Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Arkytype

Stereophile review of Klipschorn

Recommended Posts

'design by committee' is the worst idea for a true designer and only leads to compromise...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PrestonTom said:

John Atkinson knows what he is doing...

It's my premise that the gentleman that you identified knows what he is doing, but that his motives are less than stellar.  I don't like what he is doing--it's dishonest.  It is my belief that the reason why this thread is here and is growing is that discussing the review really does matter. Talking in depth about the review in a systemic manner rather than just taking poorly aimed pot shots I think is important. And attempting to summarily dismiss this discussion is something that I find to be uncalled for and unfair.  I believe that this type of magazine review does unnecessary harm to Klipsch's products--particularly the Khorn.  I think that's a pretty important subject, actually.

 

10 hours ago, PrestonTom said:

However, why he chose to do it this way will remain a mystery. 

I think that it's not such a mystery. (You probably do, too.)  The reason why I took the time to write what I did--and it took a while to cobble together what I wrote--is that I believe what the magazine did does a great disservice to Klipsch and others that might feel that the Khorn has been almost a singular example of rebutting the easy opinions expressed by this magazine. PWK spent a significant effort rebutting these sort of "drive by" reviews, and also leading by example in his loudspeaker designs and educating his customers and his own staff. So it does matter because there are a lot of people out there (as evidenced by some of the responses here) that don't have enough information to separate the truth from assumptions, and that they actually take the words of a magazine that hasn't done it (and probably can't do it) over the words of those that have (Klipsch).

 

The point of talking about precedence of requirements in loudspeaker design is I believe important--so much so that I intend to extend the discussion to Jubilees and perhaps other closely aligned loudspeaker designs.

 

10 hours ago, PrestonTom said:

Guess what,  my Jubilees have peaks and dips (just like what Roy measures)...

 

25789578_RightJubileeSPLandphaseresponse.thumb.jpg.7a38e46a1170181c398dcf84877045be.jpg

 

Mine don't, but then again I've spent time getting to know them better via testing, updating settings, changing in-room configurations, and experimenting with different room acoustic treatments in order to significantly improve their acoustic performance. This work over the past 5 years is the basis of the above discussion on precedence of loudspeaker requirements.

 

7 hours ago, Arkytype said:

The person who is perhaps the most responsible for quantifying listener preferences in a loudspeaker is Floyd Toole. He has conducted hundreds (if not thousands) of blind listening tests at Canada's National Research Council with participants ranging from professional musicians to volunteers.

I'm very familiar with this work by Sean Olive--and championed by Toole. There are some real issues there that ultimately benefit Harman and its current product lines.  I'll wait on those discussions. Just note that there are reasons to not believe the requirements precedence that Toole apparently pushes, and that it is quite easy to rebut.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Khornukopia said:

I love my Klipschorns. 

Most people that own them do--as well as quite a few that don't yet own them but wish that they did--along with a listening room that does them justice.  I think that the recent magazine article writers forgot that.  Richard Heyser didn't, however.  Since Heyser's Khorn review in 1986, things have changed, most notably the ability of virtually anyone to measure their own loudspeakers in-room using even more powerful measurement means--and that the cost of these measurement instruments is now free (except for the cost of the personal computer that most people already have amortized for other purposes than measuring loudspeakers, and the cost of a "good enough" calibrated microphone that costs ~100).  This is probably 1% or less of the de-inflated cost of the equipment that Heyser used in 1986.

 

8 hours ago, Schu said:

'design by committee is the worst idea for a true designer and only leads to compromise...

The Khorn wasn't designed by committee: it was designed by PWK (recently updated by Roy D, et al.).   All loudspeaker designs represent compromise.  It's how those compromises are determined that makes all the difference. If you use the requirements sets and their relative importance promulgated by Atkinson, et al., you tend to get the same results...that all sound about the same. 

 

If instead you recognize that there are people walking around that say that they much prefer the sound of Khorns to those many thousands of "monkey coffin" designs praised by Atkinson, et al., then you have the opportunity to learn something new by examining why that is.

 

Chris

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, I am not sure we disagree.

 

That is a very impressive graph and you have done a great job especially around the "trouble spots" at 100, 200, and 300 Hz. Given my own experience, I suspect not all of that has been cleaned up with DSP and you cleverly used some acoustic (not electrical) strategies. You are to be congratulated. The factory measures come nowhere close to that.

 

Getting back to the original point however, Klipschorns and Jubilees will have peaks and dips (with factory delivered cabinets and measured in the "correctly loaded" space). That does not seem to diminish anyone's enjoyment of them. I do agree that folks who do not have the ability to listen to the Klipsch offerings ahead of time are bound to rely on the various "measures" floating around. They should be measured appropriately prior to publication. 

 

At the end of the day, John Atkinson and Art Dudley, have little impact on my enjoyment.

