Posts posted by ODS123
26 minutes ago, HDBRbuilder said:
MDF vs. Plywood...the decision matrix between the two is primarily based on budget/production costs, in almost all cases. PERIOD! GOOD Baltic Birch has just as good of a sonic quality to it as MDF, and will hold up better for a lifetime when compared to MDF...but it is much more expensive! Pretty much everything else between the two gives the nod to Baltic birch, hands down.
No, it is not much more expensive. It is more expensive, yes but not prohibitively so. If the likes of Vandersteen, Dynaudio, KEF, PSB, Paradigm, Legacy, and so on and so on could gain any sort of competitive advantage by using seven ply Birch, they certainly would. But they don’t. Today’s MDF has no voids, It’s easier to cut accurately, can be more easily routed to accommodate recessed drivers, and is easier to apply laminate’s, then PLY.
Speakers that are going to be suspended and mounted in bus/ train stations, etc... like Klipsch pro series Can benefit from being ply because of the irregular stress is placed on the cabinet. Apart from that they’re only downside to a ply cabinet. That is, except it gives those who make speakers in their garage something they can seize upon and claim they do better than all of the brand names.
1 hour ago, mustang_flht said:
Rust Never Sleeps 😍 Neil Young great 😎
Couldn't agree more. ..A great great album.
5 hours ago, HDBRbuilder said:
WELL....Floor speakers tend to be standing on the floor, right? Whereas all the other stuff you mentioned tends to NOT be on the floor, right? Ok, we agree on this. Gooood!
So...SOMEDAY, when you come home after being away, even being away for a short time, only to find that a washing machine or faucet flexible water line burst while you were away, or somebody flushed the toilet and left the house quickly after doing it, without ensuring it totally successfully flushed, and it ended up not flushing and over-flowing instead... trust me! YOU WILL KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR OWN QUESTION!... And don't even go there on braided stainless steel flexible water lines, because they can do it too! Trust me! Sooner or later, it WILL HAPPEN! And when that water gets to carpet, it spreads rapidly and just sits there...slowly soaking anything on the carpet...and MDF sucks it up like a sponge, too! MDF also swells up with that water like one of those dry sponges do when you put them in the water! Trust me! And after that happens to MDF it is impossible to repair!
If I had a catastrophic flood in my house my speakers would be the least of my worries as such a flood would likely destroy drywall, every appliance, my hardwood floors, my furniture, etc.. Ugh! And rather than having plywood speakers re-finished - which I'd have neither the time nor energy to do after a flood - I'd likely have them replaced along with everything else under my homeowners insurance policy. ..And my speakers have a 2" riser, so it would have to be an epic flood indeed. Less than an 1" or so I could probably get alway with just replacing the riser.
Besides!! The Pro Series Speakers many here praise (partly) because of their plywood construction STILL HAVE MDF BAFFLES, so what then?? ..Seems to me they'd still be destroyed.
1 hour ago, HDBRbuilder said:
Actually, the current Cornwalls very much out-perform the earlier versions!, IMO! And I've heard them all! I still wish they were veneered plywood though! I would just be afraid to see a kitchen leak or other event, which could happen and that would turn MDF substrate into oatmeal consistency...along with the additional hassle of having to have new boxes built at my own expense!. Certain materials can be relatively easily repaired, others NOT! Y'all keep in mind that this entire thread was very old and just brought back to life the other day...I still don't know why, though!
i’ve asked this before, and I will ask this again: why should speakers be any more water resistant than any other component in our HIFI systems?
Last I checked, no amplifiers, R2R tape decks, cd players, turntables, tuners, flat-screen TVs, etc... were engineered with water resistance in mind. Why on earth do speakers need to be? i’ve had all of these for many many years and none of them have ever fallen victim to water damage. I find this obsession to be quite hilarious. It's like you're offering a solution that is in search of a problem. I've had probably 20+ pairs of hifi speakers over my lifetime and NONE has ever been water damaged. ..So for me to ever factor that into my selection criteria would seem patently redic.
I’ve Notice that some of you have your system set up in your garages. Well, maybe that’s the problem. Set your Wi-Fi systems up in your house and maybe you won’t need to worry about water resisitance.
I'm predicting that whatever year the respondent happens to own will likely be his pick (sigh).
Unless you've heard each side by side while blindfolded, you're likely just letting your confirmation bias lead you to a predictable conclusion.
Now who would be in the position to listen to each side-by-side, volume-matched, and blinded?? Probably the people who design them, as in the team of engineers at Klipsch
Um, sorry but they sound no better than the crummy little speakers on the MacBook Pro I'm hearing them through. 😝 But as the owner of CW III's and a McIntosh amp, I can safely say that this setup probably sounds great in person.
