Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ODS123

  1. 3 hours ago, TAliyev said:

    Adding an extended factory burn-in increases costs and prices enormously.  Again, we are not talking about drivers only but crossover boards as well. To do this right, the assembled unit needs to be processed as a whole... Only custom and semi-custom manufacturers do this type of pre-cooking... Zu Audio would be a good example. They do 600 hours factory burn-in to their speakers https://www.zuaudio.com/  


    Why do we need to be told "The Truth" by a voice from the skies, government podium or TV instead of believing our own eyes and ears?!

    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.



  2. 1 hour ago, Peter P. said:

    If "break-in" was real, somebody would have proven it by now



    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.

    • Like 1
  3. "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.

    • Like 1
  4. 3 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:

    Why does it need to go away? Are you somehow offended by people who believe break in is a real thing? And God forbid, does it make you physically sick? Why do any of these “myths” bother you guys so?


    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.

    • Like 2
  5. 1 hour ago, michaelwjones said:

    One I just discovered is the $3000  "HighEnd Novum PMR Premium Mk.II - Room Acoustic Resonator Extraordinaire;" the brass dish on top of the stand. While it just sits, "It sweetens and clarifies the sound with more focus and definition."




    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

  6. 37 minutes ago, Schu said:

    People seem to ALWAYS misuse Blind Testing in attempt to either credit or discredit a thing.


    Blind testing does not accomplish this.


    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.

  7. 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 :)

    • Like 1
  8. 51 minutes ago, TAliyev said:

    The speakers are afflicted by the same plague as amps and dacs...electronics/capacitors inside... It takes time for those to chemically settle under the electrical current and temperature caused by it's flow.  Also, the wood needs to acclimate to the local humidity, which affects resonance and vibration characteristics...


    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.

  9. 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.  

    • Like 1
  10. 8 hours ago, TAliyev said:

    Not sure about the rest of the distinguished members of this forum, but in my personal universe speakers' break-in exist...and is audibly detectable and proven.... But that is just in my universe.... The multiverse is endless...


    Cronwalls have been playing nonstop for about 48 hours now...


    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.

  11. 11 hours ago, TAliyev said:

    Still my CW4s have not been broken-in yet...


    It's your ears, or maybe your conscience, that haven't broken-in yet, not the speakers....


    imho, break-in time is a myth that needs to go away...


    Audio companies know the break-in claim is nonsense but allow it to persist b/c it reduces the amount of gear that is returned b/c it failed to live up to expectations that were often set by wildly glowing reviews, online group-think, etc..  Some companies (not necessarily Klipsch) know if they specify a long-enough break-in time, people will simply grow accustomed to their latest purchase and become resigned to keeping it.  Or maybe they'll go back and reread the glowing reviews and will simply convince themselves.
    Do you really think PWK would support the idea of an hours long break-in period??  Of course not.  ..Nor did Bob Crites. ..In fact he said it took a mere few minutes.


    If break-in truly made the difference b/w speakers sounding "meh.." and "wow!!!!" then the mfg would surely find a way to break them in before boxing them up and shipping them.


    Just relax.  Your CW4's are awesome speakers.  ..enjoy them.  It's your conscience that's giving you a little buyer's remorse.  ..But you only live once. Once you're resigned to having spent the money your conscience will ease and you'll begin to enjoy your fantastic speakers.  ..But it's your conscience that is "breaking-in", not the speakers :) 

    • Like 2
  12. The Heresy IV's are very efficient and easy to drive.  There are wattage calculators you can find on the internet to help determine how much power you'll need.  ..I would think 50watts would be plenty.  ..More than enough to evoke an eviction notice if you share walls w/ a neighbor.


    And nowadays, nearly every integrated amplifier exceeds your hearing threshold with respect to THD, S/N, Channel Separation, etc....  So no need to turn amplifier selection into something akin to a wine-tasting exercise.  ..Look for the features you want, fit/finish you desire and aesthetics you can live with.  Spending more doesn't mean better (or even different) sound, but it could mean a thicker faceplate, heavier metal knobs/ switches, and grotesque amounts of over-engineering yielding no better sound, but a great deal more expense and physical weight :)


    And good call on choosing an integrated (or even an AVR) over separates!  ..There's no engineering-based rationale for separating into two or more boxes that which can elegantly be built into one.  ..Not only is an integrated solution cheaper, there's fewer components and less cable clutter.

