or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › HT: Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HT: Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity? - Page 3

post #61 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEastSide View Post

Well, anywhere from 88db to 98db. When I say high efficiency, I'm talking about the likes of Klipsch. Unless, Klipsch really aren't that sensitive and it's just an inflated number. I've compared some high-end Klipsch to other speakers with lower sensitivity and I wasn't blown away by the Klipsch or hearing details/dynamics that I'd never heard in the less efficient speaker. All I heard in the Klipsch was harder/sharper treble that almost seemed to hurt my ears after extended listening. I don't know...

Again with the brand generalizations... You should hear fully horn-loaded Klipsch speakers with sensitivities from 104 to 109 (not inflated either).
post #62 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post


No worries with me, I won't be harassing you to trade.
After all, I heard $100 Infinity speakers at Walmart and wasn't impressed, so, generalizing based on brand name, your Interludes must sound the same too.

Wow. Who generalized? I stated that I've heard many different Klipsch HT's. I'd say that I'm entitled to an opinion. As are you, if in fact you've heard more than the one pair of Infinity speakers.

Let's begin with how much subjectivity there is in this hobby. Then let's move on to the possibility that there are several manufacturers with many different speakers and price points, your generalization doesn't fit in the conversation. Back to my subjective opinion, I'm glad you like your speakers despite the lack of reciprocation, but I get a headache even standing near most Klipsch speakers. To each his own.

Peace.
post #63 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Again with the brand generalizations... You should hear fully horn-loaded Klipsch speakers with sensitivities from 104 to 109 (not inflated either).

I only bring up Klipsch cause they're pretty much the highest efficiency speakers I've heard. Assuming the 98db spec on the RF82 speakers is accurate, you'd think I'd hear some sort of improved dynamics between those and my 91db speakers, if the dynamics difference should be so noticeable, but I really don't hear a difference, other than what I'd consider, a really strong emphasis on treble.

That said, I'm not knocking anyone who says there's a world of difference, just that I don't seem to hear it... I don't know. And I still don't get why so many speaker companies (reputable companies) choose to use designs that result in 88db to 92db, if it sucks so bad...
post #64 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

Wow. Who generalized? I stated that I've heard many different Klipsch HT's. I'd say that I'm entitled to an opinion. As are you, if in fact you've heard more than the one pair of Infinity speakers.

Just poking fun at you guys' persistent brand generalizations, thus my joke at knowing how your speakers sound based on a $100 pair of the same brand.

Plus, it's generally bad form to criticize other people's speakers in such blanket statements.
post #65 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

Try listening to 98db vs 89db speaker and tell me its even remotely close. Unless your room is super tiny it wont even be a fair comparison because the 89db speaker will make the movie sound absolutely lifeless in a big room.

Been there, done that. My room is slightly bigger than yours and my speakers certainly have no problem creating a convincing sound for movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

As i said before, i think the only reason people own low sensitivity speakers is because they either have to account for WAF, or theyre ignorant and dont understand the numbers and performance behind real home theater speakers.

Ever heard of different horses for different courses? Some people have different priorities. I sacrificed ultimate SPL levels for more convincing stereo playback. Sure, my JTR's played incredibly loud and were very clear. If they did a decent job at imaging or making me believe I had anything but a pair of JTR's in front of me, they'd still be sitting in front of me. Instead, I had to buy a pair of speakers that do a better job of giving me that stereo experience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

I know i was part of the ignorant crowd, and used to recommend people dynaudio and stuff like that, when those speakers are basically a waste of money.

Calling most of the forum ignorant or whipped because they don't value the same things you do leads me to believe you haven't left that crowd yet.
post #66 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEastSide View Post

Assuming the 98db spec on the RF82 speakers is accurate.

It isn't. You can have this:
98dB @ 2.83V / 1m
Or you can have this:
33Hz-24KHz ± 3dB

But from direct radiating 8" woofers you can't have both. That sensitivity is inflated by as much as 6dB.
post #67 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

Sure, my JTR's played incredibly loud and were very clear. If they did a decent job at imaging or making me believe I had anything but a pair of JTR's in front of me, they'd still be sitting in front of me. Instead, I had to buy a pair of speakers that do a better job of giving me that stereo experience.

