Arkytype Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 The August issue of Stereophile features a review of the Forte III. Roy is quoted at length throughout the glowing review and goes into some detail on how his patented "Mumps" was developed. As a print subscriber, I don't follow the on-line Stereophile reviews enough to know when they are posted compared to the print edition. Unless there is an embargo on releasing the Stereophile review before a certain date, you'd think Klipsch would have it posted on the klipsch.com web site. The big news is that a (hopefully full) review of the Klipschorn AK6 is forthcoming later this year. Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted July 15, 2019 Moderators Share Posted July 15, 2019 Good deal, hope it helps sell some speakers to keep Hope employees busy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 I'm a subscriber and read the review. Although the subjective comments about the speaker were positive, the measurements were a bit disappointing. And I was a bit dismayed that in the Manufacturer's Comments section in the issue, Klipsch chose to simply copy/paste text from their brochure. ..Very strange. Typically, you'll find comments from an engineer speaking to measurement anomalies or functional issues, etc.. I would have expected some comments from Roy. Their review of the Heresy III was more positive, but lacked any measurements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 7 hours ago, ODS123 said: I'm a subscriber and read the review. Although the subjective comments about the speaker were positive, the measurements were a bit disappointing. And I was a bit dismayed that in the Manufacturer's Comments section in the issue, Klipsch chose to simply copy/paste text from their brochure. ..Very strange. Typically, you'll find comments from an engineer speaking to measurement anomalies or functional issues, etc.. I would have expected some comments from Roy. Their review of the Heresy III was more positive, but lacked any measurements. What was the most disappointing thing you saw in the measurements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glens Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 How does it compare overall to this? forte_III-hifi_news_review.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 8 hours ago, ODS123 said: And I was a bit dismayed that in the Manufacturer's Comments section in the issue, Klipsch chose to simply copy/paste text from their brochure. ..Very strange. Typically, you'll find comments from an engineer speaking to measurement anomalies or functional issues, etc.. I hadn't read the manufacturer's comments until you pointed this out. To me it shows 1. Need for advertising copy. Guess Klipsch is not investing enough in advertising Heritage. 2. Marketing's disconnect from engineering otherwise I think we would have seen less advertising, more specifics on the trade offs, listener's response, and talking up the product in spite of possibly being construed a half and half review. At least highlight some of the high notes in the review which was as to be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, glens said: How does it compare overall to this? forte_III-hifi_news_review.pdf 487.79 kB · 2 downloads Measurements very similar, reviewer's comments in Stereophile were a little more forgiving than the Hifi News review. Shows the speaker is enjoyable but not a reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkytype Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkytype Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkytype Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 The measurements actually look okay to me. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkytype Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 Re August 2019 Stereophile review of Forte III: The slap in the face with a wet fish moment came when I read, The Klipsch Forte III didn't rise to the majestic peaks of the Volti Audio Rival.It lacked that speaker's ability to describe the richest, densest tonal complexities. Well, it turns out that Forte III reviewer Ken Micallef also reviewed the Volti Audio Rival in May of 2017. pzannucci, if you think the Forte III's frequency response is "disappointing", look at John Atkinson's measurements of the Rival here. https://www.stereophile.com/content/volti-audio-rival-loudspeaker-measurements. There was not one area in Greg Roberts' "design" of that turd that didn't reflect poorly in the test results. At the end of the Measurements section, Atkinson tries to downplay the poor performance by writing: Summing up the Volti Rival's measured performance is difficult: Its perceived balance will depend to a greater degree than usual on the listener's choice of music and the size and acoustics of the room.....I hate it when an audio writer says, "Listen for yourself"—but in the case of the Rival, that's all I can say.