Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ODS123

  1. 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.

  2. 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
  3. 25 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:


    I understand what you are saying but do you understand that just because the evaluation wasn’t performed in the blind it doesn’t mean the opinions expressed were wrong either or worthless..?




    Worthless?  ..Well, almost.


    Look, if I was invited to the Klipsch mothership by it's chief engineer for the unveiling of their newest CW, I would have excitedly accepted the offer - like anyone here would.   I would have enjoyed the presentation, the music, and the camaraderie.  But that hardly passes as an environment where people are able to make an unbiased assessment of what they are hearing.   To say "I don't hear a difference" or "I hear a difference, but I don't think it's necessarily better" in that context/environment would be like showing up to the hospital and refusing to say your friends new baby is beautiful. 



  4. 2 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

    Yes and I hope most people that have been in this hobby have learned to account for it.



    There is NO way to account for it apart from being blinded from knowing what you are hearing.  It is NOT an indictment of peoples' integrity or experience.


    The people who participate in pharmaceutical clinical drug trials are not weak-minded overly impressionable people.  In the case of asthma meds, these are people who are experiencing REAL, ongoing, often life-altering symptoms.  Yet, they still report a remarkable improvement in symptoms when they are taking a placebo.  The Pharmaceutical company's hope, of course, is that the improvement they experience in the drugX arm of the study EXCEEDs the improvement in the Placebo arm by a statistically significant degree.  If not, then the study's endpoints are not met and the drug doesn't get approved. ..B/c it's no better than placebo (or whatever other drug it's being compared to)


    Again...  I'm flabbergasted that there is soooo little interest in validity testing in this hobby.


  5. 34 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

    Better is the enemy of the good. Always has been. 40 years ago, a 200 hp car was considered fast. Today a Honda Civic is faster than a late 70s Pontiac Trans Am.


    If engineers like Roy couldn't come up with a better product, a lot of companies would be out of business. Doesn't mean older products aren't good, they are just as good as they've ever been. But a new sheriff always comes along.


    Not really a car guy but I know that today's honda civic has 4v/cyl, fuel injection, overhead cams, lighter engine block, etc...  Technological advances that account for WHY it's faster than a 70's trans am.


    So what technological advances have occurred in speaker design since 2005 that would explain why a CW4 "blows away" a CW3? 

  6. So the CW III dates back to 2005? 


    So WHAT new technologies have surfaced since 2005 that allows such a quantum leap in design & manufacturing - as some seem to suggest the CWIV represents??  Roy designed the CWIII's.  ..So why does he know now he didn't know then? 


    When I read the 2005 thread about the CWIII everyone was praising Roys incredible engineering skills (and I do too) and (for the most part) praising the resulting CWIII.  So what's changed??  




  7. 55 minutes ago, Dave A said:

    If I remember right that improvement was the opinion of everyone in the room that day.


    Statistically, that means nothing.  ..Did everyone know what they were hearing?  Then of course they're going to think the newer model with the visibly larger mid-horn is going to sound better.  ...Especially if it's preceded by a product presentation explaining how it was improved and what to listen for.


    This hobby could learn soooo much from how the pharmaceutical industry must prove clinical efficacy (and safety, but obviously not as relevant).  In clinical trials participants taking a placebo ROUTINELY report symptom improvement - often to an astonishing degree - just from believing they MIGHT be taking the studied med.

  8. 1 minute ago, Chief bonehead said:

    Never hearing them side by side in a true a/b with all things being equal just makes your post/opinion somewhat less valuable than someone who has. Don’t mean any disrespect but until you do, it’s just conjecture. 

    and as for the rest that you typed, again just conjecture as you really don’t know. I recently heard a 54 khorn and realized how amazing it sounded. But that doesn’t negate the stuff mr K and I have done to get to the AK6. 


    I think you're right on both points.  ..But remember, my original point was simply that, in my personal experience, claims of improvement from GenX to GenY to GenZ have always been overstated.  ..And in those cases I DID compare them directly - volume-matched.

  9. 1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:

    I'll never understand why staunch objectivists go out of their way to tell someone what they can or can't hear. Why should they care if someone throws away their hard earned cash on "snake oil"? But they always seem to take offense to people hearing improvements that can't be measured and feel it's a duty bestowed on them by God (and Julian "of all the amplifiers I've heard, this is one" Hirsch) to bash into oblivion any dissenting opinion.


    Carry on.......



    Because I care about this hobby and I hate seeing it held back by a widespread disregard for validity testing.

