Polk Audio vs. Klipsch syndrome.

[KEW]

Horizontal MTM’s?? **GASP**

Just kidding. Probably sounds fantastic.

Yeah, I saw that. I actually have these speakers and I set them vertical!
I think the explanation is that they have a well defined and ideally situated listening position so no one is listening to these speakers 30 degrees off-axis as they might in my room.

 

[Russdawg1]

Yeah, I saw that. I actually have these speakers and I set them vertical!
I think the explanation is that they have a well defined and ideally situated listening position so no one is listening to these speakers 30 degrees off-axis as they might in my room.

Well aren’t u professional technically more professional than DTS themselves lol!

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Honest opinion is what I meant.

I think he was suggesting that I was overstating it’s importance for average users who don’t listen at very loud levels. I’m suggesting that you need to decide that for yourself and that it may be true that a speaker with modest to low sensitivity is adequate.

 

[LamontSim]

I think he was suggesting that I was overstating it’s importance for average users who don’t listen at very loud levels. I’m suggesting that you need to decide that for yourself and that it may be true that a speaker with modest to low sensitivity is adequate.

I WOULD BE cranking up the volume at times. I do have times when I like to spread my wings so to say.

 

[LamontSim]

I WOULD BE cranking up the volume at times. I do have times when I like to spread my wings so to say.

The only speakers that I am familiar with that have a high sensitivity level are the Klipsch. They go 95 or 96. That's very high.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Sorry I didn’t write that correctly. I didn’t mean to make a blanket statement like that. I don’t have a lot of knowledge on studio monitors but reading through what he posted they said that studio monitors aren’t good for theater. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edit: Also read what @KEW said.

Studio monitors are speakers whose technical ability is more critical than normal home speakers. However, they are still just speakers and there are plenty of bad studio monitors around. This claim by the author is absurd. Studio monitors CAN make great home theater speakers. The bigger issue is that small studio monitors are optimized for nearfield use. They may not work well for a far field scenario. It isn’t that they won’t work, more that they may be too output limited. The reality is, a lot of people would be better served by professional studio monitor. Even cheap ones often measure pretty well.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t equally accurate home speakers, but it’s hard, a lot of companies make a lot of crap.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

The only speakers that I am familiar with that have a high sensitivity level are the Klipsch. They go 95 or 96. That's very high.

Is there no way for you to try before you buy? I’m not a huge Klipsch fan. You are right, high sensitivity is hard to come by. They are one of the few. You could look at some in the 90-92dB range. You might even find that a modest 88dB monitor with a good amplifier is more than enough for you. I think you just need to listen and see.

How big is the room? Did you say that already? Also, how far away would you be listening?

 

[Russdawg1]

The only speakers that I am familiar with that have a high sensitivity level are the Klipsch. They go 95 or 96. That's very high.

Surprisingly enough, they aren’t actually that sensitive. They’ve been tested to fall short about 2-4 dB occasionally, inflated numbers to once again draw in consumers. Like DefTech’s frequency range numbers

 

[KEW]

So in your honest and technical expertise which I do respect, a speakers sensitivity rating or level is a significant factor in choosing a speaker.

I will not say it is not a significant factor; however, I will say that having a pair of AA's which I have setup with a listening position 9-10 feet away and listened at levels as loud as I would want (85dB peaks - slow response, C scale on my RatShack meter) I had no issues at all.
Since you are 6 feet away and have a max of 80dB, it seems like you would be perfectly fine.
Now when your brother-in-law comes over, gets drunk and decides to "crank it up", he may find the limits.
Most AVR's have a place where you can limit the maximum volume. I always set mine at what I consider "the maximum sane limit" I would want to listen at.
Efficiency becomes important if you are sitting far away from the speakers and like to crank it loud. Generally we have louder peaks in HT content, so it is more relevant for HT. It is also important if you want to use your dad's (or grand-dad's) 10WPC tube amp from the 60's!
Having been around for a while, I have never read anything about the AA's being weak, or otherwise not able to play loud enough.

BTW, how do you feel about the bass of the Polk A3's?
...and what receiver?

 

[LamontSim]

Is there no way for you to try before you buy? I’m not a huge Klipsch fan. You are right, high sensitivity is hard to come by. They are one of the few. You could look at some in the 90-92dB range. You might even find that a modest 88dB monitor with a good amplifier is more than enough for you. I think you just need to listen and see.

How big is the room? Did you say that already? Also, how far away would you be listening?