—John Atkinson As for the sensitivity rating, Atkinson's measurement of the Forte III shows a 3.8 dB lower output than Klipsch specifies. This discrepancy has been noted in several forums and blogs over the years, I found this exchange between Guest BobG and other forum members posted January 3-4, 2002 on the 2-Channel Home Audio forum: I have read from countless sources that the Klispch (sic) Reference series speakers are WAY over estimated reguarding (sic) senstivity (sic), sometimes up to 3-5 pts higher than what they really measure. On the other hand, most of the vintage Klipsch are very accurate in the stated sensitivity specs. As for the Chorus speakers, these probably have a better chance of being as stated although 101 does seem rather high. kh Guest BobG's reply in two posts are laughable: 1) Before we let the inaccuracy be taken as fact, I would like to mention that the sensitivity specs of Klipsch speakers are not overstated. We use legitemate (sic), repeatable measuring methods. There are many different methods of rating sensitivity, but we do not attempt to hide behind specs. 2) Klipsch measures sensitivity on home loudspeakers in the following manner: 1. We place the speaker to be tested in our anechoic chamber and do a free space measurement (no boundary gain or room gain) at a distance of 3 meters. This distance is chosen in order to be in the far field of the speaker. The test signal used is wide band pink noise. 2. Starting with this result in dB, we add 9 dB to obtain a one-meter equivalency, as the industry standard for expressing sensitivity is one meter. The 9 dB difference is all inverse-square gain. Move half as far away and gain 6 dB etc. (see note below) 3. To this we add 4 dB for room gain and boundary gain to translate the measurement to a typical listening environment. Speakers are not operated in free space in any normal application. An increase in sound pressure comes from proximity to nearby walls, floor and ceiling. Theoretically, a maximum of 18 dB increase is available through corner placement but that is rarely the position chosen for full range loudspeakers; and the increase is also frequency dependent, being prominent at low frequencies. Additional measurable increase comes from room gain wherein the room is pressurized by low frequency information. Again, this is frequency dependent impacting only the low end of the spectrum. We have verified the 4 dB figure we use in numerous empirical measurements and believe it to be quite accurate. (see note below) Our KPT-904 professional theater speaker was mentioned above. It should be noted that the KPT-904 is a model designed to be placed behind the screen at a movie theater and as such does not benefit from as much boundary reinforcement as in a typical home installation. The 4 dB room gain figure is not applied to the sensitivity measurement for such models. (emphasis Arkytype's) Now I don't know the identity of "Guest BobG" and/or whether he is/was a Klipsch employee. As for the claim he makes about a "4 dB" room/boundary gain, why doesn't that reflect in Stereophile's recent sensitivity measurements of the RP-600M and the Forte III? Curiously, the sensitivity of the Palladium P-39F (tested June 12, 2009) was within experimental error. The 9 dB difference is all inverse-square gain. Nope, sound pressure level falls/increases about 6 dB per doubling/halving of the distance from a source, not as the square of the distance. It's actually 9.54 dB, not 9 dB. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm . We have verified the 4 dB figure we use in numerous empirical measurements and believe it to be quite accurate. Here's the problem with that statement. While their anechoic chamber yields accurate on-axis free-field sensitivity measurements, they cannot possibly pick a single number (in this case, 4 dB) increase in an owner's listening room; there are simply too many room sizes, H x L x W ratios, acoustic treatments, etc. to even begin to quantify that number. The SPL increase is certainly real but trying to arrive at a single number is folly. Instead, why not publish the anechoic sensitivity specification as follows: "The Klipsch Forte III loudspeaker measures 95 dB Sound Pressure Level (SPL) with a 2.83 volt band-limited pink noise at a distance of 1 meter in our anechoic chamber. At home (using the same test parameters), you can expect your Forte III to measure 2-4 dB higher depending upon location, room size and acoustic treatment." Enjoy pissing off your neighbors! Lee 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 BobG was Bob Gassel. He worked for Klipsch for 14 years. https://www.twice.com/industry/audio-veteran-bob-gassel-63-dies-7885 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 < Rant > I don't trust reviewers nope not one bit. How can you? How can you english what something sounds to me or you? Most of the time it is a feeling. Or how does one get past preconceived bias of the reviewers. Frak.. I think the audio mag industry is gross. Then there are the consuners of these rags.... There are literally people that won't by a product because it doesn't reach a certain level by some silver tongued self appointed golden eared reviewer.... Bah humbug. This industry is pimpimg gold fuses and megabuck cables of all sorts.. There just ain't enough BS buttons to go around. Take reviews with a grain of salt just look at the pics and to thine ears be true. < Rant/ > 