Posts posted by ODS123
I'm sure it's beautifully made, hence a fair amount of pride-of-ownership will accrue to all who own one. But sound better?
And seriously? $5K for an integrated that doesn't even have a balance control?? ..Personally, given your budget I'd find a Mac dealer (a sister company to AR, I believe) and buy one of their integrated amps. ..They all have balance controls, tone controls, and a mono switch - common sense features that make listening to all kinds of music of varying recording quality more enjoyable.
Or an Accuphase or Luxman as they also have these sensible features.
Have an auto window tinting company come and tint the offending window. ..If you still notice a color change - likely a small amount, if any - then swap the speakers' position every year.
My cherry CWIII's have changed color, but I welcome it. ...They've darkened and become slightly more red.
I would not even think of using some sort of UV-rated car wax. ..I'd sooner resort to just switching their position 1x/yer.
I'd send them back. ..I had to go through two defective pairs of CWIII's before getting a perfect pair.
The first had a blemish similar to yours, and the second had a mid-horn that was not perfectly flush-mounted against the baffle. It was slightly tilted because the recess wasn't properly routed out. ..Very frustrating. My retailer was very nice about out though; they never once suggested I just "accept" them.
6 minutes ago, Racer X said:
Beee-atles: Purist mono or fake stereo ?
I'll take the former, thanks. ...Hearing vocals only from one channel and guitar only from the the other is totally redic. ..Not realistic at all.
I feel like it only matters in home audio simply because it can only be accomplished in home audio. But does it really contribute much to the visceral enjoyment of music? ..Not so much, imho.
Do the the people at the mixing board send different signals to the left and right bank of speakers, with the hopes of creating a stereo image? ..Or are all speaker fed same signal (w/ perhaps some dividing of frequency ranges via a external crossover, etc.)
In any case, it's led me to rethink the importance of imaging. ...Which is perhaps one of the reasons why I love my Cornwall III's more than others I've had which do a much better job of imaging. For example, small-ish stand-mounted 2-ways like PSB stratus Minis, and Spica TC-50's. ..These speakers created incredible images, but ...meh.
Saw two concerts quite recently here in Phila: Norah Jones a week ago at the Mann Music Center and last night I saw Lyle Lovett and His Large Band at The City Winery. Both were fabulous shows, particuly LL and HLB.
The audio at both shows was terrific. ..Acoustics weren't overly reverberant and the volume was low enough that my ears weren't buzzing by the end. But in both cases there wasn't a bit of discernible stereo imaging even though my location would lend itself to hearing it. When I'd close my eyes I couldn't for the life of me place the vocals or instruments - they all seemed to be coming from the same place. Yet, I thought the sound was fabulous and the performances incredibly compelling.
Which leads me to wonder why we so obsess on this particular aspect of audio playback at home?? Seems to me that imaging is mostly a mixing board trick for in-studio recordings that has little relevance to actual music, unless one is listening to a tiny, unamplified ensemble in the tiniest of settings. Even if both of these artists used un-amplified acoustic instruments, I very much doubt I would be able to locate their instruments/voices w/ my eyes closed at these venues or any other even a fraction of their size.
1 hour ago, John Warren said:
LOUDSPEAKER ENCLOSURES (CONT.)
The show was not crowded, and we spent well over 30 min in many of the rooms we visited, sitting in the "sweet spot". There were a number of 2-way systems based on the AMT which I found to be excellent reproducers. ...
Website for this system is interesting read with a few white papers that show what's going on inside the box.
Huh?? They lost me with this "Typical loudspeaker cabinets have pronounced structural resonances which are very audible and reduce the speaker’s ‘signal-to-noise ratio’"
Speaker S/N ratio??
Yes, resonances need to be kept below the threshold of audibility. ..But solving the problem does not necessitate an inordinately complex cabinet design. But since this is high-end audio - where fetishizing power cords, speaker cables, turntable plinth thickness, etc.. looms large - I'm not surprised by claims that it does.
9 hours ago, John Warren said:
MDF, Particle Board, Plywood enclosures are gone (thank goodness!). The top tier suppliers today have transitioned to composite structures including mineral casting, structural laminates and, of course, Aluminum plate. The enclosures materials are where the engineering is most intense and where the distinctions will be made.