 

Good luck,

-Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chris A said:

....the following list of revealed capabilities [are] based on the Khorn's performance in each of the measured areas [that are identified]:

 

  1. Full-range directivity (particularly below 800 Hz)
  2. Modulation Distortion
  3. Compression Distortion
  4. Efficiency/Sensitivity
  5. Cumulative spectral decay (especially below 800 Hz)
  6. Room dimensions/loudspeaker placement
  7. Near-field room absorption around loudspeakers

The following list of loudspeaker capabilities are significantly depreciated with regard to those preferring the Khorn's sound reproduction:

  1. Frequency response flatness (particularly below 200 Hz)
  2. Impulse response
  3. Input Electrical Impedance

___________________________________________________________________________

Continuing with this line of inquiry, it seems to me that there are people that are listening to something quite different than flat phase/SPL direct radiating loudspeakers for a reason.  The iconic example of this phenomenon is the Khorn and the people that love them, in my view.  (There are other offshoot listener groups, such as those that prefer "full range drivers", planar dipoles, quasi-omnidirectional, and even more design types.) These groups of listeners eschew the typical monkey coffin designs that have been discussed, above. 

 

So what is unique about the Khorn lovers?  The first set of factors (#s 1-7 above).  Even to the point of dropping the requirements of the following three requirements (FR flatness, impulse response, electrical impedance), these people are quite happy with what they've got.  Especially when they achieve a good listening environment and have found a way to equalize the on-axis frequency response somewhat using amplifiers, preamps, and the like. 

 

Some Khorn owners go further: they replace the midrange horns/drivers and even the tweeters, crossovers (including Zobel networks to tame the input impedance swings in output SPL when using high output impedance amplifiers), and false corners/enclosed backs, etc.  What's most important to note, however, is that for the people that don't change their Khorns to do these "enhancements" (changes), the existing performance of the Khorn is enough for them.  This means that the loudspeaker requirements set and their relative importance are not monolithic from all listeners, as Olive/Toole would have you believe.  There are significant groups of listeners that have been systematically screened out of the group that Harman performed in its "listener qualification" trials that resulted in their final reported requirements precedence(s).

 

"So what?"

 

There are obviously large variations in what people prefer and listen for.  In the case of the Khorn, we have a body of technical papers and articles that explain these differences (low modulation distortion, higher efficiency, full-range directivity, etc.).  Atkinson, et al. have also tried to screen these type of listeners out--and to glom onto the "Harman bandwagon" in that regard.  The interesting thing is (anecdotally)--this group of Khorn listeners also tends to include professional musicians (formally trained, etc.). 

 

Now isn't it interesting why that might be the case?

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Continuing with this line of inquiry, it seems to me that there are people that are listening to something quite different than flat phase/SPL direct radiating loudspeakers for a reason. 

 

In the near field, you can move a foot in any direction, or turn your head to the side, and significantly change the spectral content of whatever you happen to be listening to. That doesn't only apply to loudspeakers; try it next time you're in a face-to-face conversation. The side-effect of this is that we have learned to be rather tolerant of non-flat frequency response, as long as it's not egregiously bad.

 

Quote

The iconic example of this phenomenon is the Khorn and the people that love them, in my view.

 

I don't happen to own Khorns at the moment, but they are among my favorite loudspeakers. I acknowledge their shortcomings, but they reproduce dynamics better than any other loudspeaker that I have ever heard. That alone makes them special.

 

Quote

There are significant groups of listeners that have been systematically screened out of the group that Harman performed in its "listener qualification" trials that resulted in their final reported requirements precedence(s).

 

That is an interesting, and significant, observation. It means that the entire study is tainted by confirmation bias. Basically, they have assumed what they are trying to prove.

 

Quote

The interesting thing is (anecdotally)--this group of Khorn listeners also tends to include professional musicians (formally trained, etc.).

 

Many years ago I brought my uncle, a professional musician, to a local high-end shop to listen to Klipschorns. His immediate comment was, "It's like I'm right there in the orchestra with them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue of "screening" is always a source of problems in decision support models (and I've done a lot of those models over my career).  Screening of participants and other data sources is also a sure-fire way to spot confirmation bias tendencies.  One of the techniques that is used by QFD professionals (Quality Function Deployment) is a "customer segmentation matrix".  The following notional (i.e., non-calibrated) matrix is for home theater audio customers:

 

1413139509_ExampleCustomerSegmentDemandMatrix.thumb.JPG.b45ddad81b3fe16391cb9cc4bc764155.JPG

 

The left-hand column has the identified customer segment types.  The customer segments are usually identified via affinity analysis of interview data.  The needs of the nine (9) identified customer segments in the notional example differ according to the desired/required product attributes in this case.  Kano product analysis tags (B, O, A) and Christensen Product Hiring model attributes (GB, ETB, ETU, LP) are also included in the "Hows" across the top of this matrix.

 

All of the above is provided as a cursory example only--that the analysis done by Olive, et al., is much too much focused on "getting the corporate answer" than "getting the truth".  If Olive had instead hired himself a QFD professional before starting his big decision model, he would have gotten much different results (and he may have, and was later directed by corporate upper management to change his results in order to advertise their work for corporate benefit). 

 

I've seen this issue a million times (it seems ) as a practicing operations analyst for many years, and as a QFD practitioner for even more years.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
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...