ODS123

Dave,, what are you talking about? ..I did NOT make any such generalized statement about Klipsch Pro gear sounding inferior. But you did make such a generalized statement.. You said their present Heritage speakers are made from MDF and as such are inferior and are the handiwork of greedy cost-cutting accountants. I merely pointed out that this is not supported by objective fact. MDF is used widely throughout the industry b/c it is easier to shape, is less resonant, and easier to veneer. As for Klipsch Pro Gear I said it was engineered for considerably larger listening environments (like Transportation Centers, Theme Parks, and, yes, A/V applications like houses of worship, etc..). Yes, I don't recall ever hearing their Pro Speakers. Though I might have the last time I was at Hershey Park, or Philly's 30th St. Train Station. Nonetheless, my comments are supported by Klipsch's own spec sheets. Am I wrong about them having less bass extension?

That had already been mentioned in the thread - it was not in dispute. My recollection is that someone (Dave A perhaps?) was insisting that Heritage speakers were inferior to Pro Series b/c they are made of MDF. I pointed out that Heritage and Pro, and their respective cabinet constructions, were for different purposes. MDF used in Heritage Series is better for sound (more inert) and finish, Plywood (used in Pro series) is better for commercial applications b/c it's more durable. Anyway, i'd be happy to resume that discussion in the other thread if you'd like.

I think you've mischaracterized the extent and length of any disagreement with BH. Anyway, from Klipsch Pro Series Brochure. Highlighted near bottom. Pretty clear: Amusement Parks and Train/ bus Stations. ..I don't see this as a bad thing. ..Though you seem to.

Exactly. I NEVER said or suggested that.

No argument at all ..And I totally get the evocative visual appeal of glowing tubes. ..Probably no different than my love for how my Mac's blue meters cast an appealing warm glow to my great room.

Well… it seems we’ve veered a bit from my original post - which is fine of course. Conversations take unexpected turns sitting at a bar, so why shouldn’t they in a audio forum. Regarding Tube amps: I will say that I too have heard (and played) a great deal of live unrecorded music in my life. I strongly disagree that this should predispose me to prefer tube equipment. I’ve heard many tube amps and have never found them to sound more lifelike. I have, however, found them to be more prone to noise, more prone to hum issues (which are aggravating beyond description) and more prone to unexpected failures. ..These are hassles that most newbies wouldn’t be interested in dealing with. And it's bogus to suggest that by preferring solid-state amps I "will probably never know the full and complete joy that our hobby can bring." That is audio snobbery. When friends ask me why some audiophiles still prefer tubes I tell them that my hunch is it’s more about their old-timey appearance and their fond memories of audio during their youth than it is about some clear “musical” advantage. IMHO, tubes are romanticized in much the same way as turntables and vinyl. Anyway, even if a newbie were to give tubes a try. I think my recommendation still applies. Before spending heavily on a tube integrated or separates, go to an audio store and compare a cheap tube amp to an uber expensive one but with the same conditions: PRECISELY volume matched and take steps to ensure you are unaware of which is being used. Without ANY prompting from the sales rep, do you (the newbie) hear a difference b/w the pricey and cheap, and does one really sound more like music?? You all will say yes, but I have my doubts. Indeed, I don’t think people, when blinded, can even distinguish b/w SS and tubes as reliably as they think. I say this b/c I’ve seen people struggle to do so at audio salons time and again. And I’m sure they all thought their hearing and discernment was a sharp as everyone here believes theirs to be. All of this amp stuff aside, don’t forget that the two systems compared by this audio club also pitted super cheapo source equipment against very exotic/ expensive equipment: a $39 cd/dvd combo player vs a $3-4,000 cd/ DAC; a $15 generic interconnect & power cord vs. $2000+ cables/cord; and a crummy shaky chair vs. a pricey vibration absorbing CD player platform. So, just as you folks argue that pricey amps may be justified, don’t you think the audiophile that brought the exotic cd/dac player and cables thought the same?? Of course he did. And I'm sure he thought his hearing was terrific too.