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Arkytype said: pzannucci, if you think the Forte III's frequency response is "disappointing", look at John Atkinson's measurements of the Rival here. https://www.stereophile.com/content/volti-audio-rival-loudspeaker-measurements. There was not one area in Greg Roberts' "design" of that turd that didn't reflect poorly in the test results. At the end of the Measurements section, Atkinson tries to downplay the poor performance by writing: Summing up the Volti Rival's measured performance is difficult: Its perceived balance will depend to a greater degree than usual on the listener's choice of music and the size and acoustics of the room.....I hate it when an audio writer says, "Listen for yourself"—but in the case of the Rival, that's all I can say.—John Atkinson Arkytype, Funny, I don't think I said anything about the frequency response though after reading the "conclusions", I did go look for the Volti. Hit the measurements for it and it just keeps me saying, use the efficiency to modify the frequency response to be more correct, even if you have to drop the sensitivity by 3-5 db with EQ in the network. That is why I think Klipsch is great, particularly if you know how to tighten up the network. Not bad stock if you manage your room well. If you can't do the room, do the crossover. The crossover is the key if you are using high quality components and I notice too many times care is not taken to balance the idiosyncrasies even good drivers can have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 What happened to Volti? Did we run him off or did Klipsch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 3 hours ago, seti said: < Rant > I don't trust reviewers nope not one bit. How can you? How can you english what something sounds to me or you? Most of the time it is a feeling. Or how does one get past preconceived bias of the reviewers. Frak.. I think the audio mag industry is gross. Then there are the consuners of these rags.... There are literally people that won't by a product because it doesn't reach a certain level by some silver tongued self appointed golden eared reviewer.... Bah humbug. This industry is pimpimg gold fuses and megabuck cables of all sorts.. There just ain't enough BS buttons to go around. Take reviews with a grain of salt just look at the pics and to thine ears be true. < Rant/ > Here ya go man: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 3 hours ago, seti said: < Rant > I don't trust reviewers nope not one bit. How can you? How can you english what something sounds to me or you? Most of the time it is a feeling. Or how does one get past preconceived bias of the reviewers. Frak.. I think the audio mag industry is gross. Then there are the consuners of these rags.... There are literally people that won't by a product because it doesn't reach a certain level by some silver tongued self appointed golden eared reviewer.... Bah humbug. This industry is pimpimg gold fuses and megabuck cables of all sorts.. There just ain't enough BS buttons to go around. Take reviews with a grain of salt just look at the pics and to thine ears be true. < Rant/ > This is precisely why I like Stereophile. I can read the various measurements and figure out if the review is BS. More times than not, you get enough information there to make a lot better judgement compared to just "general" reviews. The pimping of $50 fuses and $10k cables, that's another story but I like to look at the pictures and read the ads. Very enjoyable and gives rise to some thought. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 On 7/14/2019 at 7:57 AM, Arkytype said: The August issue of Stereophile features a review of the Forte III. Roy is quoted at length throughout the glowing review and goes into some detail on how his patented "Mumps" was developed. As a print subscriber, I don't follow the on-line Stereophile reviews enough to know when they are posted compared to the print edition. Unless there is an embargo on releasing the Stereophile review before a certain date, you'd think Klipsch would have it posted on the klipsch.com web site. The big news is that a (hopefully full) review of the Klipschorn AK6 is forthcoming later this year. Lee Overall a positive review, with the usual Blah, blah, blah, BS that is the "Audio Golden Ear Prose," typical of those magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkytype Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 Sorry, pzannucci, it was ODS123 who wrote, Although the subjective comments about the speaker were positive, the measurements were a bit disappointing. I assumed he was referring to the on-axis frequency response curves and not some other deficiency. After all, that "...suckout centered on the 5.2 kHz upper crossover frequency, and a slight excess of energy in the top audio octave." somehow wasn't important enough to address somewhere along the Forte III development stages. Since John Atkinson uses "smoothing", I suspect the raw curve has a steeper notch indicating a possible driver polarity reversal. As for being a long-time subscriber to Stereophile, I just read it for the pictures. Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.