ODS123
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by ODS123
-
-
31 minutes ago, Dave A said:
The very best set of speakers ever in my shop are the current MCM 1900's at any level. KPT-456's are second. Have you actually heard any of these better Klipsch Pro speakers to base your opinion on? I have gone through Cornwall I and II, Forte I and II, Chorus I and II and Heresy I and II and La Scalas in my shop. All of them had re-capped crossovers and drivers checked for function to make sure they were performing well. Some like a current set of Chorus I's I have were recapped and had my MAHL tweeter with DE120 put in and sound noticeably better than stock. Same for LSI and La Scalas. I have talked with others who have owned the Belle and KHorns (the only traditional Vintage I have not owned) and some of the same Pro gear I have had so we can share experiences with a common reference point. My comments are based on actual possession and use and not conjecture. What are yours based on?
So you're basically saying "I've heard 'em all and can tell you unequivocally that the XXX's sound better than the rest." Of course, it's not practical for someone choosing b/w MCM 1900's and K-horns to hear them in the same environment, same day, using the same music and - preferably - blinded. So they can either take your word for it or maybe give some thought to what your suggesting; that Klipsch speakers are engineered for huge spaces, and practically no boundary reflections are better sounding that those engineered specifically for the dimensions and volumes of a typical home environment.
I have no expectations of changing your mind or that of anyone else who already owns these speakers. My goal is to inform the person, who has not yet purchased their speakers, to give serious thought to each side of this discussion and come to their own decision about which is more likely to be true.
-
1
-
-
On 11/20/2018 at 10:42 AM, Dave A said:
Word is getting out there This guy researched and bypassed entirely the process most of us go though working up the food chain from vintage veneer to Pro stuff.
Your premise strikes me as far fetched. You’re suggesting that for their most discriminating listeners whose environment is quiet and not terribly voluminous, Klipsch engineers/builds speakers that sound poorer than those that are engineered for commercial applications, where fidelity matters far less than durability, wide dispersion, and max SPL - eg., train stations, theaters, amusement parks, etc.
I don’t by it at all. I think if your listening environment is the size of the aforementioned venues then perhaps their commercial gear is a better choice, but those behemoths - with their limited F/R and outrageously high max SPL - are NOT best suited to normal sized listening rooms.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Don McPhee said:
Are the 396's detailed enough? Seems as they are a permanent front of house speaker. Generally
this type of speaker would not be considered audiophile...... I'm not familair with them at all though......
Though it would be hard to find KI-396's to audition, I would strongly urge you to do so before choosing them over the Cornwalls. Though the CW III's aren't exactly full-range speakers, the KI-396's don't even come close. They are reasonably linear (+/- 3db) only to like 60 hz. They extend deeper than this but aren't very linear (to 35hz but +/- 10db). This is pretty good for a 2-way design. But for use with rock or jazz I would think they'd require a subwoofer.
These speakers strike me as being intended more for PA and small theater applications than they are for audiophiles. The engineering priority was more about brute power and durability than refinement. So make sure this is your priority too. Keep in mind that unless your listening room is the size of a banquet hall and you plan on sitting 40 feet from your speakers, the CW's can also play loud enough, without distorting, to destroy your hearing w/ less than 10 watts.
Also, note that the 396's have an MDF front baffle (motorboard). This wouldn't bother me at all but there are some here who think MDF is incompatible w/ quality speakers.
-
I own CW III's and love them. ..I couldn't fathom modifying them in any way. I haven't heard earlier versions of CW's in years and never in the same listening environment as my CW III's
-
5 hours ago, Dave A said:
CPAs as leaders and primary decision makers are bad news equaled only by MBA's which seem to make money by exporting jobs to other countries away from their "expensive" domestic work force which is then still somehow expected to continue purchasing from the hollowed out MBA dudes outfit.
This is such a gross generalization I don't know where to begin. You seem to have an ax to grind for successful companies. So you provide on example of a poorly run company and extrapolate from it that all companies run by CPA or MBA's are somehow out of touch with their customers and discount the importance of a quality product. ..I know several CPA's and MBA's and they are every bit as conscientious about these things as, say, an engineer or market analyst.
