|
Posts: 817
Location: Detroit
Joined: August 17, 2007
|
"Current measurements of current loudspeakers do not support your conclusion."
If you can provide those measurements at a state SPL, then this statement will cease to be just another opinion."I am astounded that I have to say that out loud."
It's not an obsession, just an observation, with contrasting data.
I'm glad your own words astound you. "A good deal of these megabuck audio products are purchased by the world's most renowned sound engineers."
If this is true, again, no real facts given (which products and by whom?). I seriously doubt that a working sound engineer would ever spent 50 grand on an 8" woofer and 1" tweeter when for the same money he/she could get a Wilson or similar product (sublime) that would outperform it, measurably and audibly. "Prices are set by manufacturers to reflect the R&D and the expected sales volume, which in the case of many of these products, number less than 10 copies worldwide. The technology trickles down to the point where the affordable speakers we buy today were once the tech of the megabuck speakers of a decade ago, now selling in volumes commensurate with a lower price point."
Yes, the drivers have gotten way better, with better materials, agreed. However it's still, moving coils and diaphragms. The LAWS of Physics are still the same. "That is not a bad thing."
Never said it was, I said that an 8" woofer and and 1" tweeter for 50 grand was RIDICULOUS. Rich guys spend millions for exotic cars, but they would never be stupid enough to pay that for a Ford Escort. "I fail to see the problem."
Your failure to see it as a simple observation, with the resultant opinion, backed by experience and measurements had nothing to do with your "wish to have my life." "Unlike most people on Earth, I have had the privilege of speaking directly with Mr Paul Klipsch,a rare privilege indeed as he was somewhat a recluse. You do not need to educate me on his philosophy and approach to loudspeaker design."
To quote PWK's most famous line here, to this I say "BULL$hit." My experience and to all those Klipsch engineers who worked for him over the years and currently, says otherwise. He was not a recluse. He was extremely accesible to anyone who would bother. I was just a kid with Khorns back then and he offered to pick up my wife and I in his private plane, gave me a personal tour of lab, factory, took me to his house and played his recordings for me, took me out to lunch and dinner. Treated me like a long lost grandson. As to his principles, he correctly said that any improvement in loudspeakers would be in detail rather than principle. "He was a proponent of low distortion horn loaded systems, but recognized that a piston cone woofer can offer low distortion under the right circumstances, and incorporated such in his otherwise horn loaded offerings. We have six decades of applied research since the Heresy was introduced to help us achieve better results. And yes, I do have and have read every "Dope from Hope" newsletter that came out of his Arkansas office."
Assuming that you understood everything he MEANT, which was that the Klipschorn was the optimum size loudspeaker, and that everything else was a compromise with higher distortion. The better results you speak of are still a compromise with the laws of physics. "And I can say confidently that you are misrepresenting his feelings about the subject, not to mention taking an easy shot at the original 901, (not even the moderately linear Series III model, the first one to actually gain a favourable review in the audio press and which incorporated proprietary drivers)."
I was responding to a request at the time and it was a great example to support my point.
As to misrepresenting PWK' feelings, I put up a relevant portion of a paper he wrote, and was awarded a Silver Medal for. I doubt that he would assign the term "feelings" to any of this. He didn't care about favorable reviews in what he called "the lay press." He was an AES member and read Scientific American. I witnessed all this first hand. "The first 901 was a terrible speaker overall that was not even Dr. Bose's own idea; he bought what became the Bose Corporation's flagship product and founding audio offering from another, as a revenue stream investment for retirement. Which he did quite nicely, partly because he famously sued anyone who published unfavourable reviews."
I have a copy of Dr. Bose's original patent, and it clearly has his name on it. So my evidence says you are misinformed. PWK's papers on IM distortion measurements and math were applauded worldwide by peers and awarded by a learned society, not some magazine reviewer whose prose have little meaning. He only described the speaker without mentioning the brand and confirmed this to me personally, so this is not secondary information. On one hand, I'm glad you took the time to respond. On the other hand, your response was full of presumptions and criticisms without any supporting data whatsoever.
|
