ODS123

I believe this to be a myth. As I said before, my Cornwall IIIs sound exactly the same to me and everyone in my family regardless of whether they're being driven by my Mac amp (replete w/ anachronistic autoformers) my Onkyo AVR or my $130 AudioSource AMP100. This "house sound" notion makes me wonder: Who at Onkyo, NAD, Cambridge Audio, etc.. etc... serves as the Master Sound Sommelier? Who is charged with tuning tweaking, adjusting the tone, texture, nuance of the sound ALL WITHOUT HAVING an actual measurable effect on the signal? ..So how do they do this?? And how does one MSS pass the "house sound" recipe to the next MSS when this nuanced house sound isn't quantifiable, measurable, or even describable? Years ago I had an NAD 7250PE receiver and was given my fathers 7240PE receiver which was 4 years newer.. I opened both up and noticed how each had parts from different sources. ..Parts that said Sanyo on one were Toshiba on the other (I may be misremembering the exact brands but they were different). ..Like every part that had a name, it was different on the other! I wonder how "House Sound" is preserved despite the fact that different parts are being used form one generation product to another.

Sorry but I don't believe this at all. I very much doubt that all those participating in Richard Clark's Amplifier challenge were suffering from "dread, fear of failure and catastrophizing" Remember, the weren't betting their money against his, it was win $10k or lose nothing. It's like saying "I'm an expert chess player, I display exemplary strategy both offensively and defensively." ..Then, after losing, saying "Well, the my skills deteriorate whenever I actually play chess." To beginners still following the discussion I'd point out: Just how significant and important could differences b/w amps really be if an audiophiles ability to discern them is so fragile that it completely collapses from the pressure of being asked to actually identify them. ..just seems incredibly far-fetched to me.

Okay... And how many of these people share your opinion that they can reliably hear differences b/w volume-matched amplifiers? Probably every one of them.. And yet they couldn't even reliably distinguish between two different speakers playing with a 3db volume differential. ..I think this supports the view that audiophiles have a way overinflated view of their hearing acuity.

That's a very good point. ..I've never had the occasion to directly compare two generations of the same speaker. ..I don't doubt this was difficult and maybe impossible for some to reliably identify. Whenever I've compared speakers it's been of two different brands and I never had difficulty distinguishing them - yes, I did insist on volume matching. ..But I wasn't "blinded" though I wish I could have accomplished that somehow.

Yes, biases have stood in the way of good science. ..No doubt. That's why peer reviews and the FDA, etc. etc. exist. But to cast science and it's attendant validity and honesty controls aside b/c people have engaged in bad science is silly, IMHO. It reminds me a bit of people who resist taking prescription medications because "pharma companies can't be trusted!" but happily gobble down supplements they buy from GNC or Whole Foods. ..Having no assurances whatsoever as to the contents of the bottle or it's efficacy and safety. As to your question, which spec matters most? I'd suggest to beginners that the spec that matters most is the percentage of times people can reliably tell one amp from another WHEN they don't know which is playing. The Audio Club referenced in this thread and the thousands who tried, but failed, to take the prize in Richard Clarks $10,000 Amplifier Challenge suggests that percentage is equal to chance. By comparison, it's quite easy to tell speakers apart.

I have no issue with that.. As I said earlier in the thread, much of hifi today would present a sizable moral dilemma for Mr. PWK himself. As an engineer steeped in the Scientific Method he spent a career calling out BS like unsubstantiated claims . Yet to survive today, his company needs a network of retailers who, by necessity, must traffic in these sorts of claims as they can't survive on speakers alone. It's hard to imagine him visiting one of his retailers and not feeling compelled to point to his BS button when he sees expensive DACs, power conditioners, cables, power cords, and yes over-engineered pricey amps that are sold w/ unsubstantiated claims they sound better. I'm pretty sure he'd point to his button.

people who want to empirical evidence? ..nope. We already heard from those who knew him he had an inexpensive cd player, non-exotic amplification, and didn't believe in pricey cables. And that he'd point to his button as we walked through stores where this stuff is sold.

