Test Data availability for Klipsch Speakers

[Raider]

The thread in the Subwoofer section regarding the Sound&Vsion testing of Klipsch speakers brings up an issue that I have often wondered about.

I actually came to this forum from the DIY speaker building forums. When researching potential DIY designs it is easy and commonplace to have access to reliable, repeatable data regarding drivers. D-S-T (now Tymphany) and SEAS are noted for providing comprehensive data on their drivers, including accurate measurements. They are both noted for giving an accurate representation of their drivers, the good, the bad, and the ugly included. In doing so, they allow their drivers to be considered for potential application, and the designer is able to apply that data to the context of their potential use and predict with relative certainty their suitability. It should be noted that both companies are highly regarded, and their drivers are considered some of the best offered, often the standard bearers for the DIY folks but on a much larger scale for OEM applications.

Given this excellence exhibited by these manufacturers in providing such data and adopting such an "open book" approach in providing objective data, I am puzzled as to why Klipsch, a company of arguably equal standing and reputation, and certainly heritage, doesn't make similar data available for its speakers. Such data, for those who understand it, would be invaluable for selection of speakers for their various uses.

In the absence of such data -where the data and the methodology for arriving at that data is openly made known- buyers perception is these days formed from data of questionable credibillity. Tests by various media outlets may be commercially biased, intentionally or unintentionally. Such tests may also present the speaker used in a manner that is not necessarily commensurate with the products primary design goals. Even worse is the perception of products created by self-appointed experts on the internet. Some make opinions known based on purely anecdotal data or unsubstantiated opinion. With these dynamics at play, test data provided by a manufacturer, which on its face is recognized as being biased, can often have more credibilty than data from other sources with unknown agendas. Klipsch certainly had the facilities, expertise and ability to produce credible data on their products.

So i personally would like to see Klipsch make available more comprehensive data on its speaker line, including:

1) Frequency response graphs

2) Distortion graphs and measures

3) Impedance graphs

4) Polar response at octave intervals or across the spectrum

5) Waterfall plots

We here on this forum understand that Klipsch products are world class in excellence. I would like to see Klipsch provide data here on this site that would allow better selection and implementation of its products, and allow it to more accurately be perceived as a leader in this regard. Paul Klipsch certainly had no fear of objective comparison of his products and philosophy in the open marketplace. Publishing objective product data would be an homage to that tradition.

[turntable3]

Very good proposal!

I would appreciate very much to see these data.

[colterphoto1]

I take it that you are interested in the data for 'raw' speaker drivers for DIY implementation?

If so, I don't speak for the company (yet), but I don't think Klipsch is in the 'kit' speaker business. Klipsch Audio Technologies is proud of it's engineering and design team and create cabinet designs and specialty drivers that work together.

Michael

[boom3]

Not speaking for Klipsch either but...

Most speaker companies will not supply the data you are seeking for very good scientific and commercial reasons:

1. Frequency response testing is subject to so many vraiables that a test by one person or method usually does not square with another person's approach, even if the test equipment is of equal calibre.

2. Klipsch and other manufacturers used to tear their hair out over the graphs depicted in "High Fidelity". Paul actually got HF to issue a retraction about their curve for the (old) LaScala. It was grossly in error by any standards.

3. Many DIY'ers will see good looking curves for drivers and think that with any old crossover and any old box, they can "splice" these 'great' curves together to make a system 'for less money". Our Forum knows this to be wrong. Then the driver suppliers get blamed for poor results.

Knowing the ingredients does not give one the recipe.

yours in haste...Boom3

[boom3]

Where was I? Oh yeah...

There are very few purchasers who base their decisions on "objective" data. The buying decision has been studied ad nauseum and it really comes down to price, peer pressure (keeping up with the Jones), SAF, and a host of other factors that can't be quantified on a waterfall plot.

Even speaker manufacturers cannot agree on a standard for testing. The Europeans wrote up standards for many consumer goods years ago, but most American and few Far Eastern firms bother to use them in their ads. The average consumer does not any way to judge what a rating by a DNV method means.

After getting burned in the 1950s over kits and 3rd party licesned (sp) manufacture, Paul was dead-set against kits. Before the Net, the Klipsch knowledge base was kept by dealers and a handful of cognesceti.

