KLH-6 - Measurements

Zilch

Curve Junkie
Subscriber
KLH-6 - Measurements - Model Six

Early integral-woofer pair; no high frequency output.

Nearfield bass measurement, mic 1/4" in front of grille, Red, Grn:

attachment.php


Compare KLH-17, Blu, Cyn:

attachment.php

And AR4x, Vio, Org:

attachment.php

Cambridge Sound Works Model 6 pair, Gry:

attachment.php

Original Large Advent, Blk:

attachment.php

Summary:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • NF SIN.jpg
    NF SIN.jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 1,017
  • NF SIN+.jpg
    NF SIN+.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 971
  • NF SIN+2.jpg
    NF SIN+2.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 893
  • NF SIN+3.jpg
    NF SIN+3.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 881
  • NF SIN+4.jpg
    NF SIN+4.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 1,000
  • NF SIN+4Z.jpg
    NF SIN+4Z.jpg
    65.7 KB · Views: 1,265
Last edited:
Zilch,

In the first graph, what is the difference between the Red and Green lines? What do the numbers in the legend mean (e.g., 831, 839, etc.)?
 
No wonder the 6 was so popular. Lot's of bass. Curve shape is similar to AR4x; smaller but also popular for it's bass response.
What's the 6's Q? I suspect over 1.
 
In the first graph, what is the difference between the Red and Green lines? What do the numbers in the legend mean (e.g., 831, 839, etc.)?
Red and green are the two speakers, measured separately; those are the last three digits of the serial numbers, indicating how close they are in vintage, and so I can tell them apart.

Pop quiz: One of them has an "issue," apparently. Which one, and what is it, most likely? How do we know?

No wonder the 6 was so popular. Lot's of bass. Curve shape is similar to AR4x; smaller but also popular for it's bass response.
What's the 6's Q? I suspect over 1.
I'll measure them after I finish the "Nearfield Shootout" here - KLH-6 vs. KLH-17 vs. CSW-6, vs. OLA vs. SA vs. AR4x, vs. AR3a vs. AR2ax vs. whatever else might be floating around here.... ;)
 
Is this with, or without leaky surrounds? I know it's a controversial issue, but if we agree that AS speakers should be well sealed, then I don't see how having a screen door for surrounds can work properly. My own models 6's had absolutely no noticeable resistance before I sealed the surrounds. After, they had the usual syrupy woofer motion you would expect from properly sealed AS speakers. I would be interested in seeing measurements after the surrounds were sealed with something that doesn't stiffen them.
 
Is it the Red one and is the issue an air leak in the surround or cabinet?
Man, you've gotten good at this! :thmbsp:

Is this with, or without leaky surrounds? I know it's a controversial issue, but if we agree that AS speakers should be well sealed, then I don't see how having a screen door for surrounds can work properly. My own models 6's had absolutely no noticeable resistance before I sealed the surrounds. After, they had the usual syrupy woofer motion you would expect from properly sealed AS speakers. I would be interested in seeing measurements after the surrounds were sealed with something that doesn't stiffen them.
RoyC sent me a sample of his sealant formula, and this will be a good test.... :yes:
 
no here's some Zilch-ification I can can get behind :D

this is gonna be cool to see the econowave evolution . . . .
 
Man, you've gotten good at this! :thmbsp:

Same behavior exhibited by the woofers in a pair of recently econowaved Wharfedale W60s. Sealing the surround on the leaky one caused it to better match the LF response of the other woofer, that was still well sealed. Used Elmer's Rubber Cement.
 
Added comparison to AR4x, Cambridge Sound Works Model 6, and Original Large Advent....
 
Last edited:
Zilch,

Would you mind adding the Indignia bass response just for giggles? Am interested how a modern woofer in a smaller vented cabinet compares to the vintage acoustic suspension speakers.
 
Outta space in the legend:

The Smaller Advent #853 +2.5 dB from KLH-6 = Red, and AR3a #368 +2.75 dB = Blue:

attachment.php

Discussion:

Nearfield measurements reflect 2-Pi performance, i.e., with one boundary of bass reinforcement, which is typical of how vintage East Coast speakers were intended to be used.