Everyone here is giving their own personal anecdotal accounts of how "I can hear a difference b/w this and than amp, cable, interconnect, etc...." without doing ANYTHING to rule out the influence of expectation bias. Which will naturally arise ANY time you make a change and are aware of it. Expectation bias is a very powerful thing. It explains why people participating in clinical drug trials will often report improvement in symptoms EVEN when given a placebo. And these are people who know fully well they may have been given an inert control medication. The number would be much higher if they were told that everyone was getting the active drug.

You say that but I very much doubt you'd be able to pick one from the other in a blinded trial. Referring back to the Clubs amp comparison: Let's remember that system A had a $50 dvd player; System B a several thousand dollar transport/DAC combo. System A had 15' generic thin interconnects; System B had very short and expensive interconnects. System A a generic power cord; System B a pricey one. And so on. ..You would think that even if the $4000 pre/ amp combo didn't sound better than the $199 Behringer, then certainly ALL the other stuff would raise System B well above A. . Well, that is if all that other stuff, as believed by many audiophiles, really does significantly contribute to how a system sounds.

Simply not true. I'll grant that it's not easy, but certainly possible. And no need to let the challenges of a DBT stand in the way of using some sort of bias controls. For example, simple volume matching during comparisons would be useful. And a go a step further and have a friend/ family member change speaker cables around while you leave the room, then power up and return the playing amp to the same volume level. This simple exercise would be very eye-opening for gold-eared audiophiles. Yet... people resist. They'd rather claim to be able to hear huge, meaningful differences b/w amps. As for speaker/ interconnect cables: I've suggested countless times that people simply connect a pricey one to one channel, a cheap to the other than switch back and forth using the balance control (assuming you have one) while listening to a mono recording. Are those differences b/w the pricey and generic cabling still audible??

Not everything... Just modern day amplifiers, cd-players and cables. Audible differences b/w speakers are definitely audible. And how about PWK? Where do you think he'd stand on this?? I've never advocated picking an AVR that is underpowered for it's intended application. Indeed, I suggested picking an amp or AVR that is cable of playing their chosen speakers at desired SPLs. AND to chose an amp/AVR that has the functionality you desire. For me, that includes tone controls, balance control, a mono function, and (nice, but less important) the ability to volume level all inputs

News flash: You can simply opt out of the discussion. Anyone who finds nothing of value from this thread should stop participating.

Exactly. ..And though I'm not particularly interested in tube amps any longer, beginners can certainly include tube amps in the mix as they as they go out and make BLINDED, and VOLUME MATCHED comparisons b/w amps and AVRs.

Looking at the owners manual the only recommendation regarding placement distance offered is that they NOT be set on the console but rather somewhere out in front. ..This suggests a distance probably not much different from what is seen in the club's test.

Simply not true. ..Check multiple sources, not just your supplier. ..Perhaps he thought you meant particle board, or a LDF.

Every audiophile who believes differences b/w amps are audible will contend that their speakers are revealing enough to allow such differences to be heard - that includes the group from this club. Unfortunately, its predictable that if the results of the comparison are not a compelling endorsement of audible differences, the quality of the speakers will then be called into question. I’ll remind beginners reading this thread that the aforementioned Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge award offered to anyone who can reliably identify one amp from another (provided both are designed to be linear and are not over-driven) was not limited to ANY particular speaker. Indeed, participants could use their own speakers or headphones. Again, thousands tried and none claimed the $10k by reliably distinguishing one amp from another. As for these ATC’s, while I’ve not taken the time to do so I can almost promise that a google search on these speakers will yield reviews (user and/ or magazine) where the reviews states “these speakers easily allowed me to hear differences b/w amplifiers” as the statement seems to be part of every speaker review. And that none of the setup provisos called out here for tainting the test were mentioned.

I have spent plenty of time listening to Tube amps (thought not SE admittedly) comparing them, volume matched, with S/S. I have no interest in them apart from their cool appearance - for example, the Mac MC275. I would love to have an old one, if only to display. I'll use an equalizer if I want to alter the signal. ..Just as I already do with the tone controls on my current amp.

From Tizman on Page 10: "MDF is disposable garbage."