You like Tubes, which is fine but they add distortion. You may find the distortion to be pleasing - which is your prerogative of course - but most audiophiles want a system that neither adds or detracts from the recording. I think if you were to ask most people about their preference, they'd say they want a system that is faithful to the incoming signal, not one that accentuates certain frequency regions, etc.. I'm guessing this is why the vast majority of audio and home theater gear is S/S. As to the other proposed caveats and inclusions.... My problem with what you are proposing is that it would be incredibly complicated to pull off, and not necessary. Most audiophiles insist that most $3000 boutiquey S/S amps sounds different (never mind better) than most $250 mass produced AVRs. I say, let the "differences are audible" crowd stack the deck in their favor by allowing them to pick two Amp/Pre combos or integrateds which have the reputation for being SO very very different that no one could ever mistake one for the other!! For example, a $7000 McIntosh (with autoformers, no less) compared to a $240 entry-level Onkyo integrated amp, receiver or AVR. ..Or maybe an inexpensive $300 Yamaha integrated compared to a $5000 separates (pre/ power amp) from Bryston. Or a $130 AudioSource AMP-100 compared to a $20000 Mark Levinson Pre/Power amp combo. All of these components have F/R, THD, S/N ratios, etc.. that exceed the threshold of our hearing, so they easily meet the criteria of being modern/ linear. And if you choose Klipschorns, there's no doubt that ALL have enough power to drive the speakers to modest SPL levels. I would guess that 99% of audiophiles who believe in audible differences b/w modern amps would say they differences b/w these proposed comparisons will be childs play to reliably discern. And I would love to see the surprise on their face when after the first switch from Amp A to Amp B they realize, "wow!! this will not be so easy!"

Holy smokes, that’s quite a few pre-conditions. What strikes me about your list is that those who regularly wax on about how this brand sounds better than that brand NEVER include a list of caveats like this. And why include live string musicians? I'm not suggesting that people can't reliably distinguish b/w recorded music and live. As I said earlier in the thread, it's interesting how once an actual test is contemplated the self-certainty of “Of course differences b/w amps are audible - anyone not deaf should be able to hear them!" changes to "Well, let's include only those with considerable experience and hearing deemed excellent by hearing tests. And let’s limit it to this or this kind of music….etc. etc.” Back to the intended recipients of my advice: I think that most beginners to this hobby who are reading these comments would think, “if it’s only under those circumstances that someone might be able to hear an iota of difference, then I agree with the OP (me) - these days, hifi is 99% about speakers.” As to your first question, why not tube amps? Because most Tube amps are not, by design, low distortion devices. They add distortion which, while pleasing to some, is not necessarily faithful to the original signal. This comment is tricky. You're pointing to a straw man here. I am NOT telling people how their hifi should sound - to each their own.. I'm pointing to PWK's BS button when audiophiles make unsubstantiated claims. I'm not telling people how there rigs should sound. I'm telling them to be skeptical of claims people make about what sounds better than what.

So he was clearly losing the debate? Wow, would love to see the links to that discussion. Please provide

No, I wouldn't do any of that. The people attending the gathering are presumably self-annointed audiophiles who believe they can hear differences b/w properly operating modern day amps. Anyone who doesn't believe they can hear differences would be asked not to participate. But that said, I certainly wouldn't have a problem w/ such inclusion/exclusion criteria being applied. It's interesting how once an actual test is contemplated the view changes from "of course differences b/w amps are audible - anyone not deaf should be able to hear them!" to "Well, let's include only those with considerable experience and hearing deemed excellent by hearing tests." ..I'm not quoting/ paraphrasing anything you have said wvu80, just the point of view in general on sites like this and others. Still, that would be at least some shred of substantiation for the "Modern amps indeed sound different from each other" part of this hobby. I agree, it doesn't prove anything more than "audible differences were proven for these participants for these two systems." Still, whenever people have tried to do just that, they've come up short.

