As I noted in the last section
there is a lot more to how a system sounds than just frequency response
curves. When it comes to a subjective breakdown of the individual components
of the Klipsch 4.1's sound reproduction I can offer the following.
How high can you go?
The high frequency definition
and transient response is very good, above what you can typically get from
systems that don’t use a separate tweeter. Better transient response in
a tweeter can come across in the natural decay of sounds, something that
can be apparent for cymbals. Klipsch has delivered this without being overbearing
in my opinion. This is rather subjective and is something some listeners
complained about in the original v.2-400 series, which is certainly more
pronounced to me than the 4.1 with updated crossover network. Even so, on-axis
high-frequency performance was a bit more pronounced than what I was getting
from the AMR-150, Crossfire or MM2000, something not everyone will like.
Now treble is certainly far
less important than good midrange when it comes to delivering a pleasing
sound quality but good treble gives a sense of much better clarity, especially
for orchestral music. Treble is also more noticeable since it’s a less common
frequency in nature so it's worth noting that I think people sometime get
a bit too hung up on extra high frequency performance in evaluating systems.
Filling in the middle…
When it comes to midrange, the
Klipsch 4.1 quality is again relatively very good, somewhat behind in smoothness
as the VideoLogic Sirocco Crossfire and the Monsoon MM2000 and in the same
realm as the surprisingly good Polk AMR-150. I found it to be somewhat more
detailed but not a night and day difference from the Boston Acoustics BA4800
and the Xtrusio DSR-100.
However, as noted above, I found
that the ProMedia satellites are producing notably more low frequencies
from the satellite than almost all other PC focused subwoofer based systems
that I have listened to (exceptions being the Polk AMR-150 and the HPM-4100
(discontinued 2.1 system from Diamond Audio Technology)). This frequency
range is often referred to as midbass and encompasses the lower midrange
and upper bass frequencies. The result is a much fuller sound from the satellites
than these other systems, including the Crossfire with greater presence
and detail in the 120 Hz to 180 Hz than any other 3" driver based system
I have heard with the exception of the AMR-150.
That in isolation is of course
is not that important as 4.1 systems are meant to be used with the subwoofer
active and on all of these other systems the subwoofer plays a roll to a
greater or lesser extend in reproducing the midbass frequencies. However,
this design decision by Klipsch impacts overall performance in a few areas
relative to other comparable systems.
The obvious result of this design,
even with the subwoofer active is a different sound compared to the systems
producing less bass from the satellite. The difference comes down to having
more of the upper bass frequencies up in the stereo sound field where they
belong, rather than "down" with the subwoofer. A benefit of the ProMedia
satellites very good low frequency response is a subtle but clear improvement
in the overall stereo imaging in that upper bass range. While these frequencies
are not the easiest to localize, it still possible and this is something
the ProMedia 4.1 does better than any other 4.1 system I have heard with
the exception of the AMR-150.
The low crossover point and
greater bass extension of the satellites also allows for above average smoothness
in the transition between the Klipsch ProMedia 4.1 satellite and subwoofer.
The end result when the subwoofer is set to neutral levels is a blending
with the satellites that slightly ahead of most of the other systems compared
in this review. The AMR-150 is the other standout where the transition is
occurring at a lower frequency than with the other 4.1 systems. That’s not
to say that systems with higher crossover points can’t be smoothly blended,
just that I find the blending at a lower frequency, such as on the ProMedia
4.1, to be more effective.
This next one can be taken a
couple of ways depending on your perspective. When it comes to center channel
imaging I also find that satellites with less midbass extension (such as
the Monsoon MM2000 and Crossfire) are perceived as delivering a somewhat
more prominent center channel image. This is something that can be most
noticeable in the way male vocals are perceived relative to system with
more midbass extension, but it can also be noticeable for other sounds.
. For center channel virtualization for DVD playback this can be advantageous.
However, I am not saying that more prominent is necessarily better in any
context. For example, when it comes to the reproduction of male voices it’s
likely just the opposite with systems such as the ProMedia 4.1 with good
midbass extension are actually going to sound more natural. Note that I
am talking about rather subtle differences resulting from the fact that
the greater the midbass extension the more likely that most typical male
vocals range will emanate from just the satellites and be 100 percent up
in the stereo sound field, something that will be more natural than a subwoofer
satellite combination.
There are some potential down
sides to pulling off this great midbass extension on a system with a 3"
driver.
First, having the satellite
do the primary reproduction of the midbass area does mean that on the ProMedia
4.1 you can’t exaggerate that range with the subwoofer as you can on most
other systems. The AMR-150, which has similar excellent midbass extension
takes care of this to some extent by offering both a subwoofer control and
a satellite bass control (the latter still affects the sub output for some
frequencies). This is a pretty minor drawback but I still wanted to note
it.
More importantly I also found
that at high volumes the ProMedia satellite driver appears to be over extending
trying do pull off the lower part of its upper bass range. Short of lowering
the overall volume or using an equalizer (not possible for all sound sources)
there is no way to tone it down. As noted earlier this is coming at volumes
above 95 dB in single tone tests, so for normal to moderately loud listening
levels it has no significant detrimental impact. However at these greater
volumes the MM2000 and Crossfire, both of which reproduce much more of the
midbass on the subwoofer instead of the satellites, will be offering better
quality and you have the option of lowering the subwoofer levels and maintain
the satellite volume to optimize quality.
Another important aspect of
a midrange driver is the transient response and this is something I am guessing
may be affected at least to a small extent by the Klipsch satellite's above
average low frequency response. Here transient response refers to how the
speaker handles the beginning of a tone and its reverb tails. For example
the initial pluck of an acoustic guitar or crack of a snare drum should
be handled with speed and accuracy without sounding slow or lethargic or
overly defined or overly energetic. This quality can also be apparent for
voices where the sounds should fade gradually not abruptly.