    • Like 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:

    Open floor plans are a death knell to a high end system.


    Couldn't disagree more.  I have my system set up in an open floor plan great room and it sounds terrific.


    Besides, I'd rather sacrifice a tiny bit of audiophile perfection so as to more easily enjoy music in the company of others.  Great music - cued up by myself, or others - needs to be shared.  IMHO

    • Like 1
  14. 1 minute ago, Edgar said:


    Could you build them yourself for less than $6600? Of course. Do you have the knowhow? And the skill?


    I like your break-down.  ..And don't forget the cost of development, inc. the salaries of engineers, staff, craftsmen, etc...


    People who know I'm in Pharma often say, "The cost of an inhaler is outrageous!  It's just a ubiquitous plastic pump dispenser filled a few cents worth of medicine."


    Yeah, well... Add to that the cost phase 1 lab development, phase 2 & 3 trials clinical trials in multiple locations throughout the world (often involving thousands of people ea. needing to be compensated) AND the costs of other drugs the company had moved through clinical trials only to fail to meet end-points.   These failed drug costs can become of their break-even going forward.


    Another ex..,  A VW has maybe $2000 worth of metal, plastic, etc...   ...But just try designing, engineering, and manufacturing one in your garage for the price.

    • Like 1
  15. 2 hours ago, Schu said:

    I can't for the life me understand why ANYONE would ever belittle a timeless proven design that has been modernized with better construction techniques and more advanced component treatments... EVEN IF performance is only marginally better.


    To me this is, ONCE AGAIN, a economics discussion... and that is tiresome and lowly subject.


    I hope you're not referring to me as I have not "belittled a timeless design".  Suggesting that the differences b/w generations of speakers are often not as great as a mfg would have you believe is NOT belittling anyone or thing. 


    And I don't blame a mfg for shouting "new and improved" from the tallest mountain top.  This is to be expected.


    But skepticism from those who not long ago bought the previous version should also be expected.   Again, both were designed by the same person.  What exactly has changed in audio engineering b/w 2005 and now?



    • Thanks 1
  16. 33 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

    I think you make a valid point here . The  law of diminishing returns is at play here ,and everywhere else , and we all know that the older versions of these speakers are pretty darn good . It’s hard not to be a little skeptical 🤓

    exactly...  And CW3 and CW4 were designed/ engineered by the very same person with - unless someone can correct me on this, i've asked several times - the very same tools and technologies available to them.  



  17. And as an added comment about not hearing resonances....   I find this very surprising considering how little bracing ALL klipsch speakers have relative to competitors.  My CW3's (and the CW4's and La Scalas I saw at a dealer) sound as hollow as a shoebox when you knock on them.  By comparison, my Vandersteen 3A sigs, and Paradigm S8 v2's, sounded like cinder blocks when you knocked on them.  I guess what matters is how the resonances are controlled.  Even voluminous hollow speaker cabinets (like the CW's) will sound inert w/ thoughtful bracing.

  18. 10 hours ago, Dave A said:

    I am stating it as fact, not implying it. I see once again you are right.


    I've not called anyone names - never.  Sorry you feel the need the do so.  ..Even if you're understanding of Solipsism is suspect.


    And BTW I've not heard ANY resonating from my CW3's.  Not once.  And I've played every imaginable genre of music from whisper levels to 100db.   So while it's possible they've reduced resonances from a measurable standpoint, that alone is not proof the improvement will be audible.  ..Kinda like McIntosh (or any other amp mfg) making a big deal about reducing THD another .0002% in their latest amplifier.

  19. 2 hours ago, Travis In Austin said:

    Well that's not what happened.

    I don't know how I came to understand it was some sort of an unofficial unveiling for a small audience - I'd have to go back through old threads to figure it out.  Maybe we're not talking about the same event.


    But it doesn't really matter.  To me, the fact remains that audible differences b/w generations of speakers - in my personal experience - have always ended up being much smaller than proclaimed by the mfg.  In in the present case, they were designed by the same person.


    And I'd still like to know what leaps in audio engineering have taken place since 2005.   

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  • Create New...