On 9/29/2019 at 3:13 PM, Dave A said:
how crummy many things have gotten in quality. PWK did not use MDF for instance.
really? ..Do you feel this way about cars too??
As for MDF, that's actually a step forward from PLY. Ply has voids, warps, etc.. MDF is more consistent from sheet to sheet in terms of weight, thickness and dampening qualities. And MDF is far easier to CNC/ route recesses, corners, etc.. This is why 99% of the best wood speakers in the world are made from MDF. Ply is still a good choice for speakers made for commercial applications where sound Q may matter a bit less than durability.
16 hours ago, Dave A said:
MBA/CPA types discovered they could still charge the same but expenses went down. Then quality went down but prices didn't and the end buyers now have to replace things more often so win win for everyone but the consumer.
You love denigrating MBA types, yet w/out them there would be no Klipsch. Point to one successful Klipsch-sized company that does NOT rely on "MBA types" or accountants.
At more than 2” taller than the IIIs it will be a bit harder to fit these in with many decors. They were already gigantic. Still, I look forward to hearing them at my dealer.
Any word on whether they will use all birch ply in order to enhance water resistance?
8 hours ago, WMcD said:
To me this was a weird reply. ..From the outset it was odd. No "Thank you for the Review..." which seems to precede nearly every reply found in the Manufacturer's Response section?
Why on earth didn't Roy speak (write) to the specifics of the review. The struck me a s strange reply and a sorely missed opportunity to provide some balance to what strikes most of us as a poor review.
So you tried pairs and each exhibited the same problem? . Are they close to each other in terms of production sequence? Perhaps a bad batch of crossovers were installed in the speakers and a regrettable laps in quality control failed to catch both pairs. As suggested I would ask the dealer to come out and take a look and to bring proper measuring equipment/instruments .
My CWIIIs also extend down into the 30s with little change in output.
The problem is likely the volume control on the amp, not the speakers. Though it may be true that their high efficiency makes such channel imbalances more apparent.
I sent back a Peachtree Nova, and a Bryson BP-25 (A preamp) for adjustment/ repair and neither came back totally balanced. Hence, I sold them. Sadly, i think it’s inherent in some volume control designs. This is one reason I suggest people NEVER get an integrated or pre-amplifier that lacks a balance control.
40 minutes ago, Khornukopia said:
Getting into a debate on the internet can be very risky business these days. Sometimes it is better to just not give incorrect information any more exposure.
I don’t follow. I am referring to the Manufactures Response section in the back of the stereophile issue in which this review appeared. This section of the magazine is there to provide manufacturers a chance to respond to issues raised by a review. And there seems to be much here that Klipsch (i.e, Roy) could have responded to. Of course Klipsch would not want to come across as being defensive, but there’s nothing wrong with politely crying foul over bad measurement techniques
The manufacturers response to this review read like A few paragraphs copy/pasted from the website and brochure.
Instead, why didn’t Roy take Atkinson and Dudley to task for these review irregularities everybody is talking about? Seems like a missed opportunity to me. The same thing happened with the forte review
How about this for $139? I have one that I use to drive our patio speakers. I have tried it with my Cornwall’s and it sounds great. Able to drive them to painfully loud levels without hint of strain or distortion. Plus, there are a lot of online reviews attesting to its reasonable reliability. The inexpensive monoprice amps and you mentioned would give me pause not because I don’t think they would sound fine but because I would worry about their reliability.
Also, this has a balance control and on the back there are tone controls.
Personally, I think it's absurdly over-powered for those speakers. ...Here's my specific concern:
I had a 2nd generation Peachtree Nova (just 85w/ch. I believe) driving my (then) Paradigm S8 v2's - speakers which aren't nearly as efficient as your H3's. While the amp sounded clean and clear at normal volumes, it had a peculiar problem when listening at quiet levels. Whenever I turned the amp down to a low (but clearly audible) level one channel would attenuate more than the other (I can't recall which). And since the amp lacked a balance control, there was NO remedy apart from sending back to Peachtree for repair. ..If memory serves, they simply replaced it. The second unit was slightly better but was still clearly off.
If this issue is inherent in the type of volume control Peachtree uses, I wonder if you might experience this at regular listening levels since you'll likely be using so little of the volume controls rotation.
As a result of my experience I resolved to never again own an integrated amp (or pre-amp) that didn't have a balance control. ..To my thinking, it's a bare necessity. And though many may not feel this way, I think most would agree a volume control that is linear is a must.
