Jump to content

ODS123

Regulars
  • Posts

    883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ODS123

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Well... and I would submit that with the other 10%, it's likely all in their heads.
  4. 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..
  5. 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.
  6. @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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. What I'm saying is I don't think it serves the interest of a speaker company that relies on a dealer network to go on the record calling BS on things like the audibility of differences b/w speaker cables, interconnects, DACs, tuning rocks, cable lifters, hours-long break-in' periods, amplifiers, etc.... All of these things help dealers stay in business. IMHO, speakers - their proper placement and room acoustics - account for >95% of how a system sounds. ..But dealers desperately need to sell ALL the components and accessories to be viable. So a speaker company engineer isn't about to say anything that interferes with that.
  11. I don't it's fair to expect CBH to weigh in on these Myths. After all, his dealers benefit from them and probably need them to help keep their doors open. And most rely on the "break-in" myth to help reduce returns. ..I don't think they'd be happy with Klipsch if their chief engineer is on the internet calling all that stuff BS. I think PWK would have an even harder time. If he went in to a retailer nowadays and pointed to his BS button every time he heard a salesman talk about power conditioners, speaker cords and cables, etc... The owner would probably say "Get out... and take your speakers with you"
  12. Of course - and what’s wrong with that?! I think most people would find it hugely enlightening to learn that a group of people, when blinded, can’t reliably distinguish one cable from another. Or one amp. Or one DAC., etc…. Preferences are subjective and can’t be debated. But the ability to actually hear a difference can be objectively determined.
  13. Voice in the skies? Government podium? What are you talking about? You are free to believe whatever you wish of course. However, to any newbies following this thread… Be reminded that Bob Crites, Who was as respected as PWK himself, Explained that breakin takes an hour at most. Factory burn-in might increase costs slightly but shipping speakers that don’t sound their best would cost more in lost sales. Like I said, if Breakin made the difference between a speaker sounding “meh” and “wow!” the mfg would surely find a way to break them.
  14. right.... AND mfgs would have found a way to make it a part of their manufacturing process. ..Instead of drivers sitting on a shelf waiting to be screwed into a baffle, they'd be hooked up to a device/amp that exercises and breaks-in the speaker.. c'mon people... if your BS radar doesn't go off with this then your gullibility makes you too easy a target.
  15. "It's not that serious. Really and truly, it’s not…." Well, maybe if one has unlimited resources to devote to this hobby it's not, but to the rest saving someone from needlessly spending $300 on an audiophile power cord is kinda serious. Life and death? No, of course not. ..But worthy of a forum post? Yes, of course.
  16. No one is telling people what to do! Maybe you don't care, but others, particularly newer audio hobbyists, might appreciated learning about a more objectivist point of view. ..One that values validity testing and acknowledges the power of bias. And there's certainly nothing wrong w/ shining a BS light on companies who seek to collect lots of money from people peddling nonsense. If you want to put tuning rocks on your speakers, go for it. ..No one is stopping you. But don't waste your breath trying to stop us from calling it BS.
  17. Measured? Heck, I'd settle for identifiable whilst not knowing whether or not it's in place.
  18. That silly device reminds me of my favorite ever-optimistic hero.. Hand over that golden helmet! But this is a shaving basin! Shaving basin! Know thou not what this really is? This is the Golden Helmet of Mambrino! When worn by one it renders him invulnerable to all wounds! But he'll one day find it is not gold and will not make him brave... But at least he'll find it useful if he ever needs a shave
  19. I couldn't disagree more. Blind Testing can be very helpful in sorting out real differences from imagined ones. please elaborate on why you feel this is NOT the case.
  20. I would also add... Tone controls are to be avoided b/c they hurt the sound. The argument given is that they introduce add'l signal breaks that weaken/damage the signal. Total BS. Ever see a mixing board? You know, like the ones used w/ all of our audiophile favs like Steely Dan and Diana Krall?? They have hundred and hundreds of sliders, pots, etc.. each with at least two signal breaks. If each of those hundreds (maybe >1000) breaks weakened/damaged the signal, there would be nothing left it to hear/ record
  21. huh?? ..So why doesn't medical imaging equipment - which has plenty of "electronics/capacitors inside" need break-in time? If so, wouldn't MRI, CTs, and echo images get sharper as the equipment "breaks-in"? It's not that I'm trying to change your mind (it seems to be made) but I do want any newbies reading these posts to consider that "speaker/component break-in" is not supported by science.
  22. Couldn't agree more with Claude - break-in is a myth that manufactures allow to persist because it serves their interest by reducing returns. I would add interconnects and power cords to the list as well. ...And probably the idea that separates (power amp and pre-amp as separate components) offer an audible advantage. These days, integrated amplifiers have S/N ratios, channel separation, and THD that exceed our hearing threshold. ..Any minuscule improvement gained by separates is not apt to be audible and probably not even measurable. That of course doesn't mean there aren't other sensible reasons to go with separates.
  23. Well that settles it... Science vs... what Shakey says
  24. Here's what Bob Crites said about break-in... "Q: How about break in time for drivers or new driver diaphragms? A: Yes, and depends on the size of the driver. Tweeter diaphragm probably break-in at a matter of seconds. They are very low mass and move very little, so any break in would happen almost instantly. Probably happened when the factory tested the diaphragm after manufacture. Midrange are a bit bigger and have a bit more mass. Break-in is probably on the order of minutes with these. Woofers would take the longest. I think that break-in on a 12 to 15 inch woofer would be less than an hour played at pretty good volume using music with a lot of low frequency content." As I said, if "break-in" would make the difference b/w a speaker sounding "just okay" and "fantastic!" ..Then Klipsch surely would have done this during the manufacturing process. Unless you're using an amp that is so underpowered that it's driven into distortion (nearly impossible) speaker placement and room acoustics are your go-to's. Otherwise, you're just not a fan of how they sound. ..And there's no shame in that. ..Sell them and find something that better suits your tastes.
×
×
  • Create New...