi" products, such as table radios and small bookshelf loudspeakers, etc.  Integrating these functions into something like a Forte III or improved Reference series has yet to be accepted by the marketplace. 

 

Market acceptance still has disproportionate role in those particular sub-markets. There is a contingent of buyers that are afraid of the "non analog" nature of these better performing engineering alternatives, and Klipsch lives in a glass house as far as that sort of thing is concerned.  They even are restricted by where (i.e., which country) that they have their products assembled, although to date they haven't been subjected to buyer backlash over where they buy their parts. 

 

Chris

[Chris A]

(Just some more thinking on the expanded subject of efficiencies as I was performing a "route reconnaissance" for the border collies...)

 

Other significant areas for efficiencies that could be applied:

• design for manufacturing (DFSS, QFD, etc.),
• manufacturing floor (DMAIC),
• improved supplier networks and supplier surveillance,
• significant organizational refocus to reduce overhead cost on products and support,
• much improved product reliability through design (i.e., quality once the products leave the factory gates), and
• market investment to gain significant market share (i.e., holding off the "slavery of wall street" like the dotcoms have done)

That next to last point (product reliability) has been a particularly vexing subject of late, it seems.  I assume that the real issues include supplier quality and supplier maturity/stability. 

 

The only real point that I wanted to make is that most organizations tinker with these subjects but typically don't get terribly serious about letting them fundamentally change their way of doing business.  I have seen that there is as much potential in reducing product cost and improving product performance outside of design. 

 

As it applies to Palladium design on future loudspeaker designs: it makes it cheaper to do things in design that you otherwise couldn't do because of increased costs relative to your competitors.

 

Chris

[YK Thom]

Great thoughts. As well the route reconnaissance for the Border Collies sounds like a very worthwhile expenditure of time. Well said.

[Ceptorman]

One of the items the Palladium engineers wanted to do was to increase the cabinet size on all the towers, especially the P39. Aesthetics and design won out.