You're thinking of this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1412156



A bit OT, but I don't personally think that imaging is necessarily better on low sensitivity speakers. I discovered imaging on high sensitivity speakers and have yet to experience it as well using low sensitivity speakers. Haven't heard JTRs though.
post #68 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEastSide View Post

Well, anywhere from 88db to 98db. When I say high efficiency, I'm talking about the likes of Klipsch. Unless, Klipsch really aren't that sensitive and it's just an inflated number. I've compared some high-end Klipsch to other speakers with lower sensitivity and I wasn't blown away by the Klipsch or hearing details/dynamics that I'd never heard in the less efficient speaker. All I heard in the Klipsch was harder/sharper treble that almost seemed to hurt my ears after extended listening. I don't know...

Ive only listened to klipschorns for 5 mins, i havent listened to anything else from klipsch. When you say "compared" how did you compare them? Was there klipsch and B&W in a room and you switched back and forth while watching a movie?

I dont think youve truly compared high sensitivity speakers, you may have HEARD high sensitivity speakers but its not really the same thing.

Im laying out the facts of my situation:
19x13x11' room. Listening position is 13 feet away from the speakers. QSC K12 vs monitor audio RS6s in the exact same room and i can switch between them. The monitor audio RS6s sound HIGHLY compressed during loud movie scenes (because they are).

Do your comparisons have anything in common with my comparison?

Im not talking about the nuances of a silk dome vs a metal dome tweeter here, im talking about very real numbers that explain why low sensitivity speakers cannot make sounds above certain levels due to the laws of physics.

Quote:


EDIT: And Furthermore, a ton of companies produce speakers in the 88db to 92db range. If they suck so much and are such terrible speakers, why would so many speaker companies choose this sensitivity range? I don't get it.

Im not sure whether youre appealing to authority here, or youre appealing to ad populum.

First: manufacturers are not engineers. Any acoustical engineer at paradigm understands how sound pressure levels work, unfortunately paradigm is a company like B&W that has a very clear "look" they want to achieve. You cant fit a 14" waveguide in a speaker thats only 8" wide. ANY speaker thats skinny is compromising looks for sound. Ill do my own little appeal to authority: JBL, which is basically the industry leader when it comes to engineering and white papers, own "best" speaker is the everest... a speaker with a compression driver and extremely high sensitivity.

Second: Companies make speakers that have WAF and you cant do high sensitivity with that in mind.

What youre arguing is similar to people who question "why would i buy floorstanding speakers when a bose system sounds exactly the same in small cubes?"

That question is considered absurd on AVS because people understand the physics of speakers up to a point. Just like moving from bose to floorstanders would be considered a giant leap, so would moving from floorstanders to high sensitivity speakers with large 12" woofers and 12" waveguides. Why is the first part of that sentence so easy for people to grasp but not the second part??
post #69 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Just poking fun at you guys' persistent brand generalizations, thus my joke at knowing how your speakers sound based on a $100 pair of the same brand.

Plus, it's generally bad form to criticize other people's speakers in such blanket statements.

Well take or leave my advice, i dont care, i wish someone would have told me to stop wasting money on speakers that are completely compromised for the sake of looking nice in a living room.

If you dont like it then rationalize it however you please, unfortunately like i said above, im not arguing nuances between subjective differences, im arguing hard numbers that are audible above EVERYTHING else about a speaker. Who cares if your ribbon tweeter is $1000 if its 85db sensitivity and it has horrendous harmonic distortion at levels near 100db.

If you: require certain aesthetics (or) can only fit a certain size of speaker (or) listen to music at low levels (or) listen to movies at extremely low levels then you can ignore my thread because it doesnt apply to your situation.
post #70 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

Been there, done that. My room is slightly bigger than yours and my speakers certainly have no problem creating a convincing sound for movies.