Thanks for the interesting posting. As for your final comment, I'm sorry but I don't see the arrogance. yes, there's been a lot of arrogance on display in this thread but I don't think it's inherent in the title I chose. My intent with this thread was to tell beginners that before spending heavily on front end electronics to read what those who did found out when they compared their gear with those who didn't. ..Basically, arguing for an affordable, common-sense approach to this hobby. Compare and contrast that with the several who have basically sought to tell anyone who owns speakers made of MDF that they own junk. Or the guy who is telling me my amplifier is garbage because it has autoformers (?). Honestly, that's the arrogance I see being displayed here.

"not exposed to moisture" ..Ok, but is that so hard to accomplish? I have a 150 year old cabinet and 100 year old corner cupboard in my house - handed down by grandparents and parents - that also have never been exposed to moisture. Along with a toaster, 2 TV's an old iMac and about 5 table lamps. Those, along with my turntable, amplifiers, and 500+ vinyl LPs have never been exposed to standing or dripping water - and I don't think I've been working particularly hard at making that so. Am I missing something ? ..Are people maybe routinely dragging their gear out into the rain to enjoy a nice listening session out in the elements? I think the challenges of keeping gear dry is being a bit over stated.

That's nonsense. There's no reason to think that such speakers properly cared for won't hold up for years and years. Go on Audiogon and you'll see TONS of 30+ year old speakers, many (if not most) of which have cabinets made of MDF. Dave.. You haven't answered my question. Why come to a Klipsch sponsored (and paid for) User Forum and essentially trash every speaker they make except the line you happen to own?

You have that all wrong. It's you and a few others who have turned owning plywood speakers into some sort of badge of good-taste and distinction. No one is trying to do that with MDF. I'm just pushing back on your unsubstantiated contention that all speakers made with MDF reflect penny-pinching corporate values and are by definition "crap", no matter what their intended application. You persist with this despite the fact that nearly all speakers these days are made from this material. I think any beginners still following this thread will take your implication that ALL speakers from Klipsch (except pro-series), Vandersteen, PSB, Paradigm, KEF, Legacy, B&W, and so on and so on are crap to be utterly nonsensical. Particularly when they can go onto Audiogon and find tons of well preserved decades old speakers made from this material.

what exactly do you mean by 400% mark up? Are you suggesting that some fat Mr. Potter is pocketing $4 for every $1 of production cost? If so, you don't understand the cost of running a business. Yes, Klipsch's retail price is probably more than 4x their cost of production. But there's a crapload of expenses that come out of that. Firstly, the dealer has to pay overhead, employee expenses, carrying costs, and make a well deserved profit or else the dealer would pursue some other line of work. And Klipsch has to pay the same, plus a portion to fund development of new product lines. If you think MDF is allowing them to gouge the consumer, then go build your own speakers and see how far that goes. ..Let's see what you can do with $4200 (what I paid for Cornwall III's). And I don't mean knock-offs of their current design! No, you can't simply copy what they've already spent a ton of $ developing. Your $4200 has to fund designing your own cabinets, your own horn compression drivers, your own cone speakers, your own cross-over, your own tooling, and so on and so on. ...You'll blow through the $4200 without ever having a working prototype.

Would be fine with either. But considering that EVERY one of my last speakers - Paradigm, Vandersteen, PSB, Spica, Polk - was made from MDF and not ONE of them ever suffered some sort of calamitous implosion, I'd be very curious WHY Klipsch wouldn't also use MDF unless it was b/c of a commercial application requiring additional anchor points. Again, you guys want something to snub your noses at others over b/c they don't have something you do. I find that to be unfortunate and strange. I'll say it again: it's seems rather ungracious to hang out at Klipsch's user forum and trash every speaker they make but the series you happen to own.

https://www.inchcalculator.com/how-much-does-plywood-weigh/ Really? 99.5 lbs vs. 71.5 lbs for a 3/4" 4 x 8' sheet. ..hardly minimal. That's 28lbs = 39% heavier. With this in mind, I think it's probably cheaper to build with Birch considering the significant increase in shipping costs for MDF. So why did Klipsch change?? Could well be that MDF's density and consistency from sheet to sheet simply makes it a better choice for precision speakers.. ..Nothing to get so exercised over. Would love to hear details on how Klipsch felt the MDF La Scala sounded better than the Birch. You guys seem to be attaching some sort of pride-of-ownership badge to Plywood that defies all reason.