Klipsch RF-82ii vs JBL Studio 580

[KEW]

I think Audyssey is still functioning in some way, even in Pure Direct.

Why?
Are you finding that YPAO is doing this in your system?

Easy enough to make sure!
We can measure FR, then do a factory reset, manually enter level and phase/distance to match what the "Audyssey" setup said, then remeasure FR. If any RoomEQ was applied, it should readily show up as a disparity between the two FR graphs!
But I have a hard time believing that Denon (and by association, Marantz) would say Pure Direct and still have EQ active. That is too obvious to measure and so far they have not been shown to engage in deception. Having a pure direct mode which included RoomEQ would be a pretty big scandal to their well-established reputation!

 

[TheWarrior]

Why?
Are you finding that YPAO is doing this in your system?

Easy enough to make sure!
We can measure FR, then do a factory reset, manually enter level and phase/distance to match what the "Audyssey" setup said, then remeasure FR. If any RoomEQ was applied, it should readily show up as a disparity between the two FR graphs!
But I have a hard time believing that Denon (and by association, Marantz) would say Pure Direct and still have EQ active. That is too obvious to measure and so far they have not been shown to engage in deception. Having a pure direct mode which included RoomEQ would be a pretty big scandal to their well-established reputation!

Unless there was something wrong with your CD, as I recall, we needed to make volume adjustments for each track. That suggests to me that there was something else happening to the signal, which I attribute to signal processing. Guess we'll have to test it....

 

[Dennis Murphy]

So. After all the buzz about JBL wave guides, I broke down and ordered a pair of the 590's on sale at New Egg. Note to self. Always look at shipping weights and dimensions before pressing "Order." These things are freaking huuuuuuuuuuuuuge. They arrived UPS freight strapped on a pallet, along with a very grumpy truck driver. I managed to slide one of them down the stairs to my office for some measurements. How I'm getting it back up remains a deep mystery. I doubt very much that I'll be able to make any definitive measurements. The response differs radically depending on the distance from the speaker and height of the mic. I may actually have to listen to these things. All I can say for sure is that they tune to 40 Hz, which is consistent with the stated -6 dB point of 35 Hz.

 

[KEW]

Unless there was something wrong with your CD, as I recall, we needed to make volume adjustments for each track. That suggests to me that there was something else happening to the signal, which I attribute to signal processing. Guess we'll have to test it....

Oh, I know that! The difference in the bass output is pretty significant between these speakers! If we played a track with a fair amount of low frequency content, the JBL's would sound louder, then once we matched volume for that condition, a track with less bass content would show the Klipsch as louder!

 

[KEW]

Oh, I know that! The difference in the bass output is pretty significant between these speakers! If we played a track with a fair amount of low frequency content, the JBL's would sound louder, then once we matched volume for that condition, a track with less bass content would show the Klipsch as louder!

I know this begs the question of using white noise to level match; and while I agree that is a good technique for a formal standard with repeatability, I'd rather listen to the guitar in the introductory section of Eagles Hell Freezes Over, Hotel California at the same volume to see which speaker replicates the guitar better. With white noise, the added bass from the JBL's compared to Klipsch would cause them to be turned down such that the Klipsch would have an advantage of playing the guitar section at a higher SPL.

 

[zieglj01]

I managed to slide one of them down the stairs to my office for some measurements. How I'm getting it back up remains a deep mystery. I doubt very much that I'll be able to make any definitive measurements. The response differs radically depending on the distance from the speaker and height of the mic. I may actually have to listen to these things. All I can say for sure is that they tune to 40 Hz, which is consistent with the stated -6 dB point of 35 Hz.

Scroll down near the bottom of the page -- to see what AV-HUB Australia (Newport Labs) came up with.
http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/australian-hifi_reviews_2013_2013-08_jbl-studio-590-loudspeakers-review.pdf

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Scroll down near the bottom of the page -- to see what AV-HUB Australia (Newport Labs) came up with.
http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/australian-hifi_reviews_2013_2013-08_jbl-studio-590-loudspeakers-review.pdf

thanks for the link. Those measurements are made at 3 meters, which suggest that lab has an anechoic chamber. The 1/3 octave smoothing covers up a lot of deviations, particularly in the highs. I'll just have to listen to see whether some of the roughness I'm seeing up high actually colors the sound.

 

[Beave]

I know this begs the question of using white noise to level match; and while I agree that is a good technique for a formal standard with repeatability, I'd rather listen to the guitar in the introductory section of Eagles Hell Freezes Over, Hotel California at the same volume to see which speaker replicates the guitar better. With white noise, the added bass from the JBL's compared to Klipsch would cause them to be turned down such that the Klipsch would have an advantage of playing the guitar section at a higher SPL.

Why not use band-limited pink noise? You can use your AVR's bass management highpass filter set to about 200 or 250Hz to remove bass from the pink noise. Filtering the highs out isn't so easy, but there's far less spectral energy there.

 

[yepimonfire]

So. After all the buzz about JBL wave guides, I broke down and ordered a pair of the 590's on sale at New Egg. Note to self. Always look at shipping weights and dimensions before pressing "Order." These things are freaking huuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

Reminds me of the time I ordered a Sub 1500 with the intention of placing it in an 11x10 room. I believe the design of the horn on the 500 series is a bi radial, which differs from their image control waveguide. The straight walls at the throat would suggest it is design for constant directivity though.

 

[bradymartin]

any thoughts about upgrading from klipsch rp-280s to jbl 580 or jbl 590s?

love my rp280s but im getting the upgrade itch, if the jbls are an upgrade.

the 280s bass is there. just wondering about the tweeters. i read people who have owned both like the jbls better.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Maybe @KEW can chime in. I believe (iirc) he did an experiment with both. Seems like he liked both for different applications. I’ve always even more a fan of JBL than klipsch but it’s not like I blindly dislike klipsch. Jbl has just been better for me. Hopefully Kurt can help.

 

[yepimonfire]

The JBL 580s have more bass but are less efficient, they're also a bit flatter sounding in the treble. It's more of a side grade than an upgrade.

any thoughts about upgrading from klipsch rp-280s to jbl 580 or jbl 590s?

love my rp280s but im getting the upgrade itch, if the jbls are an upgrade.

the 280s bass is there. just wondering about the tweeters. i read people who have owned both like the jbls better.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

The JBL 580s have more bass but are less efficient, they're also a bit flatter sounding in the treble. It's more of a side grade than an upgrade.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

When did you get the 580s? Don't remember you posting about those. I own 590s and 580s but can't compare to those particular Klipsch, altho have heard the bookshelfs from the series which a friend had, didn't really like those.

ps Brain fart, haven't heard the RP series, was thinking RF

 

[KEW]

Maybe @KEW can chime in. I believe (iirc) he did an experiment with both. Seems like he liked both for different applications. I’ve always even more a fan of JBL than klipsch but it’s not like I blindly dislike klipsch. Jbl has just been better for me. Hopefully Kurt can help.

I'll see if I can compare JBL 580 vs Klipsch RP-160m later this week.
The most obvious difference between the RF-62ii and the RP-160m is how the horn projects sound. With the RF-62ii, I prefer to toe the speakers so they are at least 5 degrees off of directly facing me. With the RP-160m, I can point them directly at me with good results. My initial sense is that the new Klipsch RP horn is more like the JBL Studio 5XX series design in its presentation.

 

[Verdinut]

Scroll down near the bottom of the page -- to see what AV-HUB Australia (Newport Labs) came up with.
http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/australian-hifi_reviews_2013_2013-08_jbl-studio-590-loudspeakers-review.pdf

I've just perused the article in the Australian HiFi Review.
On page 82 with the impedance curves, IMO, there's has to be an error, and most probably more than one. They show a curve with both ports open, one with one bung blocking one of the ports and one with both ports blocked:
1. By the addition of one bung, the box resonance frequency has to increase but it's very similar on the graph
2. If you use the two bungs, the box resonance will grossly increase in frequency. Also, if the two ports are blocked, the box for practical purposes acts as a sealed box and therefore, there should be only one impedance peak not two!
I don't trust the information in that review.

 

[lovinthehd]

I've just perused the article in the Australian HiFi Review.
On page 82 with the impedance curves, IMO, there's has to be an error, and most probably more than one. They show a curve with both ports open, one with one bung blocking one of the ports and one with both ports blocked:
1. By the addition of one bung, the box resonance frequency has to increase but it's very similar on the graph
2. If you use the two bungs, the box resonance will grossly increase in frequency. Also, if the two ports are blocked, the box for practical purposes acts as a sealed box and therefore, there should be only one impedance peak not two!
I don't trust the information in that review.

The review is for the 590 not the 580 fwiw.

 

[Verdinut]

The review is for the 590 not the 580 fwiw.

Even if the review is for the 590, the impedance curves shown don't make any sense.

 

[lovinthehd]

Even if the review is for the 590, the impedance curves shown don't make any sense.

Can you explain more with corresponding examples of similar speakers? For example, why would this design only have one impedance peak? Is there something unusual about a 2.5 way design that would account for that?

 

[Verdinut]

Can you explain more with corresponding examples of similar speakers? For example, why would this design only have one impedance peak? Is there something unusual about a 2.5 way design that would account for that?

All sealed enclosures have only one resonance, the woofer cone resonance, and at that resonant frequency, the impedance increases abruptly.
On the other hand, a ported enclosure usually shows two impedance peaks, except for some transmission lines and a very few bass reflex designs. Contrarily to the sealed box with the impedance peak at the moving mass resonant point, in the usual ported cabinet the impedance is at its lowest at the box resonant frequency and the big peak which you would see in a sealed box, should you add a port to it, would be split in two smaller peaks, one lower than the box resonant frequency and the second one at a higher frequency than the box resonant frequency(fb).
The amplitude of the impedance peaks is related to the woofer parameters and vary on the tuned frequency of the box compared to the driver's free air resonant frequency.
Whether a box encloses a 2-way or a 2.5- way design, this has no direct relation with the above.

 

[Verdinut]

Here is an article with explanation on impedance curves:

http://audiojudgement.com/speaker-impedance-curve-explained/