Edgar
-
Posts
2594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Edgar
-
-
I can see where woofers, which move a considerable distance, would need some break-in, but it happens quickly and the effect is not nearly as large as one might expect. I measured a pair of EVM-10m woofers right out of the box, and then again after a full week of use. The resonant frequency changed only a couple of percent. I have the numbers recorded somewhere, now if I could just find them ...
-
1
-
-
-
Just now, ODS123 said:
Yeah, well... Add to that the cost phase 1 lab development, phase 2 & 3 trials clinical trials in multiple locations throughout the world (often involving thousands of people ea. needing to be compensated) AND the costs of other drugs the company had moved through clinical trials only to fail to meet end-points.
Not to mention the cost of liability judgments, should side-effects be discovered twenty years down the road.
-
2 hours ago, henry4841 said:
Just thought I would add for those saying the Heritage line is overpriced. The Heritage line is not for the masses but for audiophiles wanting the best sound. Much like any high end audio gear. If one wants the best you have to pay the price. It really is that simple.
Let's discuss the realities of product pricing for a moment. (This has been discussed before, but it bears repeating.)
It is a simple fact of life that the retail price for goods like loudspeakers and consumer electronics generally has to be between 5x and 10x the BOM (bill of materials) cost for the product to be commercially viable. That means a $6600 pair of Cornwall IV contains between $660 and $1320 worth of components and materials. The total cost of six drivers, four horns, two balancing networks (each with six inductors, six capacitors, and various other pieces and parts), MDF and/or wood for two cabinets, veneer, glue, fasteners, etc., has to total somewhere between $660 and $1320. That's not a lot to work with for a premium product.
Could you build them yourself for less than $6600? Of course. Do you have the knowhow? And the skill?
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Travis In Austin said:
But you were not blindfolded, and you drank the free booze, therefore your opinion is invalid (even so, as per usual, you are spot on).
Gotta correct you on that one, Travis. While I admittedly wasn't blindfolded, I abstained from the booze, as usual.
But your statement gets down to a finer point: how can a person's opinion be invalid? An argument can be invalid, if it's not supported by facts. But an opinion needs nothing more than a person to formulate it.
-
3
-
-
13 minutes ago, Curious_George said:
I have not heard the lll or IV, so I cannot comment on that aspect.
I should mention that, prior to the Bonehead Class in late 2019, I had never heard a Cornwall of any flavor. So my exposure to the CW3 and CW4 was with no prior history, no preconceptions, and no skin in the game. I thought that the CW4 offered superior sound quality to the CW3.
YMMV, and that's OK with me.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:
You are really struggling here, and it's quite obvious. So, what you are saying is that the "very same tools and technologies" were utilized for the development/engineering of the CW3 AND the CW4, even though their releases were quite a number of years apart? I don't think so.
Designed more than a decade apart, to different price targets, with the availability of different components and materials, with the aid of more advanced design tools. If two of my designs, made a decade apart, were identical, my manager would fire me for not keeping up with engineering technology.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Flevoman said:
5 pages of comment and almost no responses to the audible differences between the CW3 and CW4.. I hope they will still come 😉
OK:
To my ears, the CW3 midbass sounded boxy. The midrange was good but not special enough to move me to want one.
To my ears, the CW4 eliminated all of the bass boxiness, but it was the midrange that truly impressed me. I thought that the CW4 vocals were even more lifelike than what I heard from the (underground) Jubilee the same day. I jokingly commented at the time that the only speaker I wanted to sneak into the back of my car while nobody was looking was the CW4, despite having auditioned the entire version 3 and version 4 lineup, plus the Jubilee (which wouldn't fit in my car or my living room anyway) that day.
-
4
-
3
-
-
19 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Forgot to mention we PAID to be there so we are more brainwashed then you first assumed.
Also forgot to mention that some of us design audio equipment professionally, so we are quite familiar with what is
and what is not.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:
I had a feeling you did. It was that or vodka….
Vodka? Nah. Caffeine-free diet Mountain Dew.
-
-
10 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:
Bro strawberry over chocolate? Nyet!!
I like the taste of Listerine, too.
-
7 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:
Ok. I give up. Those that heard the Cornwall IV vs the III…….I tricked you.
Yeah, Roy, we knew. We were on to you the whole time. We were just going along with the joke.