As an aside, I do think Peachtree's gear is beautiful looking and has a nice solid feel.
35 minutes ago, Dave A said:
There is just so much you miss with a small system and never even realize it until you hear the real deal.
Why so determined to denigrate my system dude? With the Mac meters barely hitting 10 watts it plays loud enough to draw a visit from the cops and deep enough to rattle dishes in our cupboards - all without the slightest hint of strain. ..So I'm content. ..I hope you find contment too.
24 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:
I agree with your comments here also. It's been a fun topic to discuss either way.
As a relevant aside, perusing Klipsch's pro series website you'll notice that MANY (if not all) of their permanent installation speakers (like the Ki-396 series) are built with an MDF motherboard (aka front baffle).
1 hour ago, CECAA850 said:
That job would be for the person wanting to prove that one is superior to the other. I'm of the opinion that there wouldn't be an audible difference and if there was it would be extremely small.
I think some attach some degree of pride-of-ownership to speakers made w/ ply which is fine. ..Just don't try to suggest speakers NOT made this way are inferior. ..There are simply too many examples of fine speakers out there that are made from MDF. The aforementioned SALK and Vandersteen are just two examples. ..I don't think MDF sounds appreciably better, but I certainly don't believe PLY does either. I do agree, however, that speakers meant for amusement parks and transportation stations, etc.. should probably be made from ply.
16 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:
PWK sold the company to cousin Fred in 1989. Before that, I don't believe he ever gave MDF "house room." When I toured the plant in 1985, I didn't see ANY MDF whatsoever, anywhere.
I know PWK hated the stuff, but he also hated plywood with voids. I remember Woody Jackson showing me a whole bunch of routed KG-4 front panels that had voids. He said they were being shipped back to the manufacturer for credit.
There were 3 distinct Klipsch companies. Klipsch and Associates, Klipsch Group, and the current company owned by the same people that own AIWA.
Your opinion on MDF is part engineering, part marketing, and part bean counter. But if Paul were alive and still owned the company, it would be strictly plywood construction, be my bet.
So what about all the voids NOT discovered by the router? Voids in the middle of a panel? Aren't they apt to cause resonances?
Sorry, not buying it. ..And for all the reasons I've mentioned before. You're speculating as to what PWK would chose today. What is not speculation is that almost EVERY other speaker company uses MDF, including Richard Vandersteen who is just as committed to the quality of his speakers as we knew PWK to be.
On 7/8/2019 at 11:21 AM, Dave A said:
Who knows what the real results were and that is the problem with second hand info. I find it very interesting though that people like HDBRbuilder choose plywood. It is not all about just water resistance either and read his comments regarding veneer delamination. I have heard this from others also where speakers were in controlled environments since bought new. Being a hands on guy myself in both repair and restoration of speakers and the building of some now too I have solid reasons for not doing what bean counters and their coterie of sawdust lovers do.
Why are you having such a hard time believing that MDF is a better choice when every speaker manufacturer under the sun (minus one or two) who uses wood uses this material? I find the claims that it is a better choice because of rigidity, consistency and sound characteristics are more believable than your assertion that it is chosen simply to save a few dollars. Heck, if spending the extra bucks for plywood gave Klipsch a bragging right they would certainly have chosen it and made hay about it in there brochures etc. But they didn’t because they know better
And you still haven’t addressed my question about your extraordinary concerns about water resistance. What other component that is part of our hi-fi set ups was ever engineered with water resistance in mind? Not our amplifiers, turntables, tape decks, flatscreen TVs, etc. None of these need to be water resistant so why would speakers?
2 hours ago, Blackbird said:
The problem with this turntable is that it would not be very practical.
Yes, that AND iIt doesn't advance the medium in any substantive way. ..It's cool to see a levitating platter. ..But does it reduce rumble or W&F in any noticeable way? ..No, not when grove noise is what it is.
what are the best year model(s) cornwalls?
in 2-Channel Home Audio
What don't I have a clue about? Please be specific. Tell me which of the following is incorrect and why:
MDF is easier to veneer. (it's surface is more consistent. No knots, etc..);
MDF is easier to make precise cuts, to shape, to route for recessed drivers;
MDF is more consistent from sheet to sheet;
MDF is slightly less expensive, but it's significantly heavier. MDF speakers are probably more expensive to ship due to heavier weight (which challenges the "Bean counters prefer it 'cause it's cheaper" argument);
Klipsch Pro Series speakers have MDF baffles.
As for my profession? ..Not that it matters but I've been in Sales/ Marketing for 30+ years. 25 in Automotive, 5+ in Pharma. And I too have spent plenty of time working with wood.