Matching left, right and center channels!

[Oddball]

That sums it up nicely. You are putting forth an opinion with no factual basis.

There's nothing wrong with opinions; the psychoacoustics of speakers has an inherently subjective element (though if you aren't familiar with Dr.Toole's work, which you don't appear to be, you'd be surprised how much subjective experience converges, especially to trained ears (you don't seem to have taken that training either).

But if you want to offer an opinion that's in any way interesting you need some combination of acknowledged expertise or factual support (or at least detail regarding specific advantages or differences)... and usually the former is the result of the latter.


Except that it doesn't. There's absolutely no data to support that and, in fact, the Klipsch measures better.

Here's the C428Be (didn't find the C426) on an anechoic measurement
View attachment 68423
Here's the in-room
View attachment 68424
And here's the Klipsch
View attachment 68425


That's hilarious. I don't think you understand how much statements like this harm your credibility with people who have been on AH long enough to know who I am.

You are absolutely wrong in every aspect or your claims. You have decent old system, but far cry from what best systems are nowadays.

Since it seems it is too difficult for you to digest, I will rest my case. Not really interested in spending my time arguing 2006 Klipsch design being the best on the market in 2024.

Enjoy your system and best of luck.

 

[JerryLove]

You are absolutely wrong in every aspect or your claims. You have decent old system,

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, starting with having no idea what I have. The only thing you know is that I own at least one KL-650-THX.

but far cry from what best systems are nowadays. Since it seems it is too difficult for you to digest, I will rest my case. Not really interested in spending my time arguing 2006 Klipsch design being the best on the market in 2024.

We call that a "straw man"... the topic is *your* claims. You have two at the moment.

1) "While there is nothing wrong with having a bookshelf based HT system, it is not the same, or equally performing as having tower based HT system. "

2) "Revel center is at least 3 steps above the Klipsch THX LCR."

Bonus: "Revels we are comparing are bigger speakers that will reach lower and produce bigger and more dynamic sound for bigger rooms. "

The bonus can be addressed.

1. The Revel's are larger.
2. The Revels do extend lower, but that's not actually productive because those frequencies should be handed to the sub for reasons including those I've already spoken on.
3. There's no such thing as "bigger sound". But if you are referring to volume, the Revel maxes as 114db (based on amp recommendations, they don't actually mention max power load) and the Klipsch maxes at 118/119 (depending on which sensitivity value I accept), which makes it almost 2x as loud, and it does that at half the power consumption.
4. "Dynamic sound" is another non-sensical term. Paired with a 20Hz sub, both speaker sets will cover the full range of human hearing (20Hz-20kz), and the Klipsch will do so more accurately (see FR graph from earlier post).

We can touch on #1 a bit as well, but the problem is that you cannot actually articulate a specific claim to respond to. Your support boils down to appeals to Gene and bare "they are better" claims where the only "why" you seem to be able to offer is "they extend lower" (which is not a truism; but even accepted for the sake of argument doesn't address how/why that matters when the frequencies in question are cut to the sub).

Though there's some ambiguity regarding which frequencies are localizable (and a major factor involved is the distance to the source, so the answer isn't exactly the same in all rooms); there's no auditory advantage to putting the non-localizable frequencies on the same speaker as their localizable counterparts. This is why professional venues don't do it. Indeed, as pointed out, there can be significant disadvantage as ideal placement for the two frequency ranges within the room are likely quite different.

You can't support your (false and/or nonsensical) claims. That's why you want to take your ball and go home. You are free to do so; but let's not pretend it's because I'm ignorant here.

 

[Oddball]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, starting with having no idea what I have. The only thing you know is that I own at least one KL-650-THX.


We call that a "straw man"... the topic is *your* claims. You have two at the moment.

1) "While there is nothing wrong with having a bookshelf based HT system, it is not the same, or equally performing as having tower based HT system. "

2) "Revel center is at least 3 steps above the Klipsch THX LCR."

Bonus: "Revels we are comparing are bigger speakers that will reach lower and produce bigger and more dynamic sound for bigger rooms. "

The bonus can be addressed.

1. The Revel's are larger.
2. The Revels do extend lower, but that's not actually productive because those frequencies should be handed to the sub for reasons including those I've already spoken on.
3. There's no such thing as "bigger sound". But if you are referring to volume, the Revel maxes as 114db (based on amp recommendations, they don't actually mention max power load) and the Klipsch maxes at 118/119 (depending on which sensitivity value I accept), which makes it almost 2x as loud, and it does that at half the power consumption.
4. "Dynamic sound" is another non-sensical term. Paired with a 20Hz sub, both speaker sets will cover the full range of human hearing (20Hz-20kz), and the Klipsch will do so more accurately (see FR graph from earlier post).