Ever heard of different horses for different courses? Some people have different priorities. I sacrificed ultimate SPL levels for more convincing stereo playback. Sure, my JTR's played incredibly loud and were very clear. If they did a decent job at imaging or making me believe I had anything but a pair of JTR's in front of me, they'd still be sitting in front of me. Instead, I had to buy a pair of speakers that do a better job of giving me that stereo experience.




Calling most of the forum ignorant or whipped because they don't value the same things you do leads me to believe you haven't left that crowd yet.

Uhh "more convincing stereo playback"? i have HT in the title for a reason, i also said "theater" and "movies" which i thought would be clues im talking about theater performance. I am making no claims about using low sensitivity speakers for music. Although i sold my gr research LS6s to afford the QSC K12, and can tell you the QSC K12 image far better than the LS6s did (LS6s didnt have much breathing room though, which i believe impacted their imaging capability).

I find it curious that you didnt mention your speakers that you bought to replace the JTR.

For the sake of future answers, im going to clarify the question: "For home theaters in rooms larger than 225 sq ft has anyone ever switched from well engineered high sensitivity speakers (95+db) to low sensitivity speakers (93db and below)? If so, why?"

Im not even requiring it be in the same price range.
post #71 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Just poking fun at you guys' persistent brand generalizations, thus my joke at knowing how your speakers sound based on a $100 pair of the same brand.

Plus, it's generally bad form to criticize other people's speakers in such blanket statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

Well take or leave my advice, i dont care, i wish someone would have told me to stop wasting money on speakers that are completely compromised for the sake of looking nice in a living room.

If you dont like it then rationalize it however you please, unfortunately like i said above, im not arguing nuances between subjective differences, im arguing hard numbers that are audible above EVERYTHING else about a speaker. Who cares if your ribbon tweeter is $1000 if its 85db sensitivity and it has horrendous harmonic distortion at levels near 100db.

If you: require certain aesthetics (or) can only fit a certain size of speaker (or) listen to music at low levels (or) listen to movies at extremely low levels then you can ignore my thread because it doesnt apply to your situation.

My post wasn't aimed at anything you said, but at the constant Klipsch bashing (as if they all sound the same).
post #72 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

My post wasn't aimed at anything you said, but at the constant Klipsch bashing (as if they all sound the same).

Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else.
post #73 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

Uhh "more convincing stereo playback"? i have HT in the title for a reason, i also said "theater" and "movies" which i thought would be clues im talking about theater performance. I am making no claims about using low sensitivity speakers for music. Although i sold my gr research LS6s to afford the QSC K12, and can tell you the QSC K12 image far better than the LS6s did (LS6s didnt have much breathing room though, which i believe impacted their imaging capability).

I find it curious that you didnt mention your speakers that you bought to replace the JTR.

For the sake of future answers, im going to clarify the question: "For home theaters in rooms larger than 225 sq ft has anyone ever switched from well engineered high sensitivity speakers (95+db) to low sensitivity speakers (93db and below)? If so, why?"

Im not even requiring it be in the same price range.


How many people only use their theater for movies? Many people use the same room for both two channel and home theater which is why so many people end up with more conventional speakers. For pure HT, there is not much need for more than CHT SHO-10's.

The JTR's replacements are JBL PT800's and now some Philharmonics. Nothing sinister and no reason to be curious.

To answer your question, I switched because I wanted better music performance than the JTR's offered. I do not use my room solely for HT so a compromise was necessary between my competing needs. Horses for courses...
post #74 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

How many people only use their theater for movies? Many people use the same room for both two channel and home theater which is why so many people end up with more conventional speakers. For pure HT, there is not much need for more than CHT SHO-10's.

The JTR's replacements are JBL PT800's and now some Philharmonics. Nothing sinister and no reason to be curious.

To answer your question, I switched because I wanted better music performance than the JTR's offered. I do not use my room solely for HT so a compromise was necessary between my competing needs. Horses for courses...

Im confused, youre using philharmonics for 2 channel listening only?
post #75 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

How many people only use their theater for movies? Many people use the same room for both two channel and home theater which is why so many people end up with more conventional speakers. For pure HT, there is not much need for more than CHT SHO-10's.

