ODS123

Umm... Maybe people who visit audio web forum and are interested in sorting out what is real and what's imagined?

measurements schmeasurements.... 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

Which is the right thing to do. I need to learn how to not take the bait.

Yes. Dave A has a thing for me

please... Copy/ paste this comment to which you refer. And you're now adding a new misquote, that I said "Roy does not know what he is doing". Again, either post the comment you're referring to or apologize. I NEVER said EITHER of those things you allege. Btw, the new CW4 is made w/ MDF.

Wow! In all of my years of participating in online forums I have never had my views more grotesquely mischaracterized. I don’t believe Klipsch pro gear is junk, so I never said it, and I have never implied it. It was you who said modern Klipsch heritage speakers made with MDF are junk. In brief I said the pro Klipsch gear is made with plywood because it is meant to be mounted and used in PA settings. You persisted saying the MDF gear is junk because it is difficult to repair or refinish if it gets wet. Which is a ridiculous criticism because none of the other gear in my, or anyone else’s, system is waterproof. I invite you to find any of my comments that suggest the Pro gear is junk.

It's laughable the audiophile world treats these beliefs - like break-in, audibility b/w cables, interconnects, etc - as though they are simply and forever unknowable. ..Like the matter must always remain a topic of interesting and spirited debate. That is BS Take break-in: It would be SO easy for Klipsch to take a pair of Cornwalls - maybe a blemished pair so as to not put hours on a pair a customer is waiting for - play one of them for one full day (24hrs), and the other for 8 full days (192hrs) and compare them side by side playing a mono song. Can people HEAR a difference - ie., can they distinguish the one speaker from the other more often than mere chance? ...No need for measuring driver excursions or electrical resistance or any of that - It just boils down to whether a difference is AUDIBLE. Klipsch has the means to do blinded testing, so this would be EASY. Unfortunately this will never happen and the reason is break-in and the other myths have profit implications for gear companies and their retailers. I've already said I've done the above w/ my last four speaker purchases. To date, not one person has expressed an interest in doing it with theirs. Heck, I can't even convince ONE person to wire one channel of their system w/ pricey interconnects and compare to it the FOB (free-in-the-box) used on the other. Nope. So it may be that people DON'T really want to know the truth. Hence, I think subjectivist audiophiles are as goofy and astrologists.

So, as I see it, this discussion can be summarized as following: Break-in that is barely measurable and barely audible in 20 HRs or more: MAYBE. >20+ hours of Break-in that can take a speaker from "Unimpressed" to "Love it": MYTH. If you don't love your new speakers right out of the box, don't expect "break-in" to change this.

Right.. ..And this doesn't trip your internal BS alarm?? 600 hours is 75 days @ 8 hours/day. ..So what do they tell retailers? "Don't let customers hear them for 15 weeks Break them in in a storage closet first before putting them on the showroom floor!" C'mon people. This is redic. Again... No speaker company would ship a speaker that sounds less than it's best simply b/c they couldn't find a way to exercise the drivers prior to assembly. I'll say it one more time, speaker companies benefit from perpetuating the break-in myth b/c it reduces the number of speakers being brought back to a retailer.

Wow! An awesome post Travis. Thanks. ..Points well taken.

Ok... but you're being vague - saying 20 min to 200 hours is quite a spread. So let's cut to the chase. ..In your opinion, do Klipsch speakers speaker sound different after, say, 20 hours and then 40 hours?? After unboxing my CWIII's and giving a quick listen to make sure both were functioning, I played music through just one speaker for the night and late into the next morning (>12hrs). The next day I played a mono song and switched back and forth b/w the two using the balance control. ...Neither I nor ANYONE in my family could hear one IOTA of difference b/w the two speakers. ..They sounded identical. I find it remarkable that we treat this question about Break-in as though it's some sort of an unknowable. ..I suggested to others that they do as I did w/ my CWIII's with their next speaker purchase and literally NO ONE else has done this. I think people don't really want their self-annointed golden-ear qualifications debunked.

Claude said "I've not measured anything that drifted from specifications more than a few percent", not "sound 2% better". The "Myth" that is being called out isn't that there MAY be a tiny, minuscule change in measurements, it's the notion that speakers will go from sounding "meh" right out of the box to "Wow!!" after 10, 20, 200 hours of use (..or "break-in" if you must). If this were true, Klipsch would surely find a way to add break-in to the mfg process so that every speaker left the factory sounding "Wow!"

Wouldn’t surprise me. Wasn’t there an article years ago about world-class violinists not really being able to reliably hear a difference between a Stradivarius and cheap knockoff? connoisseurship is a fascinating phenomena. What is the rarest phrase you’ll ever hear spoken by an audiophile? Answer: “I don’t hear any difference’

What I know is that is that the resulting mono - imperfect though it may be - is still preferable to the goofy stereo

Comes in handy more often that you'd think. ..Many of the songs back in the very early days of stereo had really bad stereo imaging. ..Like some early Beatles songs where all the voices come from one channel, and the instruments from the other. I'd much rather hear those songs in mono.

