ODS123
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by ODS123
-
-
9 minutes ago, jason str said:
MDF sucks but its cheap, the proper plywood ( voidless) is stronger and longer lasting.
Explain why so many of the best speakers in the world have cabinets constructed of MDF. ..And if it's heavy enough to give a backache than it's probably NOT cheaper as the added cost to ship certainly cancels out any production cost savings. ..So, again, please explain.
-
1 hour ago, Dave A said:
MDF falls flat on it's own lack of merit which evidently is not a concern of yours.
I know this will be hard for you but generally companies list the advantages of their products from the best to the least in that order. Did you notice that Klipsch listed A/V
See you did say Klipsch Pro stinks once again. Your clear inference is this is where Pro belongs and it is a continuous thread in all your comments. You would never denigrate your pristine audio environment with such stuff is what comes through all the time. It is clear you look down on pro then go on to say you may have never heard it as evidence of the validity of your baseless opinion.
MDF is a better material b/c it's less resonant.. Hence, it's used throughout Klipsch's line, including the motorboards of it's Pro Series. Not sure where you're getting your info. Vandersteen, KEF, Legacy, Dynaudio, etc. etc. etc.. ALL use MDF for their top of line speakers. Hard to imagine they chose MDF over birch plywood for the purposes of saving MAYBE a few dollars in material cost. I say MAYBE b/c the material cost savings is probably erased by the greater cost of shipping speakers made of MDF b/c they are MUCH heavier. ..In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MDF was actually a more costly material.
Also, i DON'T think their Pro Series stinks. ..Not at all. You're just annoyed b/c I refuse to take your word for it that their Pro series sounds better in ALL listening environments - including a small home listening rooms - something which they clearly were NOT engineered for.
-
8 minutes ago, habinger808 said:
aloha ods123,
im born and raised on oahu and made the move to the mainland 3 years ago. miss the island lifestyle but things change. im waiting to hear from the seller to see if he'll let me hookup my av receiver. hopefully he does so i can get accurate sound using what i already have.
If it were me I'd tell the dealer that my placing an order for the speakers is predicated on being allowed to hook up and confirm my AVR can drive them. ..It's hard imagining a "no" to that. The Cornwalls are very easy speakers to drive cleanly. It's hard imagining that your AVR won't be able to cut it.
-
On 12/24/2018 at 3:54 PM, JohnA said:
If anything, Cornwalls might be too small for 14 x 30. Certainly not too big. Search Amazon for "integrated amp" and you'll find several good choices in your range. I will also recommend higher priced Yamahas. Or, look for a vintage CA-x00 (maybe a CA-x10/x20 series) and have it restored. A CA-800 drove my La Scalas quite well and tended to have a soft, tubey sound.
I strongly and respectfully disagree w/JohnA. I don't think there would be ANY problem with a room that size. ..My room is larger and my cornwalls can play to crazy ear-bleed levels without any hint of strain AND the wattage meters on my amp barely crest 10 watts. So No need for gobs of power. Heck, the CW's will sound great with an inexpensive A/V receiver in stereo mode. I did exactly that while my primary integrated was being serviced and the speakers still sounded fabulous. ..Prove this to yourself. Bring your A/V receive to the dealer and ask him/ her to hook them up. You'll agree I think.
Edited: added pic. As seen in the attached pic my room is about 18' wide. ..And it's twice as deep. Plus, 10' vaulted ceiling.
Mele Kalikimaka! (I grew up in Hawaii. ..Lovely place to spend Christmas!).
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Westcoastdrums said:
Listening is Def a waste of time.
Listening matters a great deal. ..And even more when you don't know which amp your hearing. ..Otherwise, seeing the Tube amp with it's alluring glow is apt to sound warm; and the black S/S amp with it's hard metal faceplate and it's thin white lettering (think Bryston) is apt to sound "clinical and sterile.".. ..Or maybe recalling a review about a particular amp, or it's reputation from a web forum.
Yep, listening is everything - particularly when you take steps to control biases.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Dave A said:
His OPINION, based on conjecture and in the case of Pro gear nothing he has chosen to actually listen to, supercedes the knowledge many of us have acquired through personal research and actual listening. Now if I can clearly see he has dismissed an entire line of Klipsch production as being inferior without any experience with them what am I to make of all these things he says about other stuff? Personally I want to hear everything Klipsch that I can. I have gone through a ton of Klipsch gear both Pro and Vintage because I wanted to KNOW what they sounded like. Some things like KHorns and Belles I have not had here but I can talk to people who have had some of the speakers I have and have also owned those KHorns and Belles and get their educated real world opinions and we both know what we are talking about because of common ownership and listening experience. How can you possibly explain stereo to a guy who walks around with a finger in one ear all the time and this is the problem here.
OD is right about train stations though. I have an old well done steam engine recording and you can feel the steam and smell the coal as it drives by on those MCM's. Almost like you were really there as the ground shakes.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
It also says “A/V Production Environments”. You could have mentioned that, but you chose “Train Stations”,
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.
-
3 hours ago, Dave A said:
ODS123 said Pro gear belonged in amusement parks even though he has never heard any and dumped on Pro hard enough that the Chief chimed in with comments and you can read it all there and draw your own conclusions. You know what mine are.
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.
-
2 hours ago, dwilawyer said:
Really? Where?
Exactly. I NEVER said or suggested that.
-
44 minutes ago, tube fanatic said:
..it's all about the emotional connection. If having 2 or 3 % second harmonic distortion allows this, who is to say that it is not a correct model for that individual?
Maynard
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.