I'd say thats wrong. The reason most people buy more conventional speakers is because thats whats sold at most stores (klipsch not included) and HS speakers have a stigma around them that they are not good with music. Thats simply not true. You stated you went back to ... becuase the JTR's were not your taste with music, I sold a set of paradigm Sig 8's and think the JTR T12's are favored in almost every way possible, who's right?

People will buy what readily available. What mid to high end stores have HS speakers for sale? Other than a local store that sells CV, i've never seen 1 in my city, you have to go online.
I personally haven't heard of anyone buying HS speakers and going back other than littlejeans.
post #76 of 675
In what ways do your T12's outperform your Sig 8's?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have gone through high sensitivity speakers and back to more conventional speakers. How many people on this forum have switched from Klipsch for example to something less sensitive?
post #77 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

In what ways do your T12's outperform your Sig 8's?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have gone through high sensitivity speakers and back to more conventional speakers. How many people on this forum have switched from Klipsch for example to something less sensitive?

I felt they imaged better, had a better soundstage and just all around were better for a combo HT and music room. They both sounded great but the S8's in my HT were not what I wanted and the JTR's were more than I could have imagined. IMO the T12's are amazing with music and so were the S8's.

How many have went from less sensitive to high sensitive? you can't compare the 2 because there is such a huge number more of lower sensitivity speakers out there. Though I can say I'm not a huge fan of klipsch's lower lines, they are not great. JTR, Seaton, Danley have some amazing speakers.
In my life, my goal is to have a room completely full of Danley speakers. Amazing stuff.
post #78 of 675
I went to lower sensitive speakers but they were not better in all respects, just some and chose the speaker I could live with a little more. Of course my lower sensitive speaker could also play 125 dBs so it is not really fair. Anyways I am back to high sensitivity that gave me both of the other two! Oh, I went from JBL 4675c-LF's to M&K S-5000's. The M&K's were much smaller and gave me more high frequencies and with that added more of that skin tingling effect or goosebumps. The JBL's had more dynamics and Midbass as well as a much bigger sound. Now I have a speaker that combines both in a M&K size, better in all regards but the Midbass.
post #79 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

Ive only listened to klipschorns for 5 mins, i havent listened to anything else from klipsch. When you say "compared" how did you compare them? Was there klipsch and B&W in a room and you switched back and forth while watching a movie?

I dont think youve truly compared high sensitivity speakers, you may have HEARD high sensitivity speakers but its not really the same thing.

Im laying out the facts of my situation:
19x13x11' room. Listening position is 13 feet away from the speakers. QSC K12 vs monitor audio RS6s in the exact same room and i can switch between them. The monitor audio RS6s sound HIGHLY compressed during loud movie scenes (because they are).

Do your comparisons have anything in common with my comparison?

Im not talking about the nuances of a silk dome vs a metal dome tweeter here, im talking about very real numbers that explain why low sensitivity speakers cannot make sounds above certain levels due to the laws of physics.



Im not sure whether youre appealing to authority here, or youre appealing to ad populum.

First: manufacturers are not engineers. Any acoustical engineer at paradigm understands how sound pressure levels work, unfortunately paradigm is a company like B&W that has a very clear "look" they want to achieve. You cant fit a 14" waveguide in a speaker thats only 8" wide. ANY speaker thats skinny is compromising looks for sound. Ill do my own little appeal to authority: JBL, which is basically the industry leader when it comes to engineering and white papers, own "best" speaker is the everest... a speaker with a compression driver and extremely high sensitivity.

Second: Companies make speakers that have WAF and you cant do high sensitivity with that in mind.

What youre arguing is similar to people who question "why would i buy floorstanding speakers when a bose system sounds exactly the same in small cubes?"

That question is considered absurd on AVS because people understand the physics of speakers up to a point. Just like moving from bose to floorstanders would be considered a giant leap, so would moving from floorstanders to high sensitivity speakers with large 12" woofers and 12" waveguides. Why is the first part of that sentence so easy for people to grasp but not the second part??

Your Bose comparison is ridiculous, because almost anything sounds better than Bose. I'd argue my old AIWA boom box from 1991 makes CDs sounds as good as a Bose unit.

