Klipsch R-115SW review?

[3db]

SVS is expensive up here in Canada now that our loony has tanked. Our US friends do not appreciate how much that bites into our purchasing power, especially when adding an additional 10 percent provincial tax as a minimum. If midbass is more important than low bass, the Klipsch is the way to go. All other arguments about performance is strictly academic at this point.

 

[shadyJ]

So if one is after mid bass performance where a majority of the bass lies, wouldn't you choose the Klipsch over the SVS? You're choice of the SVS as being more admirable has me vexed because you keep mentioning mid bass response as a more important factor.

I wouldn't say mid bass is more important. I would say what is more important is a matter of user preference. The SVS has a healthy amount of mid bass output anyway. What is admirable about the SVS sub is the very clean deep bass they use as a performance target. They could easily give that up in exchange for big mid bass output and save a bunch of money.

 

[ATLAudio]

I would agree they are definitely still making excellent products. Their new lower end reference series sounds better than their synergy and icon series and I would even go as far as to say better than their reference II series, based solely on the fact that they aren't ear piecingly bright and fairly accurate. Their premier series is truly something to behold. Regardless, klipsch still isn't the greatest at making subwoofers, and unlike their speakers their low end response ratings are exaggerated.

I can't remember where I read it but some other reviewer found it to poop out below around 25hz in output. For a driver this size that's not acceptable. The cabinet is just too small for it to be tuned as low as they claim it to be.

While the lower end Reference are certainly an improvement over Icon/Synergy, I'd stop short of considering them an improvement over Reference II. Read KEWs review of my set up with Reference II, nothing ear piercingly bright at all. Reference Premiere offers slightly better dispersion in high frequencies than Reference II.

Granted, the low-end response stated on the manufacturer specs is given at 1/8th space, but we also have Brent Butterworth's CEA-2010 measurements. Assuming he knew what he was doing, and I'm comfortable believing that he does, it does not poop out at 25 hz. Now, Josh tested the old Klipsch SW311 and said something similar to the 25hz quote.

 

[yepimonfire]

While the lower end Reference are certainly an improvement over Icon/Synergy, I'd stop short of considering them an improvement over Reference II. Read KEWs review of my set up with Reference II, nothing ear piercingly bright at all. Reference Premiere offers slightly better dispersion in high frequencies than Reference II.

Granted, the low-end response stated on the manufacturer specs is given at 1/8th space, but we also have Brent Butterworth's CEA-2010 measurements. Assuming he knew what he was doing, and I'm comfortable believing that he does, it does not poop out at 25 hz. Now, Josh tested the old Klipsch SW311 and said something similar to the 25hz quote.

It could have been that then.

 

[yepimonfire]

SVS is expensive up here in Canada now that our loony has tanked. Our US friends do not appreciate how much that bites into our purchasing power, especially when adding an additional 10 percent provincial tax as a minimum. If midbass is more important than low bass, the Klipsch is the way to go. All other arguments about performance is strictly academic at this point.

I wouldn't call anything below 60hz midbass. From a musical standpoint that's incorrect. If you want good midbass (from 70hz on) performance, any good speaker, or bookshelf even, is good at that, in fact probably better at it than a huge heavy driver.

All things aside, affordability comes before all. If you can't afford an American subwoofer in Canada, but you can buy the klipsch off the shelf at an amount you can afford, then Svs is irrelevant. Price difference and availability not being a factor, always pick the better one. Any correctly designed subwoofer can perform well between 30-100hz. Getting down to that magic 20hz and better yet below it is a much harder task. The exception to this is the needs of the user. If all you want to do is listen to music, you probably don't need a sub that plays flat to 20hz (excluding pipe organ lovers).

 

[KEW]

SVS is expensive up here in Canada now that our loony has tanked. Our US friends do not appreciate how much that bites into our purchasing power, especially when adding an additional 10 percent provincial tax as a minimum. If midbass is more important than low bass, the Klipsch is the way to go. All other arguments about performance is strictly academic at this point.

You need to hook up with Funk (like Curtis hooked up with Dave F. of Ascend to produce the HVL-1) and start producing one or two models of (relatively) inexpensive, higher volume, value oriented subs!

 

[ATLAudio]

If midbass is more important than low bass, the Klipsch is the way to go. All other arguments about performance is strictly academic at this point.

It's not if midbass or low bass is more important, they could both be, or even the opposite of what you say and low bass is more important. it's a question of if the cheaper sub accomplishes listener demands at ALL measured levels. At that point, assuming no other sonic benefits, additional headroom in the more expensive sub simply becomes an unused premium.

 

[rojo]

It's not if midbass or low bass is more important, they could both be, or even the opposite of what you say and low bass is more important. it's a question of if the cheaper sub accomplishes listener demands at ALL measured levels. At that point, assuming no other sonic benefits, additional headroom in the more expensive sub simply becomes an unused premium.