You can't support your (false and/or nonsensical) claims. That's why you want to take your ball and go home. You are free to do so; but let's not pretend it's because I'm ignorant here.

As I said, hope you will enjoy your 2006 system and I will enjoy mine with fabulous Revel C426 and pristine towers all around

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, the Revel is good at +/- 2.5dB from 200Hz-10Hz, but the Klipsch-650 is +1.0/-0.87dB from 200Hz-10kHz.

So if we are just going off ROCKET SCIENCE data , then the Klipsch on-axis FR is much better scientifically than the Revel - or the Klipsch is THREE 0.5dB-Steps better than the Revel.

But if we are going off 100% subjective personal opinions, then that's different.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, the Revel is good at +/- 2.5dB from 200Hz-10Hz, but the Klipsch-650 is +1.0/-0.87dB from 200Hz-10kHz.

So if we are just going off ROCKET SCIENCE data , then the Klipsch on-axis FR is much better scientifically than the Revel - or the Klipsch is THREE 0.5dB-Steps better than the Revel.

But if we are going off 100% subjective personal opinions, then that's different.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

As I said, hope you will enjoy your 2006 system and I will enjoy mine with fabulous Revel C426 and pristine towers all around

I mean technically, this might be a "Revel" party. So it's expected to hear more party favors for Revel.

But you do realize that unless you upgrade your system every few years, YOUR system (as well as many people's systems) will eventually be an "old" system and someone else will say the same thing about how they are enjoying their "new" speakers.

Bottom line - Revel is a very well respected brand - like RBH, KEF, Focal, Dynaudio, etc.

Other than the 650-THX-Ultra2 speaker which seems to have the absolute best measured listening-window FR in the world at +1.0/-0.87dB, most Klipsch speakers aren't as well respected.

 

[Oddball]

I mean technically, this might be a "Revel" party. So it's expected to hear more party favors for Revel.

But you do realize that unless you upgrade your system every few years, YOUR system as well as many people's systems will eventually be an "old" system and someone else will say the same thing about how they are enjoying their "new" speakers.

Bottom line - Revel is a very well respected brand - like RBH, KEF, Focal, Dynaudio, etc.

Other than the THX-Ultra2 speakers, most Klipsch speakers aren't as well respected.

I actually own and respect other Klipsch speakers more than this 2006 THX line

Not sure why you keep jumping into the thread that is a lost cause though?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I actually own and respect other Klipsch speakers more than this 2006 THX line

Not sure why you keep jumping into the thread that is a lost cause though?

Like I said. The ONLY reason I am on AH is to have FUN by chatting. I'm not here to solve any mystery or make a grand statement or save anything.

Whatever floats into my mind, I will speak it. Why does it matter what topic it is?

Do I own any Klipsch speakers? No I don't.

Would I buy any Klipsch speakers? If I did, it would probably be the Klipsch RF7-III because I love towers with dual-10" or dual-12" woofers.

Just chit-chatting, man.

Many of us are just shooting the breeze and INFORMALLY chatting away and derailing threads all the time.

But why would you respect other Klipsch speakers that measure poorly, but not resect the 650-THX that has the BEST listening-window measurement in the world?

 

[Oddball]

Like I said. The ONLY reason I am on AH is to have FUN by chatting. I'm not here to solve any mystery or make a grand statement or save anything.

Whatever floats into my mind, I will speak it. Why does it matter what topic it is?

Do I own any Klipsch speakers? No I don't.

Would I buy any Klipsch speakers? If I did, it would probably be the Klipsch RF7-III because I love towers with dual-10" or dual-12" woofers.

Just chit-chatting, man.

Many of us are just shooting the breeze and INFORMALLY chatting away and derailing threads all the time.

But why would you respect other Klipsch speakers that measure poorly, but not resect the 650-THX that has the BEST listening-window measurement in the world?

Because they just sound better for me as I am not into bookshelves?

Obviously any constructive input is always appreciated. BTW would pass on big Klipsch towers as well. If looking for Bas’s authority in the towers and integrity across the range there will be others to do better.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Because they just sound better for me as I am not into bookshelves?

Obviously any constructive input is always appreciated. BTW would pass on big Klipsch towers as well. If looking for Bas’s authority in the towers and integrity across the range there will be others to do better.

Yeah, personally I don't prefer bookshelf either.

And I don't own the RF7-III. So, yes, I think there are better towers. Just saying if I were buying a Klipsch, that's what I would get. But it's all about personal preferences here. Everyone is different for sure.

 

[JerryLove]

Other than the 650-THX-Ultra2 speaker which seems to have the absolute best measured listening-window FR in the world at +1.0/-0.87dB, most Klipsch speakers aren't as well respected.