If a Board of Directors approves a CPA or MBA as COO of a company and he or she does a terrible job then the Board chose the wrong person, that's all. Good lord, I would think the shareholders of MOST companies would want/ expect that a chief operation officer has an MBA. ..Probably half or more of successful large companies are run by someone with at least an MBA
-
3
-
-
51 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Precisely. And YES bean counters do take advantage of customers even $40,000 ones who are buying prestige and ego more than superior construction. They pinch every penny until it squeals. One of the reasons I went purely Pro for my own use is sound quality and the other is, although pretty far down the list from sound quality, cabinet quality.
So bean counters have stood in the way of every speaker sounding it's best except, not surprisingly, yours.
Besides, I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate bean counters (ie., managerial accountants). They are every bit as essential to keeping Klipsch in business as are engineers and product planners. That is true today and was true when your speakers were built.
-
2
-
-
48 minutes ago, Oicu812 said:
My thought on this is: Would you want to live in a house made of MDF instead of solid wood products? I doubt it. Why cheap out? Oh yeah, the bean counters call the shots, and say that birch plywood is too expensive to use on a set of speakers that retail in the high 4 figures, and sometimes well over $10,000 a pair.
I think we're past the point of changing any minds here and are well into navel-gazing territory. Still, I can't help but reply to the above.
Your comparison is utterly nonsensical. Because one material may be better for a house doesn't mean it's better for a speaker. Have you been reading the posts above yours? You seem to be ignoring the convincing arguments for why MDF is better for speakers: less resonant, far more consistent from one sheet to the next, easier to router/ mill, etc... etc..
You and Dave seem convinced it's the "bean counters" fault. I find that hard to believe. I seriously doubt Richard Vandersteen choses MDF over Birch plywood for his $40,000 speakers because it reduces construction costs by $75. ..Besides, isn't MDF much heavier? Wouldn't that mean the small savings in construction costs are negated by the greater expensive of shipping them out dealers?
More likely, plywood is a pain in the butt to work with (ever try routing plywood?) and each sheet is different from the next. Even with my limited carpentry experience I have seen plywood sheets with warps, and inconsistencies in thickness and density. ...Not a good thing if you want each product rolling off the assembly line to be the same, etc...
-
1
-
-
The above Wilson Audio video seems to suggest they use a fancy form of MDF.
-
1 hour ago, Dave A said:
OK you win with logic that overwhelms my personal experience and so I concede the validity of inferior material to be superior now and tip my hat to you. I am humbly chastened with the list of people you have used as reference material and your limited personal experience to be far above mine and more valid.
Dave I'm not trying to harsh you. But your suggestion that people who buy speakers made from MDF have basically been suckered deserves a pointed reply. To my knowledge, pretty much EVERY wood speaker these days (Harbeth being the only exception I know of) is made from MDF. ..Are they all junk??
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, ricktate said:
If you want birch ply you have to buy Klipsch before 1980 which would be Cornwall 1......Heresy 1......LaScala 1. I would rather buy older Cornwall and fix it up myself and have money left over to spend on good electronics.
IMHO, the great thing about Klipsch speakers is that they are easy to drive and therefore don't need anything beyond an affordable integrated amp or A/V receiver. So, IMHO, buying inexpensive electronics allows you to spend more on what accounts for 99% of the sound - the speakers. A well treated used pair of CW1's and a 40+ watt A/V receiver would make for an awesome sounding and awesomely affordable system. I can't think of any hobby where the law of diminishing returns is more apparent than audio.
-
12 hours ago, Dave A said:
OK did you read why I say this? You quoted it and I hardly think why I dislike MDF was left out. It does not matter to me one iota that many high dollar speaker builders get cheap on their customers I know what I see and deal with when I have to fix the end result in the used speaker market..