The small speaker below, made by Kroma (a German supplier) was an example of what a mineral cast enclosure provides. $16k/pr with stands, this little speaker was outstanding. The woofer surround is specifically designed to break-up standing waves that ripple along the cone. This wasn't my favorite at the show, it was the one I was most impressed with. Great reproduction at very high volumes.
Upper mids and HF handled by the AMT. Many suppliers are transitioning to the AMT as well.
My CW III are made from MDF and sound as hollow as a shoebox when you knock on them. ...As do the latest iteration of LaScalas and Klipschorns. Yet these three speakers sound much better to my ears than many speakers I have heard that have enclosures that are as solid as granite. ..Some composite, some aluminum.
IMHO, enclosure integrity needs to meet a certain minimum, but beyond that it become superfluous.
My Vandersteen 3A sigs and Paradigm S8 V2's felt like bricks when you knocked on them. ..Yet I don't like them nearly as much as my CW's. ..So there's gotta be more to speaker design than just enclosure rigidity.
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..
14 hours ago, ka7niq said:
I hear absolutely little if any difference between this receiver, and high end solid state preamps
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.
EDIT: oops, I shoulda read the whole thread. I see you’ve already revealed your answer.
On 6/10/2022 at 4:51 AM, GlennyC said:
I have AB tested my set up against new La Scalas and find my Heresys to be quite satisfying. My premise is that all the additional size and expense of the large heritage speakers is to reproduce bass frequencies.
I think this is largely true. ..Deeper bass extension and greater SPL before distorting.
19 minutes ago, 001 said:
klipsch use MDF because it's straight as an arrow , it's shipped pre-veneered , and book matched , it sure cuts and fits perfectly , you wanna do the same thing with BB , you'd have to charge 1k$ more per speaker for very little difference , if any in sound performance -
I'm thinking ZERO difference in sound performance, but point taken.
34 minutes ago, Edgar said:
Don't forget that the definition of "optimum" depends entirely upon what one is trying to optimize. Roy, like all engineers, has to balance a number of performance criteria, including price, measured audio performance, manufacturability, shipping costs, availability of raw materials, and so on. Even "cost is no object" designs are subject to this same balancing act.
Fair enough... ..So let the question be: Would the CW4's sound better if they were made from BB?
41 minutes ago, Dave A said:
I gave up trying to convince you of anything some time ago. However you asked a civil question so I gave you the courtesy of a real answer. I wonder, can you see others from the mountain top?
For what it is worth BB is tougher on tooling then MDF. Ask me how I know
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?
8 hours ago, Dave A said:
So for better or worse this is the selection process I have made and my reasons for doing so.
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.
20 hours ago, Dave A said:
Same tired line every time this comes up. However I have practical experience through actual builds and experimentation and handling both MDF and Baltic cabinets. As far as I can tell your experience is limited to only pre-built things which you can buy and then since you bought them they then become the world standard by which all other things are found lacking.
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.
^ I agree with everything you said Edgar.
1 hour ago, Edgar said:
Be careful; that was an opinion, not a statement of fact. Assertion without proof that something is not audible is an equivalent logical fallacy to assertion without proof that something else is audible. In fact, proving that something is audible is a lot easier than proving that it is not.
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.
8 hours ago, Edgar said:
Here is another interesting bit of information: PLYWOOD vs MDF For Speaker Building - Tests Show Surprising Results
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.
1 hour ago, Dave A said:
tone and durability. Exceptional speaker cabinets are made from this.
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.
8 hours ago, henry4841 said:
And this break in argument goes on and on. Who really cares who's right.
Umm... Maybe people who visit audio web forum and are interested in sorting out what is real and what's imagined?
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
22 minutes ago, Islander said:
As for who said what to whom about whomever, I kind of tune out
Which is the right thing to do. I need to learn how to not take the bait.
Audio Research I/50 vs Decware (int.amp) La Scala- has anyone compared
in 2-Channel Home Audio
I'll share a quote gleaned from another Forum. This from Alan Shaw of Harbeth. ..I'm betting PWK would say something similar
"One of the greatest mysteries and acts of insanity in the audio business was the deletion of tone controls from hifi amplifiers from about the 1980s with some utterly discreditable mumbo jumbo that 'tone controls are no part of a hifi system'. I can categorically assure you that a properly designed and executed tone control circuit does not degrade the signal quality and never has done... Tone controls were deleted from hifi amps as a marketing gimmick to attract a new 'minimalist' consumer away from amps laden with buttons and controls."
(thank you Keiron99 on Steve Hoffman forum)