    • Like 2
  10. 42 minutes ago, Flevoman said:

    50 years, and I'm not good at hearing small changes in sound.  So, for exame, hearing the differences between speaker cables is not for me, I simply do not hear it.  I find it also difficult to hear differences between amplifiers.  But I could definitely hear a distinct difference between the CW3 and the CW4 myself.  I'm surprised you couldn't hear these differences. Perhaps the acoustics or setup where the CW4 stood was disadvantageous, so that the differences were not audible?


    Well, you're not alone w/ respect to amplifiers and cables.  In fact nobody who participated in a $10k challenge was able to reliably (ie., better than chance) distinguish b/w two amplifiers that met certain minimum requirements w/ regards to linearity. ..Which basically ALL modern day amps do except for boutiquey tube amps.




    ditto cables.  ..The only way cables sound different is if they are engineered & constructed to act as some sort of tone control.  ..I'm referring to those mega buck cables w/ weird dongles at their end.  ..Total snake oil, IMHO.  


    And you are of course correct, I need to hear both of these speakers in the same room.  ..But again, if the differences are as striking as some claim, then the differences should be apparent even in different rooms?


    • Like 1
  11. 6 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

    Have you heard them side by side 


    NO, CBH, I have not though I would very much love to.  I heard the CW4's at a dealer listening to very familiar music.  But yes, a side-by-side comparison w/ volume levels matched would clearly be best.


    But if the differences are as striking as some are claiming (not saying you necessarily), shouldn't the differences be immediately apparent anyway??  To my ears - and I'd put my hearing and sense for musical nuance up against anyone over the age of 40 - they sounded very much like my CW3's


    So what big leap in audio engineering, materials, or computer modeling took place AFTER you designed the CW3's that would cause the CW4 to put the CW3 to shame, as others here (not you) have suggested?  To say the CW3's are hugely inferior is to imply your team didn't know what they were doing before - which I don't think any truly believes.


    (and please don't delete this post.  ..the last time we discussed this I had a bunch of posts deleted despite never engaging in any sort of incivility.)

    • Like 1
  12. 38 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

    with the exception of being in the blind there were obvious differences which I have no doubt I would be able to perceive in the blind as you say.


    yeah, well... that can make all the difference. 


    To wit:  In pivotal clinical trials for a current sleep medication, people taking a placebo still experienced 20% improvements in Latency to Persistent Sleep (LPS - sleep onset) and Waking After Sleep Onset (WASO - sleep maintenance).  These were objective measurements using polysomnography, not merely self-reported.  And note that these these improvements were measured among people who KNEW they might be taking a placebo.  ..IF they were deceptively told they were definitely taking the studied medication their improvements would have likely been far greater.  I'm not suggesting anyone was trying to deceive the listeners during the unveiling of the CW4, I'm merely pointing out the power of suggestion.


    In every other scientific field the placebo effect is acnknowledged, respected, and accounted for.  ..But not in audio.

    • Like 1
  13. 8 minutes ago, RandyH said:

    the biggest mistake is to compare ,  the CW III to the CW IV looking for a clear winner ,  while they are 2 different speakers using the same box  .


    -the woofer is higher up in the 3  with the drivers closer together  which packs the warm vocals sound of a Heresy with the enhanced  bass of a Cornwall .


    -in the 4 , the woofer is placed lower and the HF drivers are farther apart making for a more wider sound stage  , and the bass is balanced  with the HF .



    Weren't the CW111's developed by the same engineering team??  ..Klipsch had computer modeling and anechoic chambers then, as they do now.  ..To me, it's basically amounts to product life-cycle management.  ..Make small changes but proclaim them to be quite large.  ..But when you compare them side to side w/ volumes matched and the listener blinded, I'm betting they sound pretty much alike.

    • Like 1
  14. Real, live unamplified music causes fatigue - just ask the guy sitting next to the trumpet player :).  So why shouldn't audio that strives to accurately reproduce the live listening experience?


    We evolved as a species hearing nothing louder than a babbling brook or ocean waves.  So why do people expect to listen to music at 90db for hours without it grating on their nerves?  


    If your audio system never causes listening fatigue then it isn't very accurate.  


    This is why I gravitate toward integrated amps that have tone controls.  ..When they highs start to grate, a little turn to the left solves the problem.