I did see the comment about difficulty in repairing. But why should this be such a huge consideration for either the manufacturer or consumer? I mean, who the heck is exposing their multi-thousand $$ speakers to water?? I listed all of my speakers over the last 30 years and not ONE of them ever needed to have the cabinet fixed. In fact, I don't know anyone who has had to have a cabinet repaired. So why make ease of cabinet repair a priority?
And you suggest their use of MDF is b/c "they're getting cheap on their customers." Well, I tend to believe the reasons offered by Richard Vandersteen: MDF is more consistent, easier to route/shape, less resonant, more stable, etc...
-
39 minutes ago, Dave A said:
I can buy 1" baltic birch for $49.00 per sheet + tax. When the cost of a speaker is $4,000+ and the use of inferior material saves maybe $50 per pair of Cornwalls please tell me again about engineering suitability VS parsimonious MBA CPA types who ask engineers for minimum suitable standards for production VS superior quality for production. They sell the heck out of Baltic Birch here in Music City to people who build custom cabinets and need them to be able to resist abuse and sound good. Perhaps most home environments think they will never subject their MDF stuff to abuse but I have handled way to many that have had water damage that PROVE to me the inferiority of the material. Out of the roughly 70 to 80 pairs of Klipsch I have sold MDF is what gives me trouble and that is the voice of real world experience.
And what about all the brands I have owned (and pretty much EVERY brand in existence these days) that use MDF w/out speakers falling apart or screws coming loose. ..So then, how exactly is it inferior?
Interestingly, back when I owned Vandersteen 3A Sigs Richard Vandersteen promoted his use of MDF as being ideal b/c it's more consistent from sheet to sheet, fewer voids, less resonant, and easier to router. Not saying he's right on those counts but they seem to make as much sense as your gripes to the contrary.
-
37 minutes ago, moray james said:
the MDF is veneered with wood veneer on both sides to keep it stable like any ply it must be symmetrical and ideally the veneers used should be the same wood or have similar characteristics of expansion and contraction.
okay, so it seems you're saying the MDF used is high grade and engineered for stability and consistency. ..A far cry from the "particle board" derision some have used to describe it. Again, every speaker I've every owned was made from MDF and have never had a problem w/ cabinet integrity or screws staying put. .
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, DizRotus said:
Regarding MDF, it has its place. In some ways it’s better than Baltic birch plywood, but in other ways it’s not. PWK, in a Dope From Hope article criticized Speakerlab’s use of MDF, saying it can’t take a screw. IMO, Klipsch eventually switched to MDF as a cost of production issue, not because it’s inherently better.
BTW, MDF is not “particle board.” Nonetheless, anyone who puts a screw directly into MDF deserves the poor results that follow. Properly glued MDF joints are extremely strong. The use of glueblocks and T-nuts enables MDF to safely accept attachments involving screws, whether wood screws or machine screws.
I know Klipsch states that the Cornwall is made w/ MDF, but looking at this picture of a Cornwall III being built, I'm not sure what it's made of. ..I doesn't look like typical MDF. ..And look in the background at the cabinets on the table behind her..
-
2 hours ago, Dave A said:
I absolutely refuse to buy particle board anything new though as I have had to deal with to much water and dent damage on older cabinets using that junk and don't get me started on chewed out screw holes that fail because of glued sawdust.
Why the problem w/ MDF?? Every speaker I've ever owned - Polk Audio 5jrs, Spica TC-50's, PSB Stratus Minis, Vandersteen 3A Sigs, Paradigm S8 sig v2's, and now my Cornwall III's - have been made w/ MDF and I've never had any issues with them. I keep them well away from water and don't mess with the screws.
-
11 hours ago, Don McPhee said:
Before I pull the trigger on some new Cornwall 3's I thought I would chime in and see if the early Cornwalls are as good or better than the current 3's.
Plus the fact I could get some really cool looking cabs from Klipsch Restorations for less money. I understand caps should be replaced on older x/overs
and inspect driver seals but I'm just not familair enough to know what to look for and what to stay away from.
Cheers
Don
Find a dealer with Cornwall III's on display and listen for yourself.
