ODS123

Wow... just googled JBL 4311's. Now these DO look like they're made from something closer to particle board. Still, that notwithstanding, there are countless images of these speakers in (what seems to be) present day setups looking pristine. ..Proving the point that speakers don't need to be made from plywood to hold up over years, even decades. As an aside, this damage ended up being beautifully repaired. CORRECTION: Probably more accurate to say "restored". He ended up re-veneering the speaker. Something which I'll have to one day try my hand at as it looks fun and rewarding.

Given Pauls natural reach advantage one wonders why Rudy didn't opt for a longer handle.

YIKES!!! So I guess "prickly" is an understatement. ..Good to see they have a sense of humor (but we already knew that about PWK)

touche' ..no disagreement here. Music, if not cures, at least improves all ills.

I suspect that all of these guys were kinda prickly. It takes a lot of self-confidence and hutzpah to grow a fledgling engineering concept into a successful company. And I'm sure there were plenty of petty jealousies. ..You take the good with the bad when you deal with geniuses. ..Just ask my family. (j/k of course) Still, after turning 35 many years ago I gave up on addressing people by anything but their first name - and that would apply to PWK too. Even when I meet doctors I ask, "Can I call you XX?" I have yet to be told no. Seems silly and arbitrary that we elevate certain career achievements above others to where they're given a special salutation.

I'm definitely not a grammar cop. Good lord, I'd make a terrible one. ..Only once in this thread did I remark on someone's choice of words. It think was the use of infer vs. imply (?) And I only made the correction because it referred to something I implied (and not inferred). Still, I stand corrected. I know teutonic refers to Germany but I've also used it as a synonym for "German-like" which, in the present case, was to meant to describe precise, efficient and clean engineering. ..Something which seemed notably absent from the finish-work of the LS 3/5's pictured. Anyway, correction noted with thanks.

Exactly... For those speakers Klipsch designed for (from brochure) auditoriums, churches, bars, theme parks, transportation centers, etc. structural ruggedness trumps vibrational deadness as a design consideration. Just as extreme SPL capability trumps frequency extension. Yet, Klipsch Pro series devotees have turned plywood construction into some sort of badge of elevated connoisseurship. The "MDF sucks" crowd wants us to believe that the company that gets it totally correct in how it balances cost and quality with the plywood Klipsch Pro Series, gets it totally wrong with the MDF Heritage series where they've allowed crooked penny pinching accountants to flip the cost vs. quality equation. And we are to believe this despite the fact that the Heritage speakers are quite clearly engineered for a quieter home setting that is far more conducive to highly critical listening.

Not sure I believe this. ..That is, not when KEF, Vandersteen, B&W, Dynaudio, Vienna Acoustics, Paradigm, PSB, Polk, Spica, and the vast majority of ALL other technically and commercially successful designs that followed utilized this material. The front of those speakers, BTW, look a bit like a high school shop project. ..Not exactly sterling examples of teutonic fit/finish.

oh... you mean by his first name? How scandalous it is to address by first name the guy who points to a BS button on his lapel whenever he disagrees with something someone says. ..Such disrespect. And he was smoking a pipe while making a technical remark about his khorn? ..Oh, the temerity. I love Klipsch speakers too, but let's not go crazy here. PWK designed speakers, he didn't cure lupus.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/stirling-broadcast-bbc-ls36-loudspeaker => cntrl+f "MDF"

LS 3A/5A... A wonderful and timeless dynamic radiator speaker design. ...And a great many of its copies & iterations were constructed from MDF.

They certainly look awesome. And of course, the mode switch and tone controls speak to my heart How are the switches and knobs? ..Any scratchiness?

No.. NOT just trolling. I wholeheartedly believe in what I've said in this thread.

No, I don't. I must admit I've NEVER replaced any of the capacitors in any of my equipment. But what about the quote below from Bob Crites? ..Isn't he a note authority around here? From Bob Crites Website: Good caps all sound the same. Let's define that term. A good cap has the value of capacitance we need and has very low ESR (I defined ESR earlier). A bad cap has either the wrong value of capacitance and/or higher ESR. If we compare a good cap to a bad cap, we would probably hear a difference. If we compare two bad caps, they would also probably sound different.