What you are asking for is a valid question, and some of it exists out there. But I can't see K&A providing it, for the reasons outlined above.

[DrWho]

I think Raider is talking about measurements of the performance of the finished loudspeaker - not specs for the individual parts. I agree they really should post more than they do - but I can also see why they don't.

[colterphoto1]

Doc, reread PP 2, it's about drivers for DIY.

Klipsch does not cater to the hobbiest, in fact parts are only sold to current owners and for warranty purposes.

M

[DrWho]

Aye, but none of his 5 bullet points have anything to do with driver specific performance []

I took the reference to the DIY driver manufacturers as an example of a stronger following based on the manufacturer's open, honest, objectivity with their products - kinda like what PWK achieved back in the old days. The problem with the audio business today (as already mentioned) is that raw performance is one of the smaller factors for the majority of the people purchasing equipment. And the few people for whom it does matter are usually so stuck on a certain sound that they don't consider anything else - basically unmarketeable.

Heck, even the majority of the music industry revolves around selling an image []

[Trey Cannon]

OK, I really don't want to get into this, but.....<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

So i personally would like to see Klipsch make available more comprehensive data on its speaker line, including:
1) Frequency response graphs
2) Distortion graphs and measures
3) Impedance graphs
4) Polar response at octave intervals or across the spectrum
5) Waterfall plots

What do you hope to learn from this data?

A response curve in the anechoic chamber will look very little like a room response curve.

So what would one tell you?

We use them to "track" and "standardize" our product, to make sure that you get a high level of quality and reliability from the Klipsch product.

There are only about 1% of the end users that would know how to read and understand a response curve.

All that goes for system.

Now for components We do not nor will we sell hobby parts. We have warranty parts only. Therefore, providing data on drivers is something we do not do.

[Jay481985]

trey that reminds me did you get my pm along time ago about warantee parts?

[Trey Cannon]

not that I remember

[Jay481985]

sent

[Raider]

I did not intend to state, imply, assert, or even hint that Klipsch does, shoulda, coulda, woulda or oughta sell their individual drivers separately, in quantity, or as a kit to the DIY hobbyist, entrepreneur, fledgling speaker company, or audiophile lunatic.

My references to DIY in paragraph 2 are to "drivers"; my references re: Klipsch are to "speakers" by which I mean the completed assembly. I.E. the final product, the whole enchilada, cabinet, drivers, crossover and all. Such as an RB51, or an RF63, or an RT12d. I thought I was clear, apparently I wasn't.

My references to DIY were only for the purpose of recognizing that among their customer base, ScanSpeak, Vifa, Peerless, and Seas are respected for making available detailed data in an open and honest way for folks to use - in whatever way they see fit. This is perceived in the marketplace as a strength, and as having confidence in their product. Beyond that illustration , I did not intend for DIY to have anything to do with my proposal.

No there aren't any standards for testing speakers. Unless a manufacturer takes the initiative to provide credible data on their own terms, the consumer is left to draw conclusions from whatever data is available, no matter how flawed it might or whatever agenda might have produced it. The example with PWK indicates this isn't a new problem. But today with the explosion of information which is often not verified or peer reviewed, the opportunity for MISinformation is unprecedented. So even though manufacturer provided data is seen on its face as self serving, at least the manufacturer has some control as to its credibility, especially when presented in an open and honest way. Discerning consumers give more credibility, I think to this kind of data, than to that whose source is unknown or uncertain.

Notice in the Sound&Vision subwoofer thread that when JLAudio disagreed with S&V's accessment, they refuted it with their own data and testing, carefully detailing the method they used to arrive at the data.

Thanks to Trey for responding! Please allow me to use your post as a framework to use to clarify my argument (as in respectful debate) as it touches on some key points.