It's predictable, btw, that anyone who has ver 1 will say it's the best, those w/ ver 2 will say same and so on. ..I think you just need to listen for yourself. ..And for the love of god, don't buy new then start customizing. ..I think it's ridiculous for people to think they can out-think all the engineers who had every tool available to them when designing a speaker and spec'ing parts. Not only do you void the warranty, you also ruin their resale should you one day have to sell them.
-
36 minutes ago, Schu said:
Sell them and get a different speaker...
Exactly... I absolutely love my Cornwall III's and do not find either mid or tweeter horn to be deficient in any way. ..But if you do, then buy a different speaker. ..Lord knows there's hundreds to chose from.
I can understand swapping out components in a speaker that's out of production. But the idea that one could improve on a current design is something I can't quite fathom. The designer who chose the drivers for the CWIII had the benefit of lots of testing equipment, an anechoic chamber, blinded listening trials, etc. By comparison, what does the tweaker have or know that the designer did not as they embark on deconstructing what is a proven and successful design?s I would guess that the chances of screwing things up is far greater than actually improving it's performance.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Deang said:
What I learned from that link about the amp challenge is that he can make two amps sound the same by adding an outboard EQ, or modifying the output of an amp with a cap, coil, resistor, and screaming children in the background.
He states, "All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer [ or cap, and resistor] will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer."
He went on to say this was usually used when comparing Tube amps (which are usually non-linear) to S/S amps. If both amps have linear responses (like most modern-day amps) then no equalization was used.
-
8 minutes ago, Deang said:
I think it's absurd to claim no difference, and then spend 10x more money than you have to - because hey - "I really like those meters".
I was focused on components, not wire and power cords.
The NAD stuff has always sounded good. I don't doubt your claim one bit.
That's funny. So you're accusing me of being a closet subjectivist. Well, that's a first
What's hard to believe about my reasons?? I love the retro look, tactile feel, heritage and feature set of Mac gear. For decades I've looked forward to owning one and only now (well, 5 years ago) have I been able to afford it. Also, I insist on having Bass/ Treble, Balance, and a Mono switch to help make poorly recorded (usually tipped up) more listenable. ..I'm not aware of many brands that offer these incredibly sensible features.
-
50 minutes ago, richieb said:
Not psychologically different but audibly different.
Well, so you say. But without any effort made to compare these without knowing which you're hearing, I'd say it's expectation bias. Or perhaps Nelson amps are non-linear devices, which I can't imagine ANY audiophile would want. Better to have a linear amplifier, then use an equalizer to tip or dip certain frequencies according to taste.
To Beginners!!
Remember, at the start of this I referenced the $10,000 reward that was offered by Richard Clark to any golden-eared audiophile who could reliably differentiate b/w two amplifiers, provided they were engineered to be linear and they weren't driven into clipping. ..No one claimed the money. And you can be quite sure that everyone who took this test felt the same way as many here: "of course, i can tell a difference!"
http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
Well, we started here, and it was the only thing I wanted to address. I believe the position does a real disservice to designers and manufacturers, and is misleading to those who are really looking for something that will truly engage them.
I almost forgot to mention this; the higher the sensitivity of the loudspeaker, the more revealing it is. Few things sound worse to me than a mid-tier receiver through a pair of LaScalas or Klipschorns. The sound is barely passable!
I have driven my Cornwall III's w/ an Onkyo TX-NR1030 AVR for weeks while my Mac was being serviced. It sounded awesome (..actually, identical to the Mac). While I could hear slightly more hiss with the volume cranked, source paused, and my ears pressed to the tweeter horn, the S/N ratio is excellent; there is no way this would be audible at the listening position while music is playing. It is quiet, it can drive the Klipsch's to "hear it down the block" levels without hint of strain, it and has an awesome feature set. And the build quality - while not quite the level of the Mac - is impressive. ..When used for movies, my son's crank it to near Theater levels and is has never overheated or shut down. A "set it and forget" music lover would find this an excellent choice, apart perhaps, from the fact that is 7.1 channel rather than 2 (or 2.1) ..And no one in my family, all of whom are music fanatics and have a keen sense for musical nuance, could hear one iota of difference b/w it and the Mac.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
See, you are intent in imposing your way of thinking as all or nothing.
