Posts posted by ODS123
On 1/11/2022 at 1:26 PM, Shakeydeal said:
Read back what you just wrote.
It's a hobby.
It's not rocket surgery.
It's not a college course that I need to study for.
No one's life depends on it.
It's a HOBBY!
I listen to music for enjoyment. The only "evidence" I need to tell me how much I enjoy it is how much my foot is tappin. I don't need charts, graphs, double blind whatsohooey. Let's save complicated things for complicated matters. This should be simple........
Audio being a hobby does not mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) evidence-based.
When you peruse the websites of nearly every audio gear mfg., you will find definitive statements about performance often with white-papers, graphs, charts, etc.. which purport (operative word) to support the claim. Evidence - whether it truly meets the definition, or not - is very much a part of this hobby. But what qualifies as compelling evidence to you may not for me.
As for "one's life depending on it", well... it's always my hope when I plug an amplifier in that it's properly engineered so to not cause an electrical shock or fire. ..And there have been some I would never leave plugged while not home.
19 minutes ago, billybob said:
Know what you mean. Maybe a 40 hour fatfinger mistake.
Well, I hope that's what it was. But I doubt it. He said "my Heresy IIIs needed a year or more before they fully settled in!" Ugh.
23 minutes ago, CWelsh said:
I would love to hear Chief Bonehead's thoughts on the notion of a 400 hour break in.
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.
4 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
Doesn't really matter. What matters is what you hear.
Fine, but to me that is not a very evidence-based approach to this hobby.
2 hours ago, Crankysoldermeister said:
He never said that. Instead of paraphrasing, maybe give us the exact words that you found "disqualifying".
No? ..So he was referring to the speakers foot speed - it's 40yd dash performance, perhaps?
Here's the quote:
"..the Cornwall IV is amazingly fast"
I appreciate you taking the time to post. Thanks.
That said, his claim that it needs 400 hours of break-in is so beyond ridiculous that IMHO it totally disqualifies him as a reviewer. 400 hours!!!???? After that comment I found it hard to take seriously anything he said.
If true, how does a manufacturer even develop a speaker? At what point do they conclude listening tests - confident they're hearing the finished product? ..At 10, 100, 300, or 400 hours??? ..And at what time are measurements taken - or does the speakers sound change but not the measurements? (which would be a very interesting claim).
Ugh... ..There's also tons of silly audio-babble that is also disqualifying. For example (paraphrasing), "The speakers sound incredibly fast"
A rather worthless review, imho.
On 1/6/2022 at 10:33 PM, Chief bonehead said:
Have you heard the two side by side?
No.. I've heard each in different setups but never side by side. ..Both sound great to me.
But I stand by my comment that whenever I HAVE heard new/previous iterations of speakers side-by-side (volume-matched, etc.), the differences ended up being much smaller than the manufacturer would lead you to believe. I suspect this would be true of F3 v F4, H3 v H4, C3 v C4, etc....
Was Klipsch NOT an excellent speaker company that had considerable engineering, and manufacturing resources on hand when those previous iterations were designed/ built? Yes, of course they were and did. Has Klipsch's understanding of speaker design taken some HUGE leaps forward in the years b/w the 3's and 4's? Not likely.
I'm simply encouraging posters not to succumb to buyer's remorse and trade in their 1-2 year-old F3's without first hearing the F3 alongside the F4. ..Ideally while blinded, volumes precisely-matched, etc.. ..If they do this I suspect they'll agree that the differences are small, perhaps even imperceptible.
These days, amps sound mostly the same. To wit: the $10k Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge.
From the website: https://www.stevemeadedesigns.com/board/topic/193850-richard-clark-10000-amplifier-challenge/ :
"The Richard Clark Amp Challenge is a listening test intended to show that as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range (below clipping), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear. Because thousands of people have taken the test, the test is significant to the audiophile debate over audibility of amplifier differences. This document was written to summarize what the test is, and answer common questions about the test. Richard Clark was not involved in writing this document."
This does not mean one should be totally indiscriminate when choosing an amplifier!! Indeed, one should make sure it can drive the speakers to required levels without distortion becoming audible. ..For Klipsch speakers, this should be fairly easy due to their incredible efficiency.
Of course, there are also other considerations, like features. Are tone controls important? ..How about a Mono switch? ..Or maybe wattage meters?? And form factor matters too. ..If it's prominently visible sitting in the family great-room, then maybe you'll want it to be attractive or at least unobtrusive looking. Do you want DSP room correction, etc..?
But don't succumb to the idea that matching your amp to your speakers is akin to matching your Cabernet to your expensive filet mignon. ..Nope.
4 hours ago, KT88 said:
The most intelligent subjects may be exposed to suggestive forces by all sorts of factors in a double-blind medical test. Both the belief in a positive effect or the imagination of negative side effects can become a subjective reality.
But we are at a later stage here. The last posts here describe the later phase in which you could imagine that the sound would be better, or at least different, after you had bought certain little helpers.