"What do you hope to learn from this data?" I don't think its just me. Increasingly the internet is used by more and more people to research major purchases, especially those of a technical nature. Conclusions will be drawn from whatever information is available, right or wrong, good or bad. I think a manufacturer is prudent to publish as much information as possible, to as wide a potential buyer demographic as possible. Klipsch should also be aware that an increasing percentage of their product line is being sold by custom installation companies that clearly have the ability to understand and interpret such data, and can put it to good use both in product selection and inplementation. Following are examples of how such data could be used of the top of my head, sparse as it may be up there.:

1) Frequency Response Graphs. These would be useful for comparing speakers to each other, as well as finding speakers whose response would complement each other. Judging from the number of "What subwoofer would go with my speakers" questions on this forum, I think most would find this useful in determining the speakers compatibilty with other speakers, with subwoofers, and to the room itself. Certainly better than the vague frequency reponse specifications in the literature.

2) Distortion graphs and measures. Klipsch speakers are often reputed to be "harsh". Distortion measurements might go a long way toward showing that this is usually a function of the source material rather than the speaker itself. Distortion figures can give at least a baseline for comparison as to how the speaker can be expected to perform.

3) Impedance graphs. Many amplifiers, both solid state and tube, are sensitive to certainimpedance ranges. I wonder how often speakers are not chosen just because impedance data is unknown. With the popularity of Klipsch among SET and tube amp owners, I would think this would be significant.

4) Polar response at octave intervals or across the spectrum. this data is particularly helpful in speaker positioning. Consider its potential value in the planning and placement of in-wall speakers which will not likely be moved once installed, for instance. It would also be helpful in making initial accessment of where sound control material may need to be located.

5) Waterfall plots. These plots can be a good indicator of the overall character of the sound of a speaker, and also an indicator of difficult areas that may need to be dealt with. Resonances in the plot might be exacerbated by placement or

by room surfaces, and knowing this information miht help to better plan implementation.

"A response curve in the anechoic chamber will look very little like a room response curve." Of course. But that is the intrinsic value of anechoic measurement; that speaker response can be demonstrated independent of the room response. If this data is not valuable, then why is anechoic data used in R&D? It would be valuable in knowing what to expect from the speaker itself independent of any room interaction, and would help in establishing a baseline for trouble shooting acoustic issues.

"There are only about 1% of the end users that would know how to read and understand a response curve." A similar sentiment is expressed by other posts as well. Clearly the majority of purchases are probably made on an emotional or subjective basis. But consider this. Perhaps the number of techically savvy potential Klipsch buyers might be actually significantly higher. My perception is that many Klipsch buyers are better educated, and often more mature, and are certainly often more independent thinkers to consider an alternative not taken by most.

The choice can be made to cater to the lowest common denominator and underestimate the typical buyer, which would result in a loss of potential buyers that are tech-savvy. Or you could err on the other side, and publish extensive data that may be ignored by most, but will reach or retain the tech-savvy. So maybe such an approach might not increase sales but a small percentage. I'm thinking the marketing department won't think any increase insignificant.

"Many DIY'ers will see good looking curves for drivers and think that with any old crossover and any old box, they can "splice" these 'great' curves together to make a system 'for less money". Our Forum knows this to be wrong. Then the driver suppliers get blamed for poor results. Knowing the ingredients does not give one the recipe." Well said. And why I'm here now. DIY is a playground for those who like to learn by hands-on experimentation, or for those who enjoy woodworking, or both. I was very close to building some speakers myself, but due to limited time and as a sanity check I decided to see what commercial offerings could be purchased for the same amount. I detemined that for me personally, I couldn't begin to approach the manufacturing quality, engineering, and design expertise, nor the intrinsic value of Klipsch in my price range.

Since I was misunderstood in my first post, I hope not to be misconstrued here. I have nothing but admiration for the Klipsch product, from engineering to design to marketing. But I do think that the value of publishing detailed specifications is certainly underestimated.

Thanks for reading - if you're still awake.

[Trey Cannon]

I did not intend to state, imply, assert, or even hint that Klipsch does, shoulda, coulda, woulda or oughta sell their individual drivers separately, in quantity, or as a kit to the DIY hobbyist, entrepreneur, fledgling speaker company, or audiophile lunatic.

My references to DIY in paragraph 2 are to "drivers"; my references re: Klipsch are to "speakers" by which I mean the completed assembly. I.E. the final product, the whole enchilada, cabinet, drivers, crossover and all. Such as an RB51, or an RF63, or an RT12d. I thought I was clear, apparently I wasn't.