I don't think your space is too small for Cornwall. Remember, these speakers are designed to be cozied up against a wall or corner. So they don't need the usual several feet of breathing room around them. As for Forte III or Cornwall III, I listened to both and ended preferring the Cornwalls b/c they seemed more dynamic while at the same time seemed to sound better/ more open even a the very quiet volumes I listen at during very late or very early hours. Not that any one persons opinion should trump anothers but here is a review by a particularly earnest audiophile who has both the FIII and CWIII and ompares them in this youtube review: Good luck. Both are great speakers.

I wouldn't structure the Test that way. ..I would tell people they would hear two systems in succession: A, then B. I would then play X, which is either A or B chosen at random.. They make note of whether X is A or B. Do this as many times as feasible. Then calculate if the number of correct choices occurred more than chance. If not, then audible differences remain unproven for that system. No preference is expressed. ..Just whether X is A, or B. The two systems would have to include amps that are engineered for low distortion across the hearing band and maintain that low distortion while driving the speakers (let's Khorns) to the desired volume. Tube amps, except for maybe McIntosh, probably wouldn't meet this criteria. ..But pretty much EVERY modern day S/S amp would.

Since some audiophiles contend that ABX boxes reduce audible differences (an allegation that was rigorously debunked by Arny Kreuger, it's inventor) I suggest forgoing the ABX box and do something much easier. There's no need to let perfect be the enemy of good here! I suggest simply hiding two system front-ends behind a curtain (speakers in front of curtain) and have someone behind the curtain switch randomly between the two. Of course, there's still a need for rigor. Firstly, volume knob position on each pre (or integrated amp) would have to set so the two systems are precisely volume/voltage matched. Second, whoever is doing the switching must promise not to intimate which is about to be played by way of clearing throat, cough, whatever. This totally imperfect non DBT still goes wayyyyy further than the complete lack of rigor most people exercise in their approach to this hobby. Alas, this will never happen. One, I don't think it's in Klipsch's best interest to play a role in this exercise. Two, most audiophiles don't really want to know the truth about the audibility of differences b/w modern amplifiers, cd-players, DAC's, cables, etc....

Well, I suppose the Behringer being better than expected is one way of looking at it. But what about all the other stuff ahead of the speakers? 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.

Exactly. ..Then just add a subwoofer and you'll have a nicely musical speaker - it's intended use for PA systems notwithstanding.

Though I like the idea I very much doubt that Klipsch Audio Tech. is interested in hosting an exercise which could give many a newfound skepticism regarding the audibility of differences between modern amplifiers. Remember, Klipsch relies on a network of retailers who must sell pricey amplifiers in order to survive - they can’t make it on speakers alone. I think Klipsch would like to stay very well away from this. Indeed, I think 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 made by other mfgs. Yet, for his company to survive today, it needs a network of retailers who, by necessity, must traffic in these sorts of claims. 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. Again, I think he'd point to his button.

I never said that. I said there are no meaningful audible differences between modern day amps that are engineered to be linear and are operated within their design limits. As for the test, I'll say one more time that although it falls short of perfect, it’s refreshing to learn of audiophiles who made an honest effort to validity test what they hear. All the complaints about the structure of the test reminds me of friends who shy away from FDA approved medications because of possible side effects, yet have no problem gobbling daily handfuls of nutritional supplements which are legally marketed without ANY evidence of safety, efficacy, potency or purity.

Hmm.. I'm surprised you wouldn't find it a bit eye-brow raising that in a comparison of a $260 to an $8000 audio system 28 of 38 people either preferred the $260 system OR heard no difference. ..I think newbies would find this to be evidence to not over obsess on the front end of a system. To my thinking, this undercuts the audiophile notion that pricier amplifiers, cd-players, interconnects, and power cords, and component racks sound better than cheaper ones. Besides, the test was not powered to capture whether or not those who heard a difference could reliably pick their preferred system a statistically significant percentage of times (ie., > than chance). Other tests that have been powered to capture this have generally shown that people can't

Well, that's one way of looking at it. But you can bet that each of these 38 had the same extreme confidence about their ability to distinguish differences as people in this forum.

