Polk Audio vs. Klipsch syndrome.

[Beave]

"The response rise in the upper bass is almost entirely due to the nearfield measurement technique; the RTi A3 offers useful bass output to below 40Hz, which is excellent performance for a relatively small speaker."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/polk-audio-rtiii-a3-loudspeaker-measurements#VfAZG4u32vBhzeWc.99

Edit: And now I see the posts above that say the same thing. Sorry for being repetitive!

 

[Beave]

I'm not convinced that this model really does output "useful" bass at 40Hz. I guess it depends on how "useful" is defined. I bet it can't play 40Hz even moderately loud without significant distortion.

 

[JerryLove]

And power is cheap. It takes a huge expense to make a speaker play deep AND have high sensitivity, but you can get a Crown amp for $300 that will power almost any speaker you could buy to its limits.

Speaker limits are part of the problem. What a 97db speaker can do at 100w would take 1000w for an 87db speaker to pull off.

Getting deep bass out of a high-sensitivity speaker is a more expensive undertaking (and less future proof) than buying a powerful amplifier.

Subwoofers are designed for deep bass. There's little reason to pursue it from the mains.

 

[JerryLove]

What do you think about Klipsch bookshelf vs. another brand?

Which Klipsch bookshelves? I'm building my home theater on KL-650s.

 

[LamontSim]

Which Klipsch bookshelves? I'm building my home theater on KL-650s.

RP-600M which seem to be replacing the RP-160M.

 

[LamontSim]

I'm not convinced that this model really does output "useful" bass at 40Hz. I guess it depends on how "useful" is defined. It bet it can't play 40Hz even moderately loud without significant distortion.

I think the Rti A3 is more like 50Hz.

 

[shadyJ]

"The response rise in the upper bass is almost entirely due to the nearfield measurement technique; the RTi A3 offers useful bass output to below 40Hz, which is excellent performance for a relatively small speaker."

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/polk-audio-rtiii-a3-loudspeaker-measurements#VfAZG4u32vBhzeWc.99

Edit: And now I see the posts above that say the same thing. Sorry for being repetitive!

This is why I measure bass in a groundplane environment. It's too tricky to get an accurate response otherwise. I don't merge that graph with the free air measurements, because the two techniques would yield different responses in their respective regions. Groundplane is great for capturing low frequencies but not so great for other bands, while free air testing is good for measuring everything outside of low frequencies. free air would be good for low frequencies too, if you can get enough clearance from the ground, but you would need over 20 feet elevation for good mid bass measurements, and over 50 feet for stuff in the 20 Hz range. Of course, accurately measuring infrasonic bass would need a huge distance from the ground.

 

[JerryLove]

RP-600M which seem to be replacing the RP-160M.

Don't know that exact model, but I've found similar Klipsch's to feel "bright" and "harsh" to my ear.

 

[LamontSim]

Don't know that exact model, but I've found similar Klipsch's to feel "bright" and "harsh" to my ear.

What do you think about Polks in comparison or otherwise?

 

[JerryLove]

My experience with Klipsch.

On the low end they are bright. On the high end, they actually seem to be suppressed at the "tinkling" portion of the audio spectrum; but think I really like them for movies.

I simply don't have the Polk experience to make a comparison. Sorry.

 

[LamontSim]

My experience with Klipsch.

On the low end they are bright. On the high end, they actually seem to be suppressed at the "tinkling" portion of the audio spectrum; but think I really like them for movies.

I simply don't have the Polk experience to make a comparison. Sorry.

No problem, thanks anyway.

 

[LamontSim]

My experience with Klipsch.

On the low end they are bright. On the high end, they actually seem to be suppressed at the "tinkling" portion of the audio spectrum; but think I really like them for movies.

I simply don't have the Polk experience to make a comparison. Sorry.

No problem, thanks anyway.

 

[KEW]

Don't know that exact model, but I've found similar Klipsch's to feel "bright" and "harsh" to my ear.

My subjective take is Klipsch (of the category you are talking about) have made improvements in their horns over time. I had the RP-82 ii's and they were a bit on the harsh side but better than the previous models. I bought them because I feel they are "exciting" speakers for HT! My guess is the horn either emphasizes a certain range associated with impact/crispness (sounds like a drumstick lightly tapping near the center of a cymbal are very distinct and clear). My perception when watching a movie is there is more immediacy, and I like that effect. Also, speech intelligibility is very clear, and the harshness is not an issue for most HT content. I have a friend with a pair that after much careful attention to the toe-in has the speakers suitably off-axis to sound fine for music. However, as you might expect, these speakers are very unforgiving of a poor recording with tipped up treble.
However, the newer Klipsch RP-160m (and that series) is the first Klipsch that I can point directly at me and not feel assaulted. I would characterize this series as forward, but not harsh. They sound pretty good for music, and still offer a lot as a HT speaker. I felt like Klipsch had finally got it right with their Reference Premier series!
More recently I tried out the newest RP-600m to see how that series sounded. I was disappointed, I like a speaker to either be neutral or somewhat forward sounding (I think that also depends on the dispersion - neutral with good dispersion or more forward with less dispersion/reflections), and the newer Klipsch struck me as borderline laid-back!
We'll see how they sell, but I felt they gave up too much of the Klipsch sound. They do not have the "Klipsch energy". Some may feel the new sound is better, but I don't think those are the people who are likely to consider buying Klipsch anytime soon. People looking for laid-back aren't looking to Klipsch for it!
That is my subjective opinion on recent Klipsch models.