Don't know too much but Bob Crites (who is revered here almost as much as PWK) seems to think that all (good) capacitors sound the same. From his website Good caps all sound the same. Let's define that term. A good cap has the value of capacitance we need and has very low ESR (I defined ESR earlier). A bad cap has either the wrong value of capacitance and/or higher ESR. If we compare a good cap to a bad cap, we would probably hear a difference. If we compare two bad caps, they would also probably sound different. That said, I'm not surprised that that has now become an area of audio connoisseur fixation. ..Fuses next?

It equalizes amplifiers that aren't linear! ..Read the test. ..It will explain what that means. If you have an affinity for amplifiers that's aren't linear that is your choice. You keep implying that this is some big 'Gotcha!!' It's not, it's all explained in the rules.

Sorry to be pedantic but you said "infers" when I think you meant "implies". From Lawlessenglish.com: "Imply and infer are two sides of the same coin: a speaker or a writer implies, whereas a listener or reader infers, and for ease of remembering, these two actions occur in alphabetical order. First, I imply, and second, you infer. I’m not implying that you won’t make this mistake any more – I’m just coming right out and saying it. I hope you’re inferring the same thing." Anyway, I feel comfortable with that assumption. I am also comfortable with the assumption that everybody who participated in this using speakers other than their own offered as an excuse, “well my system is more revealing - I could certainly hear a difference on my system!"

haha... nice try. Remember, the $10k RC Amplifier Challenge allowed participants to use their own speakers if they chose. ..So considering thousands took the test I think it's safe to assume there were plenty of Klipsch or other horn speakers in the mix. As a reminder: no one ever claimed the prize. That alone settles the debate, for me anyway.

WTH are you talking about. ..What is that picture? ..Nothing that I've attached to a post. As for your tube amp, to put it another way: ..If your tube amp is audibly distinguishable from a S/S amp, then why would you prefer it?? ..And if it isn't, then, well.... why would you prefer it?

Regularly? ..I adjust tone controls maybe a few times a week. ..By using a high distortion Tube design, you're using one 100% of the time. I'd rather season my food to taste after trying it - adding maybe some salt, maybe some pepper - rather than just douse sugar on EVERYTHING before even tasting it.

I am a music lover above all else so I am NOT going to stick with ONLY well recorded music. To me, that is antithetical to the goal of bringing music into our homes. If I did that I'd be saying goodbye to recordings from The Ramones, Nina Simone, Charles Aznavour and Sandy Denny, just to name a few. I have my share of audiophile approved recordings but I can only take so much Diana Krall, Patricia Barber and Dave's True Story. Nor am I interested in listening to mono or poorly recorded music on another system somewhere else in the house We have one system in our house set up in our great room. We do this so EVERYONE in the family can listen and get turned on to each others music. It's worked wonders in this regard.

It's not obvious? I'd recommend that if he/she is apt to be bothered by a channel imbalance than some means to adjust relative volume b/w channels is a MUST, either a balance control (easy to find) or separate L/R volume controls (rare, but there are a few).

Regardless of size or cost, my point remains: ..if every signal break in a mixing board had an incremental negative impact on the signal, the signal would become unrecognizable. Conclusion: signal breaks don't alter the signal. One of these days I'm going to cut one of my speaker cables into 20 pieces and piece it back together with splices and twist nuts then see if the channel sounds different. Maybe I could do that with the interconnect from my cd-player, make a digital recording from it, post it here and see if anyone here can hear a difference b/w the intact and one with 20 new breaks. And yes, of course an EQ and tone controls alter the signal. That is of court the point when a song is otherwise unlistenable.

I would agree with you on this.. And not to put too fine a point on it but what about all those "purist" preamps and integrateds that lack a balance control AND fail to attenuate both channels equally and it's clearly audible and unfixable at quiet listening levels?? My Peachtree Nova would go completely silent on the left channel while still a bit too loud for 4am listening on the right channel. It had a nice feel and pretty to look at but that was a bad fail, imho. They tried to fix it but only improved it slightly.

How about an Onkyo or Yamaha integrated (or AVR), a cheap-*** DVD player for playing CDs, and an Apple Airport Express (for streaming from iPhones, laptops, etc..) and a pair of MDF-edition Heresy IIIs (if budget allows, if not, one of Klipsch's less expensive floor-standers)? Work for you?