-
13 minutes ago, ODS123 said:
This hobby could learn soooo much from how the pharmaceutical industry must prove clinical efficacy (and safety, but obviously not as relevant). In clinical trials participants taking a placebo ROUTINELY report symptom improvement - often to an astonishing degree - just from believing they MIGHT be taking the studied med.
We're talking about subjective differences here. Are you claiming that I need to prove statistical significance when I say that I prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate? No? Then why here?
While double-blind tests with controls are appropriate for determination of whether a difference exists, they are not appropriate for preferences. If people preferred the CW4 because it was "prettier", then so be it. One doesn't have to justify one's preference.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, Fish said:
He needs to stay away from crazy chicks for starters...
That ranks up there with, "Hold my beer."
Some things are universal. Some things are true. Some things are universally true.
Some things are universally true and profoundly sad.
-
33 minutes ago, babadono said:
... I hope to see you in Aprill 2024 God willing for the EKLIPSCH.
Are there any official plans for the eclipse on April 8, 2024? I haven't seen anything.
-
2 hours ago, babadono said:
can you expound more on what the differences with the shelving filters are /were? Or do you not recall the subtleties?
It may come down to definitions of parameters. If you are deriving the shelf filters using the RB-J Cookbook, then the critical frequency is the frequency at the midpoint of the boost or cut. RB-J also defines a "shelf slope S" parameter that is usually set to 1, but doesn't have to be.
By comparison, when I implemented shelf filters in firmware, I defined the critical frequency as the frequency at which the piecewise linear Bode Plot would break from 0 dB (which corresponds to the ±3dB frequency for large boost or cut), which I think is what most people expect. I also avoided confusion with the "shelf slope" parameter by providing a choice of either fixed 6dB/octave or fixed 12dB/octave.
Both methods are correct. You just have to know which one you're dealing with.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:
Would this also apply to amplifiers like the Hypex NC-400, which are load independent?
I cannot speak to the NC-400 specifically, because I have no experience with it. However, Class-D amplifiers typically employ passive output filters to suppress the high-frequency switching noise, and those filters interact with the reactive loudspeaker impedance in ways that are predictable with circuit analysis, but may be undesirable if not taken into account.
-
35 minutes ago, Outrider 6 said:
Now that the 4 ohm Kappalite 15C is out of production and the inventory all run out…. What other good choices are there for a Belle/LaScala/Cornwall?
Here's an ancient thread that might serve as a starting point: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/103773-analysis-of-klipschorn-and-la-scala-cabinets-with-several-drivers/
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, The Dude said:
Anyone have an Audiophile torque spec for those binding post? I am always afraid I am missing out on sound by over tightening or not tightening enough.
If the wire falls out, it's too loose. If the binding post breaks off, it's too tight.
-
1
-
5
-
-
3 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
But as cheap as 8 inches of wire is, why not just do it anyway?
Not a dime's worth of difference. Do what works for you.
-
2
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
The metal plates are usually gold plated brass. Copper is a better conductor than brass.
Granted.
Assume a 1mm x 5mm cross-section for the bridge, 50mm (2 inches) long. That's 5mm² cross-section, roughly equivalent to 10ga wire.
Brass has a resistivity of 4.7e-8 Ωm, so working the math, the bridge will have a resistance of 0.00050 Ω.
Copper has a resistivity of 1.7e-8 Ωm, so the 10ga wire will have a resistance of 0.00018 Ω.
As PWK would say, "Not a dime's worth of difference."
Add to that the better contact area of the bridge, and that 0.00032 Ω difference might very well be erased completely.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, CWelsh said:
Is there a reason why wire jumpers would be superior to the metal bridges?
Unlikely that wire would be better than bridge in this application. The bridge offers greater contact area for the binding posts, and the potential for greater cross-sectional area, too.
-
2
-
1
-
-
DIY suggestion; see post by finkdigital here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/high-quality-speaker-switch-box-for-multiple-amps
BS Button List of worthy Myths
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
As with all engineering problems, the "optimal" solution depends entirely on what you are trying to optimize. If you are trying to maximize headroom and minimize excursion, then your solution may be optimal. If you are trying to smooth low bass response, then Todd Welti at Harman may have the last word: https://www.harman.com/documents/multsubs_0.pdf.