That said, I've compared many sets of speakers in my home. I used to work at an Ultimate Electronics store before they went under. I've had Klipsch, Focal, Definitive, Polk Audio, a few JBL etc.... Not that those brands are the end all, be all in home audio. But, they're reputable brands with pretty loyal followers and pretty positive customer reviews, for the most part. And almost all of them produce some models in the range of 89db to 93db. If this is so horrible and produces crappy sound, I don't understand how these brands even have a following, or the positive reviews most of their speakers do. I guess, 95% of the public doesn't know what good, dynamic sound is and is just blindly buying all those brands when they're really junk. Certainly, these companies employ sound engineers to design and tweak their speakers and for some reason, they release speakers in 88db-92db ranges.....

I currently have a set of Focal Chorus towers in my living room, they're 91 or 92db, I can't remember which and I can play them at reference level and they sing, clear as day. They also play music at ungodly levels and sound phenomenal! Now, I suppose, some might try and tell me they're distorting and I'm not hearing it, but I've been into the audio scene for about 15 years now and I can tell when a speaker isn't working. properly. I also don't have a wife, so WAF is a non-issue for me when picking speakers. I guess, I'm just uninformed on the better choices out there.

At any rate, I've had all those brands in my home, with the same receiver (Pioneer Elite SC-35) and a few more brands as well, and while some of them had a different sound, I never found any of them to sound not loud enough or not dynamic enough, or muddied, etc.... Because of not being sensitive enough. I don't know, I guess if the Klipsch I've heard don't count as true, high sensitivity speakers, then perhaps, the problem may be that I've never heard true, high sensitivity speakers. But, all the speakers I've had in my home have sounded great, for the most part. On a side note, I sit about 7 feet from my display and speakers.

I'm also not claiming I'm an audio expert by any means, I worked in the warehouse at Ultimate Electronics and audio/video has been a hobby of mine, so I always got to take home different audio/video equipment. .
post #80 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEastSide View Post

Your Bose comparison is ridiculous, because almost anything sounds better than Bose. I'd argue my old AIWA boom box from 1991 makes CDs sounds as good as a Bose unit.

That said, I've compared many sets of speakers in my home. I used to work at an Ultimate Electronics store before they went under. I've had Klipsch, Focal, Definitive, Polk Audio, a few JBL etc.... Not that those brands are the end all, be all in home audio. But, they're reputable brands with pretty loyal followers and pretty positive customer reviews, for the most part. And almost all of them produce some models in the range of 89db to 93db. If this is so horrible and produces crappy sound, I don't understand how these brands even have a following, or the positive reviews most of their speakers do. I guess, 95% of the public doesn't know what good, dynamic sound is and is just blindly buying all those brands when they're really junk. Certainly, these companies employ sound engineers to design and tweak their speakers and for some reason, they release speakers in 88db-92db ranges.....

I think i already explained this pretty well

Quote:
First: manufacturers are not engineers. Any acoustical engineer at paradigm understands how sound pressure levels work, unfortunately paradigm is a company like B&W that has a very clear "look" they want to achieve. You cant fit a 14" waveguide in a speaker thats only 8" wide. ANY speaker thats skinny is compromising looks for sound. Ill do my own little appeal to authority: JBL, which is basically the industry leader when it comes to engineering and white papers, own "best" speaker is the everest... a speaker with a compression driver and extremely high sensitivity.

Quote:
I currently have a set of Focal Chorus towers in my living room, they're 91 or 92db, I can't remember which and I can play them at reference level and they sing, clear as day. They also play music at ungodly levels and sound phenomenal! Now, I suppose, some might try and tell me they're distorting and I'm not hearing it, but I've been into the audio scene for about 15 years now and I can tell when a speaker isn't working. properly. I also don't have a wife, so WAF is a non-issue for me when picking speakers. I guess, I'm just uninformed on the better choices out there.