    • Like 2
  15. 14 hours ago, Flevoman said:

    meanwhile my friend has exchanged his IV for a III and is very happy!


    thanks for sharing your impressions.  I have III's and have heard IV's at a dealer.  Did I like them?  Sure I did...   In fact, they reminded me quite a bit me of my III's - which I love. :)


    Your impressions are more thoughtful and therefore believable than the crowd that has been saying, "..I heard the IV's - they crush the III's"  Oy vey.  Such comments are difficult to take seriously.   No matter how great the III's sound, people just couldn't get past the fact that Klipsch chose to use the same mid/tweeter as the H3.  


    I reiterate a point I made a few months ago:

    EVERY speaker I've ever owned was described as being vastly superior to the previous generation and vastly inferior to the next. Yet, in EVERY case where I was able to directly compare one generation to the next (side-by-side, volumes carefully matched), the differences ended up being very very subtle - so subtle that in some cases you'd be hard pressed to distinguish them while blinded. This was true even in cases where the cabinet was re-braced and EVERY driver was supposedly upgraded and improved.   And when a difference was heard, it wasn't necessarily an improvement - I.e., took a step closer to the sound of real live music.

    • Like 6
  16. Very cool!!  


    To me, the appeal of Vinyl is NOT that it sounds better. Because, well... ..it doesn't. Vinyl is challenged by off-center holes, limited dynamic range, wow/flutter in the master, inner-grove distortion, etc.. All that aside, it can still sound absolutely amazing AND there's no comparing the awesome liner notes, posters, pictures, cover art, etc.. of vinyl. ..Basically, the experience eluded to in this trailer.


    Plus, because vinyl is so inconvenient to advance to the next song, its encourages the listener to take in the WHOLE album side which reveals the connectedness of the songs and possible themes that otherwise get missed.


    Viva la Vinyl :)

    • Like 2
  17. Burn in time is a myth that needs to go away, IMHO.


    Some speaker manufacturers (plus some component) know the break-in claim is nonsense but allow it to persist b/c it helps reduce the number of people who return speakers b/c they 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 the sound of their new speakers and become resigned to keeping them.  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 400 hr breakin period??  Of course not.  ..Nor did Bob Crites. ..In fact he said it took a mere few minutes.

    • Like 2
  18. 8 hours ago, partymark said:

    I have powered it using only vintage receivers a Kenwood KR-6600 and a Yamaha CR-800.  


    I would like to get a modern amp to match my modern speakers.  Ideally I am looking for an integrated, probably solid state in the $2000-3000 CAD price range.  All the amps I have seen in reviews that state they are great with the Cornwall's are quite pricey,


    The problem with the vast array of today's offerings is that they are devoid of all the features that made audio so much more fun back when your KR-6600 was sold.  I find well implemented Bass/ Treble, Mono/ Stereo controls indispensable for making less than perfect songs more enjoyable.  Heck, today many of these "minimalist" styled integrated amps don't even have a balance control.  The argument given is that these features reduce fidelity by adding additional breaks in the signal.  ..This is ridiculous of course; one look at a mixing board will put that notion to rest.  (Pretty sure PWK would flash his "BS" button at claims that a few dozen signal breaks would audibly affect the sound) .


    If it were me I'd try to up my budget to afford a used McIntosh, Luxman, Anthem (recent model), or Accuphase amp.  ..Each of these still has the features that made your Kenwood so fun to own..

    • Like 1
  19. 16 minutes ago, Harleywood said:

    As of right now the TT is plugged into its own wall outlet using the three prong plug with the small ground wire running from TT ground lug to the amps built in phono stage ground lug. The Amp has a two prong plug as does the sub so both of those are plugged into a power strip from a different wall outlet located 8 feet away. Same circuit breaker I'm sure.


    Fingers crossed for you!


    That the R/L channels have different amounts of hum suggests it's not grounding issue .  ..Still, I would - as a matter of good TT hygiene - ensure that the TT/AMP/Pre are ALL plugged into the same outlet.  That the outlets are part of the same circuit may not be enough.  My TT hummed even though all outlets were (of course) part of the same circuit.  ...Only when they were plugged into the same 4-way receptacle did the hum disappear.  Maybe a more experienced member can explain why this should matter.

    • Like 1
  20. try backing the power cord out just a hair from the receptacle in the back of the turntable (not the plug going into the wall - the other end). I  Recall reading somewhere that somebody solved a hum issue by doing just that. Hard to fathom why that should matter.  I actually read that tip before setting up my GAE, so when I plugged the cord into the back of my table I did exactly that; I Pushed it all the way in then backed it out about a 16th of an inch.   It still fits quite snug.  And no hum until I turn my 200 W Mac Integrated amp to about 65%. And I only hear it then when I hold my ear to the Tweeter horn.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...