Room size is 13L x 10W x 10ft. ceiling. My receiver is a 2 channel Onkyo at 100 WPC. I recently home auditioned a pair of Klipsch RP-600M vs. a pair of Polk Audio RTI A3. Seeking knowledge from people like you to see what direction I should go evening it means another brand. Listening position is 6 feet from speaker. At times the bass on the Klipsch overshadowed the highs even though the sound on some tracks at times was fuller, it at times sounded harsh.

 

[KEW]

How big is the room? Did you say that already? Also, how far away would you be listening?

It should show up in my post asking you if 85dB speakers would be a mistake, but he said:

... I would be about 6 feet from the speaker. If you mean a volume level or setting it would be from 70dB on the lowest to 80dB on the highest.

 

[LamontSim]

I will not say it is not a significant factor; however, I will say that having a pair of AA's which I have setup with a listening position 9-10 feet away and listened at levels as loud as I would want (85dB peaks - slow response, C scale on my RatShack meter) I had no issues at all.
Since you are 6 feet away and have a max of 80dB, it seems like you would be perfectly fine.
Now when your brother-in-law comes over, gets drunk and decides to "crank it up", he may find the limits.
Most AVR's have a place where you can limit the maximum volume. I always set mine at what I consider "the maximum sane limit" I would want to listen at.
Efficiency becomes important if you are sitting far away from the speakers and like to crank it loud. Generally we have louder peaks in HT content, so it is more relevant for HT. It is also important if you want to use your dad's (or grand-dad's) 10WPC tube amp from the 60's!
Having been around for a while, I have never read anything about the AA's being weak, or otherwise not able to play loud enough.

BTW, how do you feel about the bass of the Polk A3's?
...and what receiver?

The re ssre times and some tracks whether it be rock or r&B that it seems to diminish. On others, it's spot on!

 

[LamontSim]

The re ssre times and some tracks whether it be rock or r&B that it seems to diminish. On others, it's spot on!

There are times...I meant.

 

[LamontSim]

Doesn't the law forbid a company from exaggerating their specs?

 

[KEW]

The only speakers that I am familiar with that have a high sensitivity level are the Klipsch. They go 95 or 96. That's very high.

For the record, when Klipsch speakers are tested (reviews), they usually are about 4dB less than the manufacturer's specs. IIRC, it seems like if you read deep enough into the fine print, Klipsch states that their efficiency spec is measured in a typical room. You can argue that is a more "real world" measurement, but the end result is they are including reflected sound to increase the efficiency rating and their numbers cannot be compared directly to others. Of course, 91 or 92 are still very efficient by most people's standards.

 

[KEW]

The re ssre times and some tracks whether it be rock or r&B that it seems to diminish. On others, it's spot on!

Here is Stereophile's chart of the FR of the Polk Rti A3:

That exhibits the bass hump I mentioned earlier centered around 100Hz and about 4dB in height. That is pretty significant.
The actual extension is not bad for a bookshelf, but I'm not experienced enough at reading these charts to know what the exaggerated bass at 100Hz does to our perception of the right amount of bass at 40Hz. I might guess it partially masks the deeper bass.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Surprisingly enough, they aren’t actually that sensitive. They’ve been tested to fall short about 2-4 dB occasionally, inflated numbers to once again draw in consumers. Like DefTech’s frequency range numbers

it's true. Sometimes even worse. I measured some a while back and posted the results. I took a lot of heat for suggesting they were anything but stellar. My opinion is that they are anything but stellar.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Here is Stereophile's chart of the FR of the Polk Rti A3:

That exhibits the bass hump I mentioned earlier centered around 100Hz and about 4dB in height. That is pretty significant.
The actual extension is not bad for a bookshelf, but I'm not experienced enough at reading these charts to know what the exaggerated bass at 100Hz does to our perception of the right amount of bass at 40Hz. I might guess it partially masks the deeper bass.

don't forget that stereophile measures nearfield. That causes bumps in the bass like that and they aren't real. I'm not is accurate us accurate.

 

[KEW]

Doesn't the law forbid a company from exaggerating their specs?

I don't know what the law says; but if so, whether or not it is enforced is a different question (oral sex is illegal in many states)! Also, between different measurement techniques and different test protocols...things get confused enough, that making a case that sticks is not easy (even though there are generally accepted non-official standards).

 

[KEW]

don't forget that stereophile measures nearfield. That causes bumps in the bass like that and they aren't real. I'm not is accurate us accurate.

Thanks for the response and (needed) reminder, but I am totally confused by your last sentence!
I assume a typo or auto-correct error, but I can't guess what was intended, lol!