Jump to content

ODS123

Regulars
  • Posts

    861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ODS123

  1. I've never owned one of these... and don't know how well it measures, etc.. But still, audio was more fun back in those days. ..Yes, the buttons, sliders, knobs, etc.. got rather scratchy rather quickly, but the flexibility and adjustability was great. compare that with today... ...There are high dollar integrateds that don't even have balance control. Ugh..
  2. I've been saying this for years. ..Modern day amps/ integrateds and receivers that are engineered to be linear will sound pretty much alike so long as they aren't driven into distortion and these days that would include pretty much ALL such components.. Nowadays THD, S/R, Channel Separation, etc - even in cheap AVRs - is cheaply accomplished and exceeds the threshold of our ability to hear differences. My guess? ..A vintage Onkyo Receiver? Feature you'll never go w/o? ..Tone controls Personally, I'll NEVER again buy an integrated that lacks tone controls or a Mono switch. Maybe this?? EDIT: oops, I shoulda read the whole thread. I see you’ve already revealed your answer.
  3. I think this is largely true. ..Deeper bass extension and greater SPL before distorting.
  4. I'm thinking ZERO difference in sound performance, but point taken.
  5. Fair enough... ..So let the question be: Would the CW4's sound better if they were made from BB?
  6. I'm not trying to be difficult. Remember, this thread is about "myths" so you'll have to forgive people for expressing stubborn skepticism. ..References others have made to stradivarius violins, etc.. don't apply. Speakers (as Edgar pointed out) are not suppose to color the sound. Moreover most of the major speaker companies, that uses wood, seem to prefer MDF - even in their cost-no-object designs. So, I'll ask again, do you think Roy chose a sub-optimum material for the CW4's?
  7. Sorry but still unconvinced. So are you saying Roy chose an inferior material for the Cornwall IV's? ..That the speakers would sound better if made from BB?? Also, while MDF may be less expensive, it's harder on tooling and it's heavier so more costly to ship a finished speaker.
  8. You said baltic sounds better. Please explain. Roy, if you're still reading this thread, what are your thoughts? Would the new CW4 sound better if it was made from BB? I'll acknowledge that it makes a cabinet more resistant to water damage but it's hard to worry about that risk when none of my other gear is water-resistant.
  9. ^ I agree with everything you said Edgar.
  10. Well... Yes, of course. But if there's one thing we've learned from this thread is that people aren't really interested in proof, right?? Anecdotal evidence is accorded more credibility than actual A/B testing. Why else can't I convince even one person to do something as simple as wiring one channel of their system w/ expensive cables, and the other channel w/ the free cables that came with their components and compare using a mono recording and their balance control (speakers pushed together of course) In response, I get: Why bother!! If I hear a difference, that's good enough for me.
  11. His final summation after noting very small measurable differences b/w BB, Pine Play, MDF, etc.. "You can hear the difference? ..I would dispute that" So, again, maybe this is a new Myth for PWK BS button... That BB measures and sounds better than MDF.
  12. Tone? Please explain why. I can see durability and water resistance (for outdoor theaters/ amusement parks, etc..) but not tone. Curious why this would be. Vandersteen, Paradigm, PSB, and virtually EVERY other high-end speaker mfg prefers MDF. Would a CW 4 made entirely of baltic plywood sound better than one made w/ MDF? I think another myth is about to be called out.
  13. Umm... Maybe people who visit audio web forum and are interested in sorting out what is real and what's imagined?
  14. measurements schmeasurements.... The measurement that matters most is the consistency with which people can hear a difference. Of course there are measurable differences b/w speaker cables, amplifiers, DACs, CD players, etc... But do the measured differences rise to the level that they can be heard?? McIntosh regularly refreshes their line of amplifiers with new models that boast lower THD, increased dynamic headroom (often in amps that already put out 300w/ch - so, kinda redic), etc.. But these differences aren't audible
  15. Which is the right thing to do. I need to learn how to not take the bait.
  16. please... Copy/ paste this comment to which you refer. And you're now adding a new misquote, that I said "Roy does not know what he is doing". Again, either post the comment you're referring to or apologize. I NEVER said EITHER of those things you allege. Btw, the new CW4 is made w/ MDF.