-
2
-
-
On 12/21/2018 at 6:03 PM, robert_kc said:
I don’t think that the preconditions I suggested for a hi-fi listening test are unreasonable. (Based on my perspective.) I’m saying: Let all amps compete. You’re proposing to restrict the test to amps that are “modern”, “linear”, and “are engineered for low distortion across the hearing band and maintain that low distortion while driving the speakers (let's Khorns [sic] ) to the desired volume”.
While your proposed test may be of interest to academicians, I fail to see how most music lovers would care.
Why should a music lover care if an amp is “linear”, if they don’t enjoy listening to music through that amp (when paired with a particular speaker)? To me – and many music lovers – it is more important that an amp/speaker pairing be “musical”, vs. an amp being “linear” (or excel at any other technical specification).
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!"
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, robert_kc said:
OP:
The test you are proposing might have some interest for some people - i.e., only people who are committed to using only modern solid-state amps that meet some vague criterion of being “linear”. (Which seems like an unusually restricted test to me. What about people who prefer tube amps?)
Given your apparent desire to test only modern solid-state amps, then off the top of my head I think the test would only be useful if:
- The test should involve only natural music (i.e., no electronically produced or altered music). There is no way to determine how electronically produced and/or altered music should sound. (What’s the benchmark for how a synthesizer should sound? What’s the benchmark for intentionally distorted music?) In contrast, people who regularly attend live concerts where there is no use of electronics (i.e., no electronic instruments, and no sound reinforcement system) know how “natural instruments” should sound, such as a violin, oboe, trumpet, etc.
- If you want a really useful test, have a live string quartet play, and alternate with recordings.
- The test should employ only high-quality hi-res (e.g., Blu-ray, SACD, 24bit/192kHz) recordings. The recordings must have hi-res provenance - NOT copied CDs. And the recordings must be “as delivered” – NOT manipulated by PC software. (If music files are loaded onto a PC, you have no way of knowing whether what you are hearing is part of the recording or an artifact of the software. You have no way of knowing how much the PC software is “mucking up” a recording.) Garbage-in/garbage-out. (What’s the point of a test that’s based on poor quality recordings of music for which there is no benchmark?)
- The test must employ a high-quality state-of-the art universal player that can play all types of hi-res recordings.
- The test must employ high-quality state-of-the art full-range speakers. Presumably Klipsch.
- The listening venue must be quiet, and have acoustics that are appropriate for the music.
- There should be different listening sessions for people who listen to different genres. For example, one listening session for classical music. A separate session for jazz. A separate session for big-band. Etc. (People should not be forced to listen to music they dislike.) The tests should allow listeners to listen at length to recordings that they are familiar with. The tests should involve a relaxed environment.
- The test should involve music lovers who regularly attend live concerts where no electronics are used, and who describe themselves as being discerning listeners. (What would be the point of including someone who says that they don’t care about sound quality, or says that they have a “tin ear”, or damaged hearing?)
- etc, etc, etc....
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.
13 hours ago, robert_kc said:What’s the point of having hi-fi as a hobby if you let someone else tell you how your hi-fi system sounds?
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.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Edgar said:
I was involved in an online debate with Arny once, a few years ago, about digital filters. When I presented mathematical proof and he started to lose the argument, he went ad-hominem and called me a "digiphobe". I laughed so hard that I almost fell out of my chair, because I've been designing digital audio equipment since 1991.
So he was clearly losing the debate? Wow, would love to see the links to that discussion. Please provide
-
2 hours ago, wvu80 said:
In scientific research it goes much deeper than that. Do you train your listeners for inter-rater reliability? Do you use people who all have their hearing tested and match within a specified parameter? Do you separate the groups by sex? By age, and what age cutoffs do you use? Experienced listeners or those with no music experience at all?
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.
2 hours ago, wvu80 said:If you separated people enough to control all the variables including classical music, rock, frequency sweeps, you would end up with results so narrow you couldn't use them to predict results using any other criteria. In other words it would lack face validity and results which would not generalize to other speakers.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, joessportster said:
Your test did not allow for judgement of any component, it allowed people to make a choice of a sound preference. Which again has nothing to do with any component quality or value.
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.
-
12 hours ago, jimjimbo said:
Certainly any ABX test would have to be at the factory in some controlled space, and I think that's asking a bit much of the Klipsch folks and Roy. Anything we would try to do out at Rodney's would be a waste of time I think.
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....
-
4 hours ago, Marvel said:
Behringer has been improving their products ever since they acquired Midas and Klark Teknik in 2009.
Bruce
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. -
1 hour ago, Dave A said:
I agree. I bought an old MCM 1900 system and it was like I was right there in the train station or country fair. Best PA system ever.
Exactly. ..Then just add a subwoofer and you'll have a nicely musical speaker - it's intended use for PA systems notwithstanding.
-
10 hours ago, Ski Bum said:
Someone please bring an ABX device to Hope, put your own golden ears and cherished beliefs to a real test. A single completed pass is worth a thousand arm-chair quarterbacks.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
...That's not what he's saying. He's saying that from the perspective of sound, everything sounds the same.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
You keep maintaining that there is no difference, yet 63% heard a difference. Not not only did they hear a difference, but they had a clear preference.
Based on the outcome, my advice would be for beginners to take a hard look at the Berhinger amps, which by the way actually have a pretty good reputation. Notice that they did not use a POS low tier HT receiver.
Those remaining 10 are just deaf. They thought they could hear, but they can’t. We can only pity them.
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
-
6 hours ago, Schu said:
that's not testing whether or not one system is better than the other... it's testing whether or not an extremely SMALL sample can tell the difference between one or the other.
truth
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.
Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
Ease of construction makes sense as MDF is far more consistent from sheet to sheet, and much easier to get a clean splinterless edge. ..But not cost. MDF is way heavier hence more expensive to ship. I would agree that ply is perhaps more durable in those cases where speakers are constantly moved - such is not the case of course w/ home or studio speakers.