 

[LamontSim]

My subjective take is Klipsch (of the category you are talking about) have made improvements in their horns over time. I had the RP-82 ii's and they were a bit on the harsh side but better than the previous models. I bought them because I feel they are "exciting" speakers for HT! My guess is the horn either emphasizes a certain range associated with impact/crispness (sounds like a drumstick lightly tapping near the center of a cymbal are very distinct and clear). My perception when watching a movie is there is more immediacy, and I like that effect. Also, speech intelligibility is very clear, and the harshness is not an issue for most HT content. I have a friend with a pair that after much careful attention to the toe-in has the speakers suitably off-axis to sound fine for music. However, as you might expect, these speakers are very unforgiving of a poor recording with tipped up treble.
However, the newer Klipsch RP-160m (and that series) is the first Klipsch that I can point directly at me and not feel assaulted. I would characterize this series as forward, but not harsh. They sound pretty good for music, and still offer a lot as a HT speaker. I felt like Klipsch had finally got it right with their Reference Premier series!
More recently I tried out the newest RP-600m to see how that series sounded. I was disappointed, I like a speaker to either be neutral or somewhat forward sounding (I think that also depends on the dispersion - neutral with good dispersion or more forward with less dispersion/reflections), and the newer Klipsch struck me as borderline laid-back!
We'll see how they sell, but I felt they gave up too much of the Klipsch sound. They do not have the "Klipsch energy". Some may feel the new sound is better, but I don't think those are the people who are likely to consider buying Klipsch anytime soon. People looking for laid-back aren't looking to Klipsch for it!
That is my subjective opinion on recent Klipsch models.

Well said.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

Speaker limits are part of the problem. What a 97db speaker can do at 100w would take 1000w for an 87db speaker to pull off.


Subwoofers are designed for deep bass. There's little reason to pursue it from the mains.

Everyone has their preference. Plenty of reasons for some to want strong bass from their main speakers, or the market wouldn't be there. I don't need 20Hz for pipe organs or movie LFE, but strong chest-punching reproduction in the 30-40Hz range is very important. And there is literally no adequate floor space left in my listening room where I could put a sub, so my requirement for towers is that they handle the range of the music I listen to.

 

[JerryLove]

Everyone has their preference. Plenty of reasons for some to want strong bass from their main speakers, or the market wouldn't be there. I don't need 20Hz for pipe organs or movie LFE, but strong chest-punching reproduction in the 30-40Hz range is very important. And there is literally no adequate floor space left in my listening room where I could put a sub, so my requirement for towers is that they handle the range of the music I listen to.

There are two problems with that.
1) 30-40Hz has strong room interactions. Placement for proper sound in that frequency range is generally at odds with, say, placement for 3000-4000Hz.
2) A room too small to fit a sub is likely served by most anything in terms of LF extension; though I've managed to squeeze one in my 10x10 home office... a room I could not fit two towers in.

 

[LamontSim]

There are two problems with that.
1) 30-40Hz has strong room interactions. Placement for proper sound in that frequency range is generally at odds with, say, placement for 3000-4000Hz.
2) A room too small to fit a sub is likely served by most anything in terms of LF extension; though I've managed to squeeze one in my 10x10 home office... a room I could not fit two towers in.

Question, by your statement, are you saying that some rooms may be too small to have a subwoofer in them?

 

[JerryLove]

Question, by your statement, are you saying that some rooms may be too small to have a subwoofer in them?

No. The poster before me said that his room was too small/crowded to fix one.

What I'm saying is that the drivers in my headphones can to 20Hz... just not very loud. As the SPL you ask for goes down, the ability of a given driver to perform increases. At a low enough volume it's possible to play LF content on a small driver (such as a bookshelf speaker).

 

[LamontSim]

No. The poster before me said that his room was too small/crowded to fix one.

What I'm saying is that the drivers in my headphones can to 20Hz... just not very loud. As the SPL you ask for goes down, the ability of a given driver to perform increases. At a low enough volume it's possible to play LF content on a small driver (such as a bookshelf speaker).

You're right. Sorry about the mistake.

 

[LamontSim]

You're right. Sorry about the mistake.

Since I've got your attention, what would you say would be a frequency range for adequate bass someone should look for if not intending to use a sub with bookshelf speakers?