This thread (as I originally meant it) is about an earlier stage. I'm concerned with the seductiveness of promises that haven't even happened yet, but which already raise hopes and expectations. This raises the question of how realistically or how euphorically we assess or hope for change. And not by buying a better amplifier or better speakers, but through peripheral miracle cures.
I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here. ..Please restate.
20 minutes ago, JohnJ said:
There are a lot of sheeple out there, I'm not one.
Are you saying that only "Sheeple" are affected by the placebo affect??
5 hours ago, JohnJ said:
It's true that reduced resistivity helps electrons flow easier. AQ Type 4 is equivalent to 15 gauge and it improved upon what my 14 gauge could do. Try it, you might agree.
This is just more anecdotal evidence that does nothing to reduce expectation bias - I'm sorry but it's wholly unconvincing.
In Pharma this sort of "I tried it and it helped" approach to sort out real from imagined improvement would never pass muster. As I mentioned in previous threads, in a clinical trial 30% of people who used an inhaler w/ inert ingredients (i.e., the placebo trial arm) believed they felt an improvement in their asthma symptoms. And this is just one example. In hundreds and hundreds of clinical studies, participants report an improvement in symptoms when given a placebo. ..And bear in mind these participants KNEW there was a 50/50 chance they'd be given a placebo.
2 hours ago, richieb said:
My last comment on this slippery slope with “wire”.
I wouldn’t bet your life, maybe a house or car. Now I’d bet a dollar to a donut Roy could document an improvement was found as he developed the new KHorn. Doubt he gives a damn about the “snob” crowd. But I could be totally wrong -
My hunch is that Roy and the design team for the new Khorn know very well that AQ wiring neither measurably, nor audibly improves the speaker. It DOES however, help them impress the non-scientific audiophile who thinks fancy wire matters. ..And considering the rather short of amount used in each speaker, it does little to raise the production cost of the speaker. Who knows what Klipsch pays per ft. for the wire, but I'm sure it's a fraction of what one would spend at an audio dealer.
Roys job is to sell speakers - and they are excellent speakers IMHO. And if adding a few meters of named brand wiring helps - why not?
But it is NOT his job to debunk audio myths. ..If Klipsch were to issue a statement that pricey speaker cables are no better than lamp chord, tbey would upset their dealers who rely heavily on the extra revenue that comes from selling boutiquey cables. Without these dealers, audio as a hobby will likely die off.
But as an engineer I suspect Roy knows better.
2 minutes ago, richieb said:
Let’s not forget the new KHorns ( and maybe other new Heritage models) use Audioquest Type 4 Star Quad for their internal wiring as opposed to “just ordinary connecting wire”. So is this to appeal to the audiophile “snob” crowd or to justify the top of the line premium price or has a sound improvement been found in this cable choice? Or all the above? I’d bet the Chief would admit to a sonic improvement as opposed to just a random wiring choice.
Yes... This appeals to the audiophile "snob" crowd. Exactly.
I would but my life that PWK would say this does NOTHING to improve the sound of the new Khorn.
2 hours ago, Audible Nectar said:
If high end cable manufacturers were legit and real they would provide a 30 day return policy, no questions asked. Now I've been out of the cable shopping thing for a while, but are there any of these high end manufacturers who do this (besides the local big-box basic places, which don't sell high end, nut anyway.....)?
I've definitely seen some (if not mfgs, then on-line retailers) who do offer 100% money-back guarantees. ..But this isn't any kind of assurance their pricey cables sound any better. ..It only means that they built the cost of returned cables into their pricing - which is probably not hard to do given their margins.
I find it hilarious that all the meters of wire INSIDE of a component can be of thinnish gauge with plain looking insulation, but the cable that JOINS two components must be 4x as thick and have beautiful milled connectors, and slick woven covering. ..Me thinks it's to suggest "this is serious kit!!". ..Nope - it's just wire.
Funny how you don't see Wire and Cable fetishism when it comes to life-saving medical diagnostic equipment or on Aircraft that carries hundreds of people.
Companies like this exist (and often succeed) because the audiophile world expects NOTHING from them in terms of high quality evidence to support their claims. ...We give them cover by saying, "Well... to each their own. If someone buys this and hears an improvement, then no harm, no foul. ..No skin off my nose" . To me, this is borderline aiding and abetting. ..As audiophiles we need to set a higher bar, or our hobby becomes less and less appealing to people who believe in evidence based science. At minimum, audiophiles should be asking, "Please show me blinded listening trial results ...Show me how people who, while unaware of which cables are in use, pick YOURS as making a system sound better (or at least different - as "better" is subjective). ..And they do this more often then they would by chance."
Alas... it will never happen.
Seems quite far-fetched to me.
I recall reading (or maybe it was on tv) a study where blindfolded expert violinists were asked to indicate whether they were playing a Stradivarius or a modestly priced modern violin, and they guessed wrong as often as they guessed right. The point being that much of what this guy attributes to the glue type is probably mostly between his ears.. And there is a whole lot of that in the audiophile world.