Not necessarily. More headroom can be a product of a better driver, one which exhibits a more symmetrical BL(x). Hypothetically speaking, the Klipsch sub playing at 80% might have the same SPL as the Hsu sub playing at 40%, which would be as loud as the user would ever need. Does this mean the benefits of the Hsu sub would be wasted? No. The Hsu sub will do this with shallower excursion, where the driver motion is more controlled. More headroom means less harmonic distortion at a given SPL. But since OP is in Canada, it's not even worth continuing to beat this dead horse anyway.

 

[ATLAudio]

Not necessarily. More headroom can be a product of a better driver, one which exhibits a more symmetrical BL(x). Hypothetically speaking, the Klipsch sub playing at 80% might have the same SPL as the Hsu sub playing at 40%, which would be as loud as the user would ever need. Does this mean the benefits of the Hsu sub would be wasted? No. The Hsu sub will do this with shallower excursion, where the driver motion is more controlled. More headroom means less harmonic distortion at a given SPL. But since OP is in Canada, it's not even worth continuing to beat this dead horse anyway.

It's still a good conversation to have as the next guy might not be Canadian. And, you make a good point, but again, for the sake of the argument, I'm assuming no other sonic benefits, like driver materials which can go either way for all I know. That said, CEA 2010 measurements take audible distortion levels into account for max head-room.

 

[shadyJ]

It's still a good conversation to have as the next guy might not be Canadian. And, you make a good point, but again, for the sake of the argument, I'm assuming no other sonic benefits, like driver materials which can go either way for all I know. That said, CEA 2010 measurements take audible distortion levels into account for max head-room.

That is what CEA claims, but the truth is that CEA-2010 level distortion thresholds are very audible. I think it has more to do with when the driver reaches the edge of its performance envelope, as the threshold seems to correspond to that point more so than the audibility of distortion.

 

[3db]

I wouldn't call anything below 60hz midbass. From a musical standpoint that's incorrect. If you want good midbass (from 70hz on) performance, any good speaker, or bookshelf even, is good at that, in fact probably better at it than a huge heavy driver.

All things aside, affordability comes before all. If you can't afford an American subwoofer in Canada, but you can buy the klipsch off the shelf at an amount you can afford, then Svs is irrelevant. Price difference and availability not being a factor, always pick the better one. Any correctly designed subwoofer can perform well between 30-100hz. Getting down to that magic 20hz and better yet below it is a much harder task. The exception to this is the needs of the user. If all you want to do is listen to music, you probably don't need a sub that plays flat to 20hz (excluding pipe organ lovers).

I chose Rythmik's sub because deep bass is more important to me than midbass head room. The LV12-R has more than enough reserve in my room to drive bass to overly loud values.

 

[ATLAudio]

That is what CEA claims, but the truth is that CEA-2010 level distortion thresholds are very audible. I think it has more to do with when the driver reaches the edge of its performance envelope, as the threshold seems to correspond to that point more so than the audibility of distortion.

More specifically they CAN be audible. To suggest they are "very audible," while true in the strictest sense, is outside the situational scope of my comment, and or the goals of CEA-2010. While audibility (at some level and sense of the word) is likely one driver for CEA-2010 thresholds, I know of nowhere in CEA-2010 does it say that thresholds are the strictest points of audibility, in all conditions, with all material, test tones vs real world material, appealing 2nd orders vs unappealing 3rd orders... forever and ever, amen, mic drop, word to your mother.

In your own write-up you mentioned why CEA threshold levels were higher than strict laboratory tested audibility levels and gave a pretty good explanation.

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/audibility-of-distortion-at-bass/total-harmonic-distortion-thd

 

[shadyJ]

More specifically they CAN be audible. To suggest they are "very audible," while true in the strictest sense, is outside the situational scope of my comment, and or the goals of CEA-2010. While audibility (at some level and sense of the word) is likely one driver for CEA-2010 thresholds, I know of nowhere in CEA-2010 does it say that thresholds are the strictest points of audibility, in all conditions, with all material, test tones vs real world material, appealing 2nd orders vs unappealing 3rd orders... forever and ever, amen, mic drop, word to your mother.

In your own write-up you mentioned why CEA threshold levels were higher than strict laboratory tested audibility levels and gave a pretty good explanation.

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/audibility-of-distortion-at-bass/total-harmonic-distortion-thd

I am not sure what point you are arguing against, but it's good to see at least someone read that article! You are right that the consumer electronics association does not assert that the thresholds are points of audibility, only that what is audible is a factor in deciding their thresholds. I just don't think it was the main criteria for establishing those thresholds. It is very much an imperfect measurement standard, but its better than what existed before.

 

[ATLAudio]

I am not sure what point you are arguing against, but it's good to see at least someone read that article! You are right that the consumer electronics association does not assert that the thresholds are points of audibility, only that what is audible is a factor in deciding their thresholds. I just don't think it was the main criteria for establishing those thresholds. It is very much an imperfect measurement standard, but it's better than what existed before.

The special pleading nature of your comment seemed to suggest that the strictest audibility thresholds should be where CEA-2010 thresholds are implemented. I do not agree with this idea, nor do you based off your write-up, so I was a little confused.

"Very much imperfect," is too strong IMO, although it's certainly not without its limitations.

