I got the feeling that your main purpose in life is to spread bs on AH forums. You keep mixing and confusing between price and value, measured performance, accuracy vs headroom.
“I got the feeling that your main purpose in life is to spread bs on AH forums.”
IMPO, this is a TOS violation. I don’t know why the insulting behavior, but it seems you are seeking to spin my posts out of context.
“You keep mixing and confusing between price and value, measured performance, accuracy vs headroom. While you do have point - at current US prices Klipsch is $139 cheaper than VTF3-MK3 (including shipping), but to expect more expensive sub to better (just because it's more expensive) is false assumption.”
Who made that assumption? To clarify, I said that if one was suggesting that a particular subwoofer was a better performer than another sub, then I’d certainly hope so since it was $140 more expensive. I edited in more appropriate punctuation for clarity.
“We are not talking about "more headroom” but about ability to faithfully reproduce very low bass content at more of less same level as low bass and midbass - this will result in sub which is great for music as well as HT.”
CEA 2010 illustrates headroom at multiple frequencies. I see nothing in the Klipsch measurements to suggest that it can’t achieve quality music and HT for a $720 sub but that’s largely dependent on room and listener demands. CEA 2010 headroom need not be the same in the low and midbass to accomplish listener demands. No one would buy sealed subs if this were the case.
“While Klipsch did make a decent effort to try to take on ID subs, but I won't be calling it "incredibly competitive" just yet.”
Well, I believe that it is quite competitive at its price point, but you should certainly feel free to disagree. I think that it’s even more competitive when Canadian pricing is involved.
“Read again rojo said - 5db difference at 20hz is not just minor - this is huge and rojo was underestimated than you'd need two Klipsch subs to match that, in fact you'd likely need 3 or 4. (you'd get +3db if both sub are located on same wall)”
This is a great example of my point. Now we are talking headroom at one specific frequency. The buyer might achieve all that he needs with one Klipsch sub, and therefore all of this headroom wouldn’t be needed. I get it, a few years ago, this conversation was about a more expensive retail sub that needed 2-4 times itself to match the cheaper ID sub. Klipsch was guilty of this too, but that was then. You can’t keep using this argument when the better performer is actually more expensive.
“Current Klipsch owners Audiovox are hell bend to squeeze every possible cent out of the brands they own and the don't quite give a damn then (not if) they destroy the brand both reputation and quality.”
I disagree wholeheartedly. Klipsch as a brand is still making great products. I think the fact that since they now have, basically one of, if not the only retail sub from a big name speaker manufacturer in the same value/performance light with ID offerings says a lot.
“Speaking of SVS: PB2000 crushes (in low bass, where it matters) klipsch-r-115sw like a fly and at
Going back to my point earlier, if the Klipsch accomplishes desired low bass demands, then why does low bass get the “where it matters” badge? Customer performance demands are where it matters. Low bass wouldn’t get the “where it matters” badge from the customer if the sub didn’t perform as desired at the mid and higher bass levels.
“generally same price point.”
Not for a Canadian customer.
“None is relevant since we just learned that OP had double posted and in other one he mentioned that he's from Canada.”
I also posted that information on this thread.