Right.. but does it have a Mono switch?? ..Sadly, mono switches, which used to be on nearly every pre-amp, integrated amp, and receiver, have all but disappeared. Only Luxman, Accuphase, McIntosh and Anthem offer integrated amplifiers w/ mono switches. Which brings to mind another myth. Mono switches, even when not engaged, have a negative audible impact on the signal b/c they introduce additional signal breaks. ...This is pure nonsense. or should I say MYTH!

What?! Are you saying that DBT doesn't work b/c it failed to reveal audible differences b/w a cheap pioneer receiver and a $14k ML amp?? ..I'll stick with the more scientific conclusion, which is: ...They didn't sound sufficiently different for people to consistently distinguish one from the other. Sheesh You can't discredit DB testing just because it failed to produce the result you wanted. And I never said there were no performance differences b/w amplifiers. But differences that can be measured (for ex., 05% vs .025% THD) are not necessarily differences that can be heard. DBT is useful b/c it can help sort out REAL audible differences from IMAGINED differences.

Liars? No... Just susceptible to expectation bias. As I have described countless times here and on other forums, I did the following with my last four pairs of speakers, which were: PSB Stratus Minis; Vandersteen 3A Sigs; Paradigm S8v2; Klipsch Cornwall III.... I placed the speakers beside each other, and played music through one speaker during the first night (>12 hours). ..I then played a mono song and switched back and forth b/w the two speakers using the balance control. ..Not ONE IOTA of difference was audible between the speakers. None. For YEARS i've encouraged others to do the very same w/ their next speaker purchase and have not been able to convince one person. Ditto with doing same w/ expensive speaker cables, and interconnects (ie., hook one channel w/ pricey cable then use balance control to compare). Sadly, it seems most audiophiles would rather tirelessly defend their belief in imaginary differences than take one small step in the direction of empirical testing. That is why I fear for this hobby. There is little to no interest in any sort of validity testing.

Well... and I would submit that with the other 10%, it's likely all in their heads.

Well, I humbly stand corrected. If there are measurable changes in THD, S/N, Channel Separation, etc. that take place during the first 60 min. - that are within the threshold of our hearing - then I can understand. ..But as for any audio component that takes hours of time to stabillze (longer than what you're referring to) that would be an example of poor electrical engineering, imho..

sheesh... Breakin-in (beyond a few minutes); Amp warm up (beyond a few moments) are pretty much acknowledged myths. What I see from break-in believers above are quasi sciency-esque but largely nonsensical or anecdotal accounts where no effort is made to account for bias. From the break-in believers, please explain why CT scan, MRI, and ultra-sound imagining devices - all of which have tons and tons of electronic components - don't require break-in' ? ...Ask technicians who operate these if their images get better as these incredibly complex machines break-in? ..I'm not talking about stress-testing sub-assemblies during manufacturer to assure reliability, i'm talking about break-in after it's manufactured, passes quality/operational tests, then arrives to a radiology dept. Or how about electronic components and sub-assemblies in aircraft? Again, not talking about stress testing during manufacture, but "break-in". Do you ever hear aircraft manufactures say, "the aircraft is not going to be maximally responsive to pilot input until the thousands of micro-controllers, relays, switches, servo-motors, capacitors, wire, etc.. break-in. ..So expect a slightly sugglish aileron roll-rate, yaw from rudder input and even pitch response from the elevator will be a bit slow for a few hundred hours. ...You know, Mr. pilot... It just needs to break-in! ..So don't expect maximum precision as you fly this aircraft - along w/ it's 200 passengers - for maybe 1000 hours." C'mon people.. don't be so gullible.

@Travis In Austin An excellent read, thanks!! Modern day amplifiers are so linear there is little differentiating them aside from aesthetics and feature sets. ..In a way, audio was more fun back in the 50's when differences b/w amplifiers were actually audible.

No argument from me on this. I've long maintained that all modern amplifiers that are engineered to be linear (notable exceptions might be low-watt tube amps) will be largely indistinguishable from each other when not driven into distortion. These days even cheap AVR's have F/R, S/N, THD, Channel Separation, etc.. that exceed the threshold of our hearing.

I think you meant to say "Paul couldn't have cared less.." Anyway, I think I would have very much liked him. Let's assume for argument that he would have found pricey speaker cables, interconnects, DACs, amplifiers, etc.. to be BS AND was very outspoken in his belief (ie., pointing to his BS button whenever visiting retailers). He would have a hard time lining up a retail network to carry his speakers. HiFi retailers are heavily reliant on income from all that BS nonsense and couldn't abide one of their brands telling people HiFi is 95% about speaker choice.

Did he really say that? Omg, he definitely would not be welcomed in most audiophile circles. I suspect he would challenge the very idea of audible differences between modern low THD amplifier’s.