 

[shadyJ]

I actually would like to see thresholds that do correspond strongly with the audibility of distortion. The problem is the audibility of harmonic distortion isn't very well known. I'm not sure what a more sensible metric for gauging subwoofer performance should be than the point where it begins to audibly lose accuracy.

 

[djreef]

I actually would like to see thresholds that do correspond strongly with the audibility of distortion. The problem is the audibility of harmonic distortion isn't very well known. I'm not sure what a more sensible metric for gauging subwoofer performance should be than the point where it begins to audibly lose accuracy.

...and of couse would be completely variable from one person to another since no two subjects would hear the distortions the same. Hell, truth be known most wouldn't even notice it occurring unless it were painfully obvious.

DJ

 

[shadyJ]

...and of couse would be completely variable from one person to another since no two subjects would hear the distortions the same. Hell, truth be known most wouldn't even notice it occurring unless it were painfully obvious.

DJ

I don't quite agree. I think for most people it would sound the same. Some people with moderate to severe hearing loss might not hear it the same as those with healthy hearing due the widening of their auditory filters. I do agree that for many people distortion in bass frequencies would have to be pretty high to notice, but only if they didn't know what to listen for.

 

[djreef]

I don't quite agree. I think for most people it would sound the same. Some people with moderate to severe hearing loss might not hear it the same as those with healthy hearing due the widening of their auditory filters. I do agree that for many people distortion in bass frequencies would have to be pretty high to notice, but only if they didn't know what to listen for.

Ya, that kinda was my point. If it were midrange to upper frequencies then it would be a little more obvious.

DJ

 

[ATLAudio]

I actually would like to see thresholds that do correspond strongly with the audibility of distortion. The problem is the audibility of harmonic distortion isn't very well known. I'm not sure what a more sensible metric for gauging subwoofer performance should be than the point where it begins to audibly lose accuracy.

The simplicity of CEA-2010 has likely contributed to its rapid acceptance and survival because its of its reliability to users and manufacturers. Again, I thought you laid out a very good, and detailed reasoning for why the strictest audible distortion levels weren't used in CEA-2010. I still agree with it, but it seems like you're distancing yourself from it. Is accuracy of reproduction a driver for CEA-2010 distortion thresholds?

 

[shadyJ]

The simplicity of CEA-2010 has likely contributed to its rapid acceptance and survival because its of its reliability to users and manufacturers. Again, I thought you laid out a very good, and detailed reasoning for why the strictest audible distortion levels weren't used in CEA-2010. I still agree with it, but it seems like you're distancing yourself from it. Is accuracy of reproduction a driver for CEA-2010 distortion thresholds?

CEA-2010 definitely has not gained rapid acceptance, and its survival is still a questionable matter. It's easy for us subwoofer enthusiasts on these kind of forums to lose sight of how insignificant CEA-2010 is, because it is a major metric to us, but we are a small group of people. First of all, most subwoofer reviewers do not use CEA-2010 in their measurements, if they do measurements at all. There are only 3 subwoofer reviewers bothering with it at all. Also, many manufacturers do not bother using CEA-2010 to gauge the performance of their own products, and I am talking about companies doing internal testing on their own products, not just those companies who make their CEA-2010 measurements publicly available (only 2 companies do that). It wouldn't be hard for CEA-2010 to just fall by the wayside and not see anymore use. The Consumer Electronics Association also released a similar measurement standard for loudspeakers called CEA-2034; you probably haven't heard of it, because no one uses it. They also released CEA-2010-B which is a more advanced standard for subwoofer measurement, and again, I would be surprised if you had heard about it, because no one uses it. Personally I don't have a tremendous amount of confidence in CEA-2010's future. Don't mistake this as me rooting against it; I am not. I just don't see it as ever being very popular.

You mentioned its reliability the reliability of the standard, but there are variables that can still mess with measurements that are not accounted for the the CEA-2010 protocol, and for this reason I only advise using them as a rough guideline between comparing subwoofer performance, not an exact one.

You also mention simplicity; well, I suppose the presentation of CEA-2010 measurements as a few numbers can be regarded as simple, but the way those numbers are measured and the reason behind the measuring technique is not simple. I think people would only find the meaning of those numbers simple if explained in broad strokes, but the details are a bit complicated for many.

Regarding my position on the threshold used for CEA-2010, it is not quite the same as what I wrote in that article. I explained the justification for the CEA-2010 thresholds, but I didn't say whether I agreed with that justification in the article. Like I said before, since the audibility of distortion in bass frequencies hasn't been researched with tremendous depth, there is not much for the CEA standards committee to go on. There has only been one serious study, and it is not at all comprehensive. As I said before, the CEA-2010 thresholds seem to correspond more the point where the subwoofer loses any sense of linear playback rather than audibility of distortion, but given the lack of research in audibility of distortion, this is a reasonable way to establish those thresholds.

I think that a threshold for actually hearing distortion would be more severe then the current thresholds. I would prefer that kind of threshold, because it would be a metric for accurate playback which is what I am more concerned with as an audio enthusiast, rather then the present metric which sets itself on the point where the subwoofer has almost lost control totally. The present thresholds are very forgiving of error and is not indicative of high fidelity playback.