My references to DIY were only for the purpose of recognizing that among their customer base, ScanSpeak, Vifa, Peerless, and Seas are respected for making available detailed data in an open and honest way for folks to use - in whatever way they see fit. This is perceived in the marketplace as a strength, and as having confidence in their product. Beyond that illustration , I did not intend for DIY to have anything to do with my proposal.

No there aren't any standards for testing speakers. Unless a manufacturer takes the initiative to provide credible data on their own terms, the consumer is left to draw conclusions from whatever data is available, no matter how flawed it might or whatever agenda might have produced it. The example with PWK indicates this isn't a new problem. But today with the explosion of information which is often not verified or peer reviewed, the opportunity for MISinformation is unprecedented. So even though manufacturer provided data is seen on its face as self serving, at least the manufacturer has some control as to its credibility, especially when presented in an open and honest way. Discerning consumers give more credibility, I think to this kind of data, than to that whose source is unknown or uncertain.

Notice in the Sound&Vision subwoofer thread that when JLAudio disagreed with S&V's accessment, they refuted it with their own data and testing, carefully detailing the method they used to arrive at the data.

Thanks to Trey for responding! Please allow me to use your post as a framework to use to clarify my argument (as in respectful debate) as it touches on some key points.

"What do you hope to learn from this data?" I don't think its just me. Increasingly the internet is used by more and more people to research major purchases, especially those of a technical nature. Conclusions will be drawn from whatever information is available, right or wrong, good or bad. I think a manufacturer is prudent to publish as much information as possible, to as wide a potential buyer demographic as possible. Klipsch should also be aware that an increasing percentage of their product line is being sold by custom installation companies that clearly have the ability to understand and interpret such data, and can put it to good use both in product selection and inplementation. Following are examples of how such data could be used of the top of my head, sparse as it may be up there.:

For the most part all you say is right.

We tried to do this in the early 80's.

We even changed the KG-4 impedance numbers 3 times to make them more correct.

All it did is drop the sales numbers for that product.

(it was labled 6 ohms and all the receivers out there stated that they need 8 ohms, so folks chose some other speaker that stated 8 ohms.) Most the world does not understand NOR do they want to.

1) Frequency Response Graphs. These would be useful for comparing speakers to each other, as well as finding speakers whose response would complement each other. Judging from the number of "What subwoofer would go with my speakers" questions on this forum, I think most would find this useful in determining the speakers compatibilty with other speakers, with subwoofers, and to the room itself. Certainly better than the vague frequency reponse specifications in the literature.

This would be true"IF" every speaker was tested and specs gather in the same way and in the same place.

If a dealer needs more detailed info, all they have to do is contact us. We can give out Eng. data if we belive that the receiving party can understand it and that it will help their cause.

2) Distortion graphs and measures. Klipsch speakers are often reputed to be "harsh". Distortion measurements might go a long way toward showing that this is usually a function of the source material rather than the speaker itself. Distortion figures can give at least a baseline for comparison as to how the speaker can be expected to perform.

This is true.

I dont know of anyother passive speaker product that gives distortion data. 2nd and 3rd harmonics are tested on our products. We look for the products to have much less than 10% at level. (10% is the "rule of thumb" number that the point that you can hear the distortion)

The products that I have tested are in the 1-3% range.

3) Impedance graphs. Many amplifiers, both solid state and tube, are sensitive to certainimpedance ranges. I wonder how often speakers are not chosen just because impedance data is unknown. With the popularity of Klipsch among SET and tube amp owners, I would think this would be significant.

If we were to show the SET amp users a true Z of some of their speaker, they would worry themselfs silly.

for example: the Khorn has peeks of 60 - 70 ohms and dips in the 3.7 -4 ohm range. I don't know much about SET amps, but I understand they don't like Z change. It makes me question their use with our product, or any product that has major changes in the z.

4) Polar response at octave intervals or across the spectrum. this data is particularly helpful in speaker positioning. Consider its potential value in the planning and placement of in-wall speakers which will not likely be moved once installed, for instance. It would also be helpful in making initial accessment of where sound control material may need to be located.

5) Waterfall plots. These plots can be a good indicator of the overall character of the sound of a speaker, and also an indicator of difficult areas that may need to be dealt with. Resonances in the plot might be exacerbated by placement or

by room surfaces, and knowing this information miht help to better plan implementation.

