ODS123
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by ODS123
-
-
38 minutes ago, Tizman said:
On my primary system, I prefer well recorded music for critical listening that doesn’t require tone controls to sound good. When I listen to music that I like that is poorly recorded, I usually listen to it on a variety of devices and secondary systems, and it’s not “critical listening”.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Dave A said:
So what specifically would you recommend to a beginner that would work right regarding your comment?
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).
-
14 minutes ago, Marvel said:
It depends on the design on the board. I have worked with boards from a couple hundred dollars up to the multiple thousans of dollars. The specs may show them to be close to one another, but they certainly don't sound the same.
Yes, the larger ones have more functionality, i.e., routing, input/output busses, phase/polarity control, eq, etc. but the actual design of the audio circuit will have you wanting to use the more expensive one.
BTW, using eq doesn't cause signal breaks but can totally mess up the phase of a single instrument. As ChrisA has shown in his de-mastering thread, the excessive eq and compression of a final mix can totally screw up a stereo/multi channel mix.
Bruce
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.
-
31 minutes ago, tube fanatic said:
And, somewhere in previous pages, a statement was made about a ganged stepped attenuator (matched to within a fraction of a decibel) being preferable to either a balance control or individual volume controls for each channel. That is total crap (imho, of course)! Recordings are often unbalanced between channels, room acoustics may not be balanced (not everyone wants to invest the time and energy in room treatments and EQ), and our ears certainly are unbalanced. If one enjoys listening to a classical recording with the entire orchestra shifted 30 degrees to the side, all the power to them. I sure couldn't take it........
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Dave A said:
And your recommended beginner's basic, pragmatic, and affordable system components are????
Well here we go. Up early and much to my delight the Klipsch Onion staff is on the job. 🤣
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?
-
2 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
Comparing sound production to sound reproduction is a straw man argument that is ridiculous at best.....
Not sure what you're saying here but as a starting point I suggest you revisit the def. of a "Straw Man" argument. Your remark doesn't seem to apply.
-
3 hours ago, Tizman said:
The OP loves tone controls and pays lip service to linearity, but once you use a tone control, doesn't linearity go down the toilet?
I think it's ridiculous to eschew tone controls because they damage the signal or they "alter what was intended by the artist" then insist on an amplifier that is basically one BIG tone control, one which affects ALL songs.
I will seldom use bass/treble controls, but when I do it's to make an otherwise unlistenable song enjoyable. I Can't imagine ever owning an amp without them, or a mono function. The "purity" argument against them - that their presence audibly damages the signal even when at "0" or defeated - is pure audiophoolery. Ever see a mixing board?? Why doesn't the 500 or so signal breaks on a mixing board turn the signal into something unrecognizable? It doesn't of course. ..Nor does the handful of signal breaks created by adding tone controls.
Ask someone who sells ultra-sound, MRI, or CT Scans machines to hospitals if "each additional toggle and switch on those very important and sophisticated devices perceptibly reduces the sharpness of the image or signal?" ..They'll look at you like you're insane.
-
21 minutes ago, richieb said:
===. BUT I reminded him of how good my Jubes sound on the receiving end of several thousand $$$ worth of Pass amps/pre and quality cables. All well broken in — just sayin’.
As they say - proof is in the pudding —
And how good would your Jubes sound with NON Pass amps/pre and quality cables?? ..Well, RC's $10K Amplifier challenge and the Guadalajara Audio Club A/B test suggests.. about the same. ..just sayin'.
As they say - proof is in the pudding (once a modicum of science is applied and biases are reduced/eliminated).
-
Just now, richieb said:
=== you’re right, the salesman said nothing to him about cables, conditioners and lengthy break-in time. BUT I reminded him of how good my Jubes sound on the receiving end of several thousand $$$ worth of Pass amps/pre and quality cables. All well broken in — just sayin’.
As they say - proof is in the pudding —
okay... and how good would those Jubes sound w/ non-Pass amps (say, Onkyo AVR) and generic cables?? ..Probably just as good. - just sayin'.
-
23 minutes ago, Tizman said:
ODS123 is consistent at least. Onward to 100 pages!
Advice to beginners: “Buy whatever. It all sounds the same anyway”.
Just ask ODS123. He has been upgrading for years now, not because he thinks some components sound better than others, but because he likes opening boxes. It’s fun.
Strawman Alert! ..No one, not me nor anyone else has said "Buy whatever. It all sounds the same anyway." Yet you continue to attribute this to me.
Your strategy is pretty clear: It's way easier to assail the words you put in my mouth than those that actually came out of it.
As for the other remark regarding boxes... utterly unintelligible. No idea what you're trying to say.
-
2 hours ago, richieb said:
=== . My step son, who loves my Klipsch gear and has small Klipsch RP bookshelves and a Mc amp just bought the above Sonos gear, it sounds remarkably good.
Yes, it does. And when buying a sonos setup people aren't apt to hear nonsense from a salesperson about costly speaker cables, power cords/conditioners, and amps that have a magical topology. ..Or told to give the speakers and/or amp hundreds of hours of break-in time before any "critical listening".
-
3 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:
You know what the difference is? You don't see (most) others on this forum pushing their opinions as the gospel of Jesus Christ himself.
I don't care what your (or anyone else for that matter) credentials are. I trust my ears as to what sounds good.
I was listening to "March of the Toy Drums" on my Kenner close n play in the mid-60s. Been immersed in music ever since. Don't you dare challenge my credentials.........