Published frequency response curves are often anechoic, i.e., 4-Pi freespace, no boundaries. To the best of my knowledge, however, there are and never have been any anechoic chambers large enough to measure accurately down to, say, 20 Hz. Thus, the published results may be "corrected" via calculation as required for publication. A speaker buried in the ground as practiced by AR is 2-Pi.

I am measuring at the grille, not the woofer dome, the reason being that the particular pair of KLH-6 which launched this compariion are the sealed version, with the grilles not removable. The several that I did check both ways did not vary significantly, though a valid argument may be made that, as consequence, these measurements are progressively less and less accurate above 200 Hz.

Another issue is how to normalize the measurements. You can see that I have tried to make them all equal in the 300 - 500 Hz range, and noted the SPL level adjustment for each relative to the subject KLH-6s, and these are reasonable given the known sensitivities of the various models.

Still, I believe there are valid conclusions to be drawn here, which, for now, I leave to readers and students of "classic" loudspeaker design....
 

Attachments

  • NF SIN+6Z.jpg
    NF SIN+6Z.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 849
Last edited:
Zilch, I like looking at the curves you post and I'm trying to learn from them. I find that it helps me when you add comments/narrative. So this is just a word of encouragement for more info with the curves if you should feel the urge.

Thanks! That was fast!
 
Last edited:
Zilch,

What do you mean when you say "The Smaller Advent #853 +2.5 dB from KLH-6 = Red, and AR3a #368 also +2.5 dB = Blue"?

Does this mean the overall SPL when the measurement was taken was +2.5 dB? Or, do you mean that the curve was just offset by +2.5 dB for viewing purposes?

EDIT - never mind. I just read your last post more closely. So, think I understand that when you matched the 300-500 MHz level for each speaker, the resultant SPL measurement translates to the +dB and -dB notes in your legend.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean when you say "The Smaller Advent #853 +2.5 dB from KLH-6 = Red, and AR3a #368 also +2.5 dB = Blue"?

Does this mean the overall SPL when the measurement was taken was +2.5 dB? Or, do you mean that the curve was just offset by +2.5 dB for viewing purposes?
The "standard" in this study is the KLH-6, and the levels used for each other type are stated relative to them.

You'll note I just bumped AR3a by 0.25 dB to separate it from the Large Advent; they were virtually superimposed. The objective is to "normalize" all measurements at some frequency allowing for meaningful comparison according to a desired criterion. If I were illustrating relative sensitivities instead, it would not be necessary to adjust them. In this case, however, it's more like setting SPLs to the same level when A/B-ing speakers....
 
The curves show the Advent outclasses almost all the speakers in bass extension. The Advent has the same bass power as the AR-3a
 
The curves show the Advent outclasses almost all the speakers in bass extension. The Advent has the same bass power as the AR-3a
I don't know about power, per se, but the nearfield responses certainly indicate that Henry had a secret.... ;)
 
I don't know about power, per se, but the nearfield responses certainly indicate that Henry had a secret.... ;)
Part of Kloss' agreement with AR when he left was that he had the rights to use all of the speaker designs he had developed or helped develop at AR during his time there, so if he had a secret I think we have a fair idea where it originated.

Now, any idea why classic KLH's and Advents always seemed to sound boomier to me than their equivalent AR's? There doesn't appear to be anything to explain it in these nearfield measurements.
 
Last edited:
Now, any idea why classic KLH's and Advents always seemed to sound boomier to me than their equivalent AR's? There doesn't appear to be anything to explain it in these nearfield measurements.

Those curves just show the bass extension and, to some extent, relative efficiencies (depends on how close Z set the mic for each one). They don't show how that level relates to the rest of the curve. If Z puts up the far field measurements and spliced curves then we can see how the whole curve shapes up and that could show differences in tonal character.
 
Back
Top Bottom