"A response curve in the anechoic chamber will look very little like a room response curve." Of course. But that is the intrinsic value of anechoic measurement; that speaker response can be demonstrated independent of the room response. If this data is not valuable, then why is anechoic data used in R&D? It would be valuable in knowing what to expect from the speaker itself independent of any room interaction, and would help in establishing a baseline for trouble shooting acoustic issues.

"There are only about 1% of the end users that would know how to read and understand a response curve." A similar sentiment is expressed by other posts as well. Clearly the majority of purchases are probably made on an emotional or subjective basis. But consider this. Perhaps the number of techically savvy potential Klipsch buyers might be actually significantly higher. My perception is that many Klipsch buyers are better educated, and often more mature, and are certainly often more independent thinkers to consider an alternative not taken by most.

The choice can be made to cater to the lowest common denominator and underestimate the typical buyer, which would result in a loss of potential buyers that are tech-savvy. Or you could err on the other side, and publish extensive data that may be ignored by most, but will reach or retain the tech-savvy. So maybe such an approach might not increase sales but a small percentage. I'm thinking the marketing department won't think any increase insignificant.

Bang for your buck...The time effort and money it would take would = more than the return.

"Many DIY'ers will see good looking curves for drivers and think that with any old crossover and any old box, they can "splice" these 'great' curves together to make a system 'for less money". Our Forum knows this to be wrong. Then the driver suppliers get blamed for poor results. Knowing the ingredients does not give one the recipe." Well said. And why I'm here now. DIY is a playground for those who like to learn by hands-on experimentation, or for those who enjoy woodworking, or both. I was very close to building some speakers myself, but due to limited time and as a sanity check I decided to see what commercial offerings could be purchased for the same amount. I detemined that for me personally, I couldn't begin to approach the manufacturing quality, engineering, and design expertise, nor the intrinsic value of Klipsch in my price range.

Since I was misunderstood in my first post, I hope not to be misconstrued here. I have nothing but admiration for the Klipsch product, from engineering to design to marketing. But I do think that the value of publishing detailed specifications is certainly underestimated.

Thanks for reading - if you're still awake.

For the most part all you say is right.

We tried to do this in the early 80's.

We even changed the KG-4 impedance numbers 3 times to make them more correct.

All it did is drop the sales numbers for that product.

(it was labled 6 ohms and all the receivers out there stated that they need 8 ohms, so folks chose some other speaker that stated 8 ohms.) Most the world does not understand NOR do they want to.

If we were to show the SET amp users a true Z of some of their speaker, they would worry themselfs silly.

for example: the Khorn has peeks of 60 - 70 ohms and dips in the 3.7 -4 ohm range. I don't know much about SET amps, but I understand they don't like Z change. It makes me question their use with our product, or any product that has major changes in the z.

Bang for your buck...The time effort and money it would take would = more than the return.

I answered in the quote. I stated them here again just in case you missed them.

You were not misunderstood, I just have been ask for DIY infor for the 7 years that I have been with Klipsch.

I see DIY, my brain goes to "we don't do that"....sory for jumping the gun.

From your point of view, all you say is a good idea.

From ours, its a fight waiting to take place.

If you ever want more data on a product you are looking at or working with, Email me your request. I will make a formal request to the Engineering Dept. heads to relase the data.

This will be done in only a few occations and not all will be given data. (So dont everyone email me).

Each request is handled one at a time.

You did a good job asking and making your point.

[Raider]

Trey:

Thanks for the repsonse. I think that web sites are often underestimated as a marketing tool. Many companies are finding them to be a very economical repository for non-proprietary information for access for a variety of reasons, and an excellent sales and marketing support tool. I just wanted to make known the kind of information that is valuable to me as I work through my Klipsch purchase experience, figuring that my experience is not dissimilar to that of many. I have found Klipsch to be a well kept secret in plain view, and I think any means that might bring the brand to a wider conciousness in the consumers mind and perception is worthwhile. It's such an extraordinary product, it would be a shame for it not to be enjoyed by anyone who might come to it from any direction.

Thanks again for your response and consideration.