I agree. I don't like the sound of any other Klipsch's I've listened to besides these; which is why these are the only Klipsch in my collection. I find all of the others very harsh in upper frequencies (it took a lot to get me to buy some of the 650s to test).

They tie with the best I've heard, and they do it with lower wattage and better dispersal (for the 7.2 system). They really do sound as good as they measure.

They are ugly; but that's just not an issue for my home theater.

Yeah, personally I don't prefer bookshelf either.

Same. I've had far more systems setup with towers than bookshelves. That's why I've been so specific with the other poster that I'm discussing the audio quality, not general preference.

 

[JerryLove]

But you do realize that unless you upgrade your system every few years, YOUR system (as well as many people's systems) will eventually be an "old" system and someone else will say the same thing about how they are enjoying their "new" speakers.

I've owned speakers from the 1950s to the 2020s. I haven't noticed that they reliably improve over time. Have you? I find, for example, The Infiniti RS series (RS1, RS2, and RS3) hold up just fine against modern high-end towers. Indeed: when I owned both an 80's B&W 801 Matrix 2 and a 2000's B&W 801D, the main difference (other than the 801D being the *only* speaker I've owned that *required* me to put on a high-capability amp (shoved the McIntosh on it to deal with the Ohm spike) with in LF extension. Crossed over, the two sounded near-enough identical.

How about you? Do you find speakers that were "best of the market" 20 years ago don't compete for audio quality today?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've owned speakers from the 1950s to the 2020s. I haven't noticed that they reliably improve over time. Have you? I find, for example, The Infiniti RS series (RS1, RS2, and RS3) hold up just fine against modern high-end towers. Indeed: when I owned both an 80's B&W 801 Matrix 2 and a 2000's B&W 801D, the main difference (other than the 801D being the *only* speaker I've owned that *required* me to put on a high-capability amp (shoved the McIntosh on it to deal with the Ohm spike) with in LF extension. Crossed over, the two sounded near-enough identical.

How about you? Do you find speakers that were "best of the market" 20 years ago don't compete for audio quality today?

I think speakers that sound great 30 years ago can still sound as good as any new speaker.

I think it’s funny when people keep on saying the “newest” or “latest” models sound much better.

But it’s understandable. To sell speakers (and amps, AVP, AVR), manufacturers and dealers feel they need to say that every new model NUMBER sounds much better. And consumers feel the need to justify paying big money for the latest model numbers.

We’re grown adults here. No need for any of us to do any piss!ing contests and show who’s got better.

Only thing that matters to us is how we feel about our own systems, not showing off to forum members, which I was guilty of also doing when I was younger.

 

[ski2xblack]

Other than the 650-THX-Ultra2 speaker which seems to have the absolute best measured listening-window FR in the world at +1.0/-0.87dB, most Klipsch speakers aren't as well respected.

Well, the 650THX aren't really a Klipsch speaker. They were designed by Phil Bamberg (he's posted here in the past), and adhere to more Toole/Olive/Harman design standards than any other Klipsch. He knocked it out of the park with them.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, the 650THX aren't really a Klipsch speaker. They were designed by Phil Bamberg (he's posted here in the past), and adhere to more Toole/Olive/Harman design standards than any other Klipsch. He knocked it out of the park with them.

Got more to share about his career? Sounds very interesting....

 

[ski2xblack]

Got more to share about his career? Sounds very interesting....

Audioholics Home Theater Forums

Home theater discussion forums powered by Audioholics.com Free registration and guests can post.

forums.audioholics.com

He was last active here about a decade ago, but he's a forum member. I'm not sure why the link to his profile page is so nondescript, but that's him. Check his posting history. I think he had his own line of speakers as well as helping Klipsch, possibly others, do it right.

Edit: his site is www.bambergaudio.com

 

[Teetertotter?]

Well, it is Klipsch Bookshelf for MY Ears, as opposed to others, collecting basement dust. I need speakers that Party and not laid back. You know what I mean? As someone mentioned and has many times, "It's what YOUR ears like."

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I need speakers that Party and not laid back. You know what I mean? As someone mentioned and has many times, "It's what YOUR ears like."

Yeah, I would recommend the Klipsch RF7-III for some of my friends who like that PARTY ANIMAL sound and sing karaoke AND don't want to pay too much since I can get them the Klipsch for a good price.

 

[JerryLove]

We’re grown adults here. No need for any of us to do any piss!ing contests and show who’s got better.

Apologies: I wasn't *trying* to do that, but I certainly see your interpretation of my post as a reasonable read

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Apologies: I wasn't *trying* to do that, but I certainly see your interpretation of my post as a reasonable read

Oh no, I was actually NOT implying that at all. I was thinking about MY OWN posts over the years as a younger person!