In general the Klipsch 4.1 transient
response is strong, in the same general area as the MM2000 and Crossfire,
both of which are clearly above average in the multimedia speaker realm.
I would also put it slightly ahead of the AMR-150 in this respect, particularly
with respect to some of the upper bass. However, I perceive it to be ahead
of both the Sirocco Crossfire and MM2000 for some of the upper bass frequencies
when the volume of the ProMedia is not being pushed. When pushed the opposite
is true as noted above. I also found it to be behind both the Sirocco Crossfire
and the MM2000 for some upper midrange frequencies regardless of the volume.
The difference, while subtle, is a consistent one where the transients are
just a bit sharper and from what I have read is at least in the case of
the Crossfire a direct result of the Crossfire satellites not covering the
same low frequency range as the ProMedia 4. In case of the MM2000 it’s more
related to the planar magnetic design.
The tradeoff is with the Crossfire
it's somewhat easier to pinpoint music coming from the Crossfire sub than
the ProMedia 4.1 sub and the MM2000 sub somewhat more so. In addition, as
noted above there is the subtle, but clear, lack of stereo imaging for those
upper bass notes on the Crossfire and MM2000 relative to the ProMedia 4.1
satellites.
Transient response is obviously
not something that even the most trained ear is likely to take notice of
when they blast away their friends in Unreal Tournament or watch Bruce Willis
blow up the bad guys in the fifth element. However, if you listen carefully
to music it makes a difference and I think most people will be very pleased
with what Klipsch has been able to deliver in a 4.1 system for $300
Getting down!
I found that the subwoofer delivers
very good quality bass. That is it is relatively tight, solid, no obvious
port noise or rattle until the very highest levels of exaggeration or volume
doing single tone testing. This is particularly so through the upper range
of the subwoofer where the driver is delivering much of the impact. At higher
volumes, particularly for frequencies in the lower range of the subwoofer
(somewhere less than 45 Hz) where the tuned port is providing a greater
portion of the bass extension, the quality is not quite as good, particularly
when the levels are loud enough to generate audible port turbulence. While
the exact ranges will differ I would make the same comment about the Crossfire.
The MM2000 sub in comparison is maintaining consistent quality through its
entire range (uses a passive radiator design) but that range does not extend
to the extra low notes of the Crossfire or ProMedia 4.1. I have not done
this kind of testing on any of the other subwoofers yet but its worth noting
that the Boston Acoustic BA4800 sub and several others uses yet another
design called a bandpass subwoofer. For more you can check out the BA4800
review.
Now we don’t usually listen
to single notes. Just as with most if not all of the other subwoofers we
have tested, music with more complex and constant heavy bass and some extended
bass heavy effects in games and movies can drive the subwoofer to distortion
at lower levels than with single tone tests. The difference is it’s much
tougher to do so on the ProMedia 4.1 than with most other systems, whether
it ends up being just high overall volumes or exaggerated sub levels at
moderate overall volumes. When it comes to the high volumes at normal sub
levels I am talking about very loud overall volumes for the satellites so
distortion should not be an issue for most people.
For these more complex tasks
the ProMedia 4.1 is producing fairly accurate well defined bass response,
although again it’s worth noting that with the lower end extension of the
subwoofer won’t be quite as defined as the range at 60 Hz for example. Just
as with single note tested there is also a greater likelihood of port turbulence
at these lower frequencies particularly when the system is pushed. I don’t
want to put too much emphasis on this as the quality is well above average
for a multimedia system, but I also don’t want people to get the idea that
the 35 Hz delivered by the ProMedia 4.1 or Crossfire subwoofers is as good
as 35 Hz delivered by a more expensive hi-fi subwoofer.
I also think that some people
used to multimedia subs extending further into the upper bass / lower midrange
might say it lacks definition (relative to other multimedia subwoofers)
due to the very sharp roll-off.
When comparing the Monsoon MM2000,
Crossfire and ProMedia 4.1 subs I found that the differences in the upper
range of the subwoofers made it quite difficult to compare definition and
even transient response. That’s because the occurrence of higher frequencies
will often be incorrectly perceived as better definition and/or transient
response. Trying just to focus on common frequency ranges I think the Monsoon
MM2000 subwoofer along with the Crossfire sub might have a bit better transient
response than the ProMedia subwoofer. However, I can’t really say for sure
and the dual driver setup of the ProMedia 4.1 does translate to good performance
in this respect, performance that overall puts it ahead of most if not all
of the other less expensive 4.1 systems I have listened to. The ProMedia
4.1 system is also overall delivering good quality for those upper bass/lower
midrange frequencies. That range is being produced by the ProMedia
4.1 satellite's long throw mid/bass drivers with good impact and definition.
Taking the different reproductive
ranges of the subwoofers into account (i.e. attempting to only compare ranges
where they overlap) we see that while there are no night and day differences
in overall definition there are some clear differences when we compare the
lower neutral range (where quality starts to drop) of some of the other
less expensive 4.1 systems. The reason is that the lower neutral range
of those subs is a range that is typically covered by the ProMedia 4.1 subs
higher quality middle range. The end results is I would put the Klipsch
4.1 sub somewhat but clearly ahead of the AMR-150, BA4800 and Xtrusio DSR-100
subs, but slightly behind the Crossfire sub and the MM2000 sub for overall
definition.
So how does all of this apply
to normal use? Let's start with the taking a more in-depth look how it performs
for various types of music, which is generally the most demanding medium
and also the main target market for the system.