Shakey
That's ridiculous. ..You express no less self-certainty in your beliefs than do I. From you, and most of the others in this thread, it's "I know the differences exist because I hear them.." and from me it's "you may believe you hear differences but are they real or just imagined?"
We are both just as self confident in our positions. ..But one big differences b/w the two, aside from the obvious, is that I attempt to provide to beginners some degree of scientific rigor to support my advice. Advice which is basic, pragmatic, and affordable.
-
32 minutes ago, Dave A said:
You seem hung up on beginners. Why do you think you are qualified to determine what beginners should do? There is a difference between having a conversation about things you have done and why, and holding yourself out as a Guru to be followed with all other opinions discarded unless they agree with you. Your experience as far as I can tell is limited at best.
While I am probably a fair bit younger than most of you I have spent many many years immersed in recorded (and live) music. ..I don't see other peoples credentials being challenged.
-
5 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:
Yes it does. This should serve to further illustrate what I keep repeating over and over and over that the ROOM is the most important aspect of sound reproduction,
Couldn't agree more and would urge beginners to give serious thought to this as well.
Room setup contributes way more to a system's sound than some faint amplifier nuance that escapes both measurement and repeatable differentiation from other amplifiers.
This (very interesting) departure from the amp debate also underscores the need for either tone controls or (better) an equalizer.
-
1 minute ago, Shakeydeal said:
Ya gotta love a guy that hangs his hat on that kind of crap. Julian Hirsch would have loved to have you as a reviewer.
yeah, and PWK as well probably.
-
17 hours ago, Tizman said:
If I remember correctly, there was no comment made by the OP with regard to preamps specifically. I’m guessing that “all modern preamps engineered to be linear sound the same”, would be the response of the OP. I’m sure he will chip in...
Doing a DBT w/ pre-amps would be a pretty complicated affair. But considering every modern pre-amp (ie., those being sold today) that I could find on web-retailers has THD <.01% and S/N ratios that exceed our hearing, I'm totally fine with extrapolating the results of the Amplifier challenge to mean that differences b/w pre-amps, if audible at all, are also apt to be so small as to be meaningless. ..But you can draw your own conclusions
Personally, I think pre-amps in a 2-channel system are an anachronism. In other words, "why??" When present day integrateds are so quiet, and have such incredible S/N ratios what is achieved by separating power and pre sections? That is, other than potentiating buzz/ hum issues by adding more interconnects, another power cord and possibly another outlet. Yes, i think separate 2-channel pre-amps these days are more or less pointless.
And yes, my MDF-edition Cornwall III's are STILL upright and undamaged by rogue moisture. phew!
-
3 minutes ago, Deang said:
We’re talking about listening fatigue in relationship to recorded music played through loudspeakers. What are you talking about?
c'mon dean follow the thread for god sakes. dizman made the comment that "A speaker that makes a crappy recording sound good is not a good speaker."
Following that logic, I said that a speaker that make a fatiguing, shrill piccolo sound non-fatiguing is also NOT a good speaker. Follow?
-
Yes, you will love them... congrats
I listened to them before buying my Cornwalls. ..If my room wasn't so large, I'd be an HIII owner for sure. ..They're awesome.
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
What does performing live music in an orchestra have to with playing recordings on a pair of loudspeakers
Well, the goal of this hobby is, '''...A lot". There is a delta b/w real and recorded music. Isn't it the goal of hifi to decrease the delta?
-
2 minutes ago, Deang said:
Just once I wish you knew what you were taking about.
elaborate please ..Are you saying no musical instruments can begin to grate or cause fatigue? ..Trumpets, flutes, saxophones, even some string instruments can become fatiguing. Know anyone who plays in an orchestra? ..Ask him/her.
-
1 hour ago, Tizman said:
A speaker that makes a crappy recording sound good is not a good speaker.
I would agree. And would add that a speaker that makes potentially "fatiguing" instruments sound "never-fatiguing" is also NOT a good speaker. You'll read the comment from some audiophiles that their systems "never cause listener fatigue no matter how long I listen." ..Well, unless you're listening at a whisper volume your speakers aren't doing their job because some instruments, even when played by competent musicians, WILL cause fatigue after a while. ...Just sayin'
-
4 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Good Morning OD great to see you here today. I admire your luck and ability to always have the best of everything and the shiniest knobs. You even get a Cornwall that does not resonate! It is not fair because the five sets I have had all did do this.
tsk, tsk,... you should have held out for the MDF-editions.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Deang said:
I think I'll just argue that the loudspeakers were value engineered, which is obvious by their construction, drivers, and crossover components. That doesn't mean they don't sound good -- they do. That was the genius of PWK -- but they are far from perfect.
Any Speaker company that isn't value-engineering their speakers, for their respective price segments, will not be a speaker company for long.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
I see a Plywood motorboard, but the rest looks like MDF (which helps).
The motorboard in the picture IS MDF, a variety of MDF that is sandwiched between layers of thin plywood. ..In other shots from the Cornwall (MDF edition) build pictures (can't find the link, but I've looked at it many times) you'll see that ALL of the Cornwall III's walls are constructed of this material as well. ..FWIW, the baffle of Klipsch's highly acclaimed Pro-Series are also made of MDF. ..According to the spec sheets, anyway.
I listened to them before buying my Cornwalls. ..If my room wasn't so large, I'd be an HIII owner for sure. ..They're awesome.
Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
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.