At any rate, I've had all those brands in my home, with the same receiver (Pioneer Elite SC-35) and a few more brands as well, and while some of them had a different sound, I never found any of them to sound not loud enough or not dynamic enough, or muddied, etc.... Because of not being sensitive enough. I don't know, I guess if the Klipsch I've heard don't count as true, high sensitivity speakers, then perhaps, the problem may be that I've never heard true, high sensitivity speakers. But, all the speakers I've had in my home have sounded great, for the most part. On a side note, I sit about 7 feet from my display and speakers.

I'm also not claiming I'm an audio expert by any means, I worked in the warehouse at Ultimate Electronics and audio/video has been a hobby of mine, so I always got to take home different audio/video equipment. .

See, now we're getting somewhere.. you sit 7 feet away and probably havent listened to a real high sensitivity compression driver design (as pointed out above, klipsch RF series doesnt really count, maybe the RF7 counts... maybe).
post #81 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

In what ways do your T12's outperform your Sig 8's?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have gone through high sensitivity speakers and back to more conventional speakers. How many people on this forum have switched from Klipsch for example to something less sensitive?

Klipsch doesnt engineer anything for power response. Their RF and THX series are pretty much a joke in my opinion, tiny woofers with no power handling paired to a high sensitivity compression driver = going to sound like crap. If a woofer is also not high sensitivity then its by definition not a high sensitivity design. As stated above, what a manufacturer states for sensitivity is bull, you have to go by third party numbers. Most of klipsch stuff is not high sensitivity.
post #82 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Again with the brand generalizations... You should hear fully horn-loaded Klipsch speakers with sensitivities from 104 to 109 (not inflated either).

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

Klipsch doesnt engineer anything for power response.
[...]
If a woofer is also not high sensitivity then its by definition not a high sensitivity design.

Change "anything" for "everything" and I might believe you, because they do make models with horn-loaded bass (three in current production; and a few more available used). You just can't find them at your local Best Buy and they don't pass WAF.
post #83 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post

JBL, which is basically the industry leader when it comes to engineering and white papers, own "best" speaker is the everest... a speaker with a compression driver and extremely high sensitivity.

Why didn't you get the JBL JRX 125 ?

Does the QSC K12 sound better than the JBL cab speaker?
post #84 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Change "anything" for "everything" and I might believe you, because they do make models with horn-loaded bass (three in current production; and a few more available used). You just can't find them at your local Best Buy and they don't pass WAF.

IMO Klipsch never made a bad speaker that came out of their Arkansas design group, and hasn't made a good one that didn't originate there. Paul Klipsch's favorite expression was a euphemism for cow excrement, and I'm sure he'd apply that term to the Klipsch products seen in the big boxes; he'd probably demand that his name not even be on them. The horn loaded woofer hi-fi speakers and those from the pro/cinema division still live up to his standards.
post #85 of 675
Are any of these PA speakers designed to have a flat FR in a home environment? If so, why isn't eveyone concerned with hitting 125dbs at the listening position buying these instead of JTRs, big JBLs, Seatons, Danleys or other offerings?
post #86 of 675
Well just look at the $20K Klipsch Palladium measurement. If they can't even get their $20K speakers to measure as well as a $400 Infinity P362, what does that say about the Klipsch speakers?

I mean really.

Let me guess. Klipsch, B&W, Wilson, etc, engineers just don't want their speakers to measure better than the P362?

Because speakers that have great on-axis and off-axis measurements sound bad?
post #87 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

Are any of these PA speakers designed to have a flat FR in a home environment?

Which are these? The active speakers named so far?
post #88 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Which are these? The active speakers named so far?

There are the ones ADTG linked to as well as the $700 each powered QSC K12's.
post #89 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Well just look at the $20K Klipsch Palladium measurement. If they can't even get their $20K speakers to measure as well as a $400 Infinity P362, what does that say about the Klipsch speakers?

I mean really.

Let me guess. Klipsch, B&W, Wilson, etc, engineers just don't want their speakers to measure better than the P362?

Because speakers that have great on-axis and off-axis measurements sound bad?

Overall, this is impressive measured performance, suggesting that Klipsch has some excellent speaker engineers on staff.
post #90 of 675
Interesting K12 thread here, but no auditions that I could see skimming through it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1353774
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › HT: Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity?