Klipsh: pronounced highs or bass heavy?

[Alex2507]

I had a discussion about this with a friend and his opinion on this was that Klipsh were known for really putting out good bass. My understanding was that they were known for being extremely bright due to their horn tweeters. I have never heard Klipsh speakers but I'm pretty sure that high frequencies were there strong suit and that is the reason many people liked/disliked them.

I would appreciate some input as to what the case truely is. TIA

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I agree with your friend on both counts. I had some Klipsch Reference bookshelves. The bass was awesome for the size, but I had to give them up because the brightness was more than I could stand.

 

[trnqk7]

I heard a pair of Klipsch towers when demoing some B&W 683's in the same room...they sounded better than the 683's I thought. They did have pronounced highs that sounded good with movies, not as good with music-but not bad. Just not detailed enough. Bass was pretty good too, again, better than the 683's (can you tell I had a bad experience listening to the 683's ). I do not know what model they were, other than that they were over $1.5k for the pair I think...Also, I'm not trying to bash 683's or B&W, I think it was mostly the room we were listening in (glass store front in the rear of the room, ugh) and perhaps some of the source material (my listening habits tend to the rock side of things, not classical or jazz, etc). Just my thoughts on them-they sounded good but there might be better deals for the money out there. Would not be a mistake to buy though.

 

[trnqk7]

I also like the "Axiom" sound and the soon to be mine Ikon 6's have dual tweeters...so what it too bright for many sounds good to me I guess. Keep that preference of mine in mind.

 

[TLS Guy]

I heard a pair of Klipsch towers when demoing some B&W 683's in the same room...they sounded better than the 683's I thought. They did have pronounced highs that sounded good with movies, not as good with music-but not bad. Just not detailed enough. Bass was pretty good too, again, better than the 683's (can you tell I had a bad experience listening to the 683's ). I do not know what model they were, other than that they were over $1.5k for the pair I think...Also, I'm not trying to bash 683's or B&W, I think it was mostly the room we were listening in (glass store front in the rear of the room, ugh) and perhaps some of the source material (my listening habits tend to the rock side of things, not classical or jazz, etc). Just my thoughts on them-they sounded good but there might be better deals for the money out there. Would not be a mistake to buy though.

Then Klipsch was probably the right choice for you. They are closest to what your type of music is monitored with at the mix desk.

If it's accuracy and delicacy you want avoid them.

 

[Alex2507]

I agree with your friend on both counts.

There is a misunderstanding here. My friend had only one position on this, that Klipsh were "known" for being good at reproducing bass. Maybe I didn't describe the case well.

 

[trnqk7]

Then Klipsch was probably the right choice for you. They are closest to what your type of music is monitored with at the mix desk.

If it's accuracy and delicacy you want avoid them.

Vs. the 683's, I would agree. However, I believe I'm quite a bit happier with my final selection of the Dali Ikon series. My musical tastes are expanding, slowly, so a good pair of "musical" speakers is an investment in the future so I hopefully don't have to replace them anytime soon. I felt the Dali's did a better job with that IMO.

 

[Halvie]

Sold a pair of RB-25s I had a month or so ago. Compared to speakers I have heard since (studio 20, RS1, B2, 685, mini monitors) the Klipsch was ridiculously bright and had the worst bass out of the bunch. Who knows...I heard the newer models are a lot better than past lines.