Not true.. This test allowed people to pick A, B, or No Difference. It did NOT validate that people could reliably distinguish one from the other. That would have required a different study design.

indeed it is… I'm not debating that this test falls well short of a perfectly constructed and conducted DBT. Still, it’s at least a good faith attempt on the part of some earnest audiophiles to do a controlled comparison of two systems. That stands in stark contrast to the ocean of comments here and on other websites where people claim to hear huge and important differences between amps, cd-players, cables, etc.. without ever making any attempt whatsoever to introduce controls into such comparisons. As for those 38 audiophiles.. ..I’m betting EVERY ONE OF THEM, like most of you here (!), thought they had the experience and hearing acuity to discern differences before engaging in the listening test. Curious to know what they think now,.

A few weeks ago I urged beginners to heavily skew their spending toward speakers by suggesting that audible differences b/w modern amplifiers that are engineered to be linear (which is pretty much ALL solid-state and any good tube amps these days) will sound pretty much alike. As a followup and to support my point, take a look at what this audiophile club in Guadalajara Spain did a few years back. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm They compared two entire front-end systems that shared the same speakers. Rather than use a switch box (and invoke criticisms of how they reduce audible differences), they simply concealed the whole rig and had two people manually switch cables so eople did not know which front-end they were hearing. Of course, great care was taken to ensure that each system played at same SPL (by matching voltage levels at speaker terminals). To summarize: System A: About $260 today Behringer A500 integrated amplifier (presently avail for $199 from Sweatwater electronics) Cheap Sony DVD/ CD Player (equiv. to a $40 player today) Cheap interconnects: Described as “Standard RCA white/red (15 feet) bought in a 7/11 like store” All placed on a shaky wooden chair System B: I’m guessing $8000 or more at the time. Classe CAP-80 Line Stage YBA 2A Amplifier Wadia 6 CD Transport, VRDS 20 bit DAC MIT Terminator 3 proline XLR interconnects Audican Power Cord CD player placed on an expensive spiked Lovan vibration absorbing (allegedly) table, other components placed on what appears to be sand-filled purpose-built audio component stands. Both Systems were played through ATC SCM 12 passive Studio Monitor speakers connected w/ Tempflex speaker Cables The findings? 38 persons participated in this test 14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one 10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one 14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best. Of course, this is just two systems and just 38 listeners. ..So devoted subjectivist audiophiles will say this doesn’t prove anything. Also, this wasn’t really a double blind test as those who were switching the cables knew which was playing. However, how many of these devote subjectivist audiophiles would have predicted these results?? So, again, if you’re new to this hobby and you’re budget constrained, give serious thought before devoting a big chunk of your budget to a pricey amplifier, cd player and cables. ..Spend the bulk of your money were it matters most: you’re speakers.

I like it!! And way less expensive than the Prather Morad.

I like it! Crates are very convenient. For those wanting something up off the ground Check this out. It's on my Christmas wish list this year. A bit pricey, but attractive and functional. https://www.prathermade.com/shop/morad-unit

Sorry Dave but you need to go back and re-read that thread. I didn't rant against pro gear. ..Not at all. More accurately, you were dismissing all speakers made from MDF as being junk. This unsubstantiated claim struck me as ridiculous and worthy of calling out to any beginners perusing the thread. I pointed out, quite accurately, that 99% of speakers, including such exceptional designs as Vandersteen 5A Sigs, are made from MDF. I didn't say Klipsch Consumer speakers were better, just that they were no worse than their pro speakers that are intended for use in amusement parks, train stations, etc.. I did point out that Klipsch Pro speakers have limited F/R and would likely need to be supported w/ subwoofers. If memory serves, this was met with some agreement.