....The future of this hobby has nothing to do with DBT. It has much to do with listening and trusting your ears.
Shakey
No, I'm not intent on imposing my view, I'm simply trying to provide balance. Looked at collectively, this and other audio forums are like 98% subjective impressions offered by people who don't give a wisp about validity testing. ..So while my viewpoint may comprise a large part of this thread, this "objectivist" view (your description, not mine) is largely drowned out throughout audio blog-dom.
And DBT isn't strictly necessary. It would be a huge improvement if people would simply ask that the amps or speakers they are comparing are volume-matched using either a voltage meter (tougher to do) or using a db meter. .Just a modicum of validity testing is better than nothing.
-
1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:
Minds are very unlikely to change. You would laugh if I told you the first time I tried an aftermarket power cord on a SS amp I was on the phone the next day spending my 300.00. Same amp, same volume level, same speakers, same room, same listener.
Like you said, we should all enjoy this hobby in whatever way we like. If doing a rain dance in your listening room before turning on your system improves the sound, who am I to poo poo your belief?
Shakey
Committed minds aren't likely to change, but Beginners taking in both sides of the argument might be influenced. The future of this hobby depends, IMHO, on a degree of self-imposed validity and honesty tests/controls by reviewer, mfgs., and just a bit of skepticism from consumers.. I know several people who sold their floors standers and components in favor of a Sonos b/c they regard this hobby as totally off it's rocker.
As to your Power Cord. ..Not trying to convince you, but I must share a word w/ beginners who may have read your comment:
To All Beginners!!
Before upgrading your power cord from the one included w/ your component ask yourself: How is it possible that electricity travels through hundreds of miles of outdoor power line (with countless splices, and new ones possibly added after every power outage), then hundreds and hundreds of feet (maybe yards) of Romex in your home, and yet it is somehow improved by swapping the last three feet of cable b/w the wall and the component? Please think hard on this before buying! And again, if it does improve the purity of the electricity, why doesn't any Power Cord mfg. point to a controlled listening trial where the improvement was proven to be audible?. ..And be doubly suspicious if the cord comes with instructions that mentions a break-in period.
-
16 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
Another example. I was selling a Parasound HCA-2200 II back in the mid 90s. I had replaced it with a McCormack DNA-1 (again, a less powerful amplifier). A guy drove 3.5 hours to pick up the Parasound. Before he even handed over the $$ he was curious to hear the DNA-1, so I swapped them out. From the first minute of music a look came over his face. It was quite obvious how much better the McCormack was.
So he made conclusions about how an amp sounds listening to it on YOUR speakers in your listening room? Or if you're saying he listened first to the Para, then McC... Did you carefully equalize volume levels?? Simply leaving the volume knob on the pre-amp is not the same (and I'm sure you know this..). Even if it's only slightly so, the louder amp will sound "more open, more bloom, better liquidity, faster, etc.....". (Ugh)
You and others keep saying I'm wrong b/c you recall hearing a difference that was unmistakeable! ..But these anecdotal accounts mean nothing if no effort whatsoever was made to control bias.
-
1
-
Best Cornwall....?
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
I would love to. ..And certainly would have loved to before buying my cornwalls. ..But that would have only answered the question: what sounds better to me?? And it would be near impossible finding a dealer who has these commercial speakers on hand and set up to compare with their audiophile intended speakers. ...So, lacking any opportunity to directly compare, we have to do a little critical thinking: Why would Klipsch dumb-down a speaker that is going to be listened to by a more discriminating listener who listens in a more predictable environment and does so without all the extraneous noise found in venues where their pro speakers are typically used. Again, I would think their Pro speakers are engineered more for brute SPL and durability than they are for wide F/R, linearity, and imaging.