  17. Wow! In all of my years of participating in online forums I have never had my views more grotesquely mischaracterized. I don’t believe Klipsch pro gear is junk, so I never said it, and I have never implied it. It was you who said modern Klipsch heritage speakers made with MDF are junk. In brief I said the pro Klipsch gear is made with plywood because it is meant to be mounted and used in PA settings. You persisted saying the MDF gear is junk because it is difficult to repair or refinish if it gets wet. Which is a ridiculous criticism because none of the other gear in my, or anyone else’s, system is waterproof. I invite you to find any of my comments that suggest the Pro gear is junk.
  18. It's laughable the audiophile world treats these beliefs - like break-in, audibility b/w cables, interconnects, etc - as though they are simply and forever unknowable. ..Like the matter must always remain a topic of interesting and spirited debate. That is BS Take break-in: It would be SO easy for Klipsch to take a pair of Cornwalls - maybe a blemished pair so as to not put hours on a pair a customer is waiting for - play one of them for one full day (24hrs), and the other for 8 full days (192hrs) and compare them side by side playing a mono song. Can people HEAR a difference - ie., can they distinguish the one speaker from the other more often than mere chance? ...No need for measuring driver excursions or electrical resistance or any of that - It just boils down to whether a difference is AUDIBLE. Klipsch has the means to do blinded testing, so this would be EASY. Unfortunately this will never happen and the reason is break-in and the other myths have profit implications for gear companies and their retailers. I've already said I've done the above w/ my last four speaker purchases. To date, not one person has expressed an interest in doing it with theirs. Heck, I can't even convince ONE person to wire one channel of their system w/ pricey interconnects and compare to it the FOB (free-in-the-box) used on the other. Nope. So it may be that people DON'T really want to know the truth. Hence, I think subjectivist audiophiles are as goofy and astrologists.
  19. So, as I see it, this discussion can be summarized as following: Break-in that is barely measurable and barely audible in 20 HRs or more: MAYBE. >20+ hours of Break-in that can take a speaker from "Unimpressed" to "Love it": MYTH. If you don't love your new speakers right out of the box, don't expect "break-in" to change this.
  20. Right.. ..And this doesn't trip your internal BS alarm?? 600 hours is 75 days @ 8 hours/day. ..So what do they tell retailers? "Don't let customers hear them for 15 weeks Break them in in a storage closet first before putting them on the showroom floor!" C'mon people. This is redic. Again... No speaker company would ship a speaker that sounds less than it's best simply b/c they couldn't find a way to exercise the drivers prior to assembly. I'll say it one more time, speaker companies benefit from perpetuating the break-in myth b/c it reduces the number of speakers being brought back to a retailer.
  21. Wow! An awesome post Travis. Thanks. ..Points well taken.
  22. Ok... but you're being vague - saying 20 min to 200 hours is quite a spread. So let's cut to the chase. ..In your opinion, do Klipsch speakers speaker sound different after, say, 20 hours and then 40 hours?? After unboxing my CWIII's and giving a quick listen to make sure both were functioning, I played music through just one speaker for the night and late into the next morning (>12hrs). The next day I played a mono song and switched back and forth b/w the two using the balance control. ...Neither I nor ANYONE in my family could hear one IOTA of difference b/w the two speakers. ..They sounded identical. I find it remarkable that we treat this question about Break-in as though it's some sort of an unknowable. ..I suggested to others that they do as I did w/ my CWIII's with their next speaker purchase and literally NO ONE else has done this. I think people don't really want their self-annointed golden-ear qualifications debunked.
  23. Claude said "I've not measured anything that drifted from specifications more than a few percent", not "sound 2% better". The "Myth" that is being called out isn't that there MAY be a tiny, minuscule change in measurements, it's the notion that speakers will go from sounding "meh" right out of the box to "Wow!!" after 10, 20, 200 hours of use (..or "break-in" if you must). If this were true, Klipsch would surely find a way to add break-in to the mfg process so that every speaker left the factory sounding "Wow!"
  24. Wouldn’t surprise me. Wasn’t there an article years ago about world-class violinists not really being able to reliably hear a difference between a Stradivarius and cheap knockoff? connoisseurship is a fascinating phenomena. What is the rarest phrase you’ll ever hear spoken by an audiophile? Answer: “I don’t hear any difference’
×
×
  • Create New...