18 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:
I have not heard the IIIs, only the Is and IIs. So don't put words in my mouth. I was only talking about versions before the III. That said, I suspect the bigger midrange horn and cabinet bracing make a substantial improvement in the IVs vs the IIIs. Hard to imagine this not being true.
I've heard both. ..No, the difference is NOT substantial - despite the larger horn. I wouldn't be surprised if people struggled to tell them apart in a blinded comparison.
And as I said, the bracing is essentially the same as the III's.
On 6/5/2021 at 7:26 AM, Audible Nectar said:
I think it's proper and accurate to say that there are a lot of aspects of brand new, latest engineered Cornwall IV's that are very much desirable. But the statement/idea that refreshed Cornwall I or II aren't "In the same area code" is WAYYYYYYYYYYY over the top, and is an engagement of sales puffery that belies evidence.
Agreed. Overblown statements like that are sadly too common in this hobby. One of my favorites is "My ears bleed when I hear klipsch Heresy's with a Pioneer receiver." Sigh...On 6/5/2021 at 3:02 PM, Shakeydeal said:
The earlier Cornwalls had a boxy resonance that once you heard it, you couldn’t unhear it. That is completely absent in the latest version. And as much fun as a pair of Cornwall IIs are, they don’t have the resolution and inner detail f the CW IV.
I can't speak to the II's, but the III's do NOT have any audible resonances that I or anyone who has heard my system has heard. .Just like the IV's, the III's are braced with 2 2x4's drilled into place through the baffle and backboard right into the end-grain of the 2x4' - which is a rather crude, though effective, form of bracing. Both the III and IV's sound rather hollow when you knock on them when compared with just about EVERY other speaker in their price range. ..So if you subscribe to the "knuckle rap" test as a meaningful way of assessing speaker cabinet integrity, then you should avoid ALL Klipsch speakers b/c they all suck in this regard. They sound like shoe boxes when you knock on them. But what matters is that resonances aren't audible when playing music.
You do realize that the III's were engineered by many of the same people using the same Klipsch anechoic chamber and same design principals. I realize "huge" advancements are claimed for the IV's, but that's to be expected. ..It happens EVERY time a new edition of a product is introduced. But having heard them - they sound pretty much the same. ..Which is to be expected. It's not like Klipsch was stupid then, but brilliant now.
I would get one of McIntosh's, Accuphase's or Luxman's integrated amps.
For me, a mono switch and tone controls are must-haves. ..And output/ wattage meters are a nice plus.
16 hours ago, mayo said:
So you get a good enough of a phantom center in stereo with movies and TV? Do you keep it 2.0 (or 2.x) versus a 3.x because of the Mac quality and to keep the inferior AVR amp out of your front? Asking because my wife is notoriously challenged with understanding dialogue (ESL and partially deaf).
We are somewhat done with "popcorn" entertainment, though not sure my youngest (7 y.o.) is ready for Citizen Kane or 12 Angry Men. Loved Sound of Metal and all its nuance and human messiness.
So while I am not having any regrets about turning away from HT in this room, I really think I should track down a used Academy for center channel and 1 or 2 subs for movies. As far as powering such a system, my desire for something like a First Watt (e.g., F7 or F8) is dampened by this possible need to power a center and connect a sub. I guess I could pick up a cheapish AVR (maybe use two extra channels to bi-amp the CW's) or just go with a three-channel amp. If I'm able to score that Rose Hi-Fi streamer, it's preamp should be more than satisfactory. But maybe added a tube preamp would be worth the investment.
Well, if you've read many of my posts here you'll understand that I'm not a big believer in amplifiers sounding different from one another. Indeed, my view is that modern day amps that are engineered to be linear (this would exclude low watt tube amps but include just about all others) will not sound different if not driven to distortion. So my view is that you shouldn't spend lavishly on your amp in the belief that it will make your system sound better to you or your family. While it is true I have a rather expensive integrated amp (McIntosh MA6600), I do not find it to sound any better than my AVR. ..I bought it and love it b/c I love the look, the feel, the history of the McIntosh brand AND b/c it has tone controls (bass/treble) AND a mono switch - all of which I find essential to my enjoyment of music, especially older recordings that date back to the days when Stereo recording/ mixing was crude and often did more to harm than help the music.
As for Phantom center... YES, my Cornwalls do a great job of creating a center image. As for subwoofers.... they're not for me. I find the depth and impact of the CWIII's to be more than enough and as I've already stated, we rarely watch movies with deep special effects.
As I said earlier, in our view music is best when enjoyed as a group. We rarely have disputes about what to listen to. ..When the whole family is around, we simply take turns at picking songs. I use ROON as the curator software of my 1000+ CD's (ripped) and it links to TIDAL to access songs that are not in my collection.
Rather than having a dedicated listening room, I'd sooner just buy a nice pair of headphones. ..Just MHO.
19 hours ago, Zack R said:
I'd stick with a simple two channel setup (with the Cornwalls), and for ease of use get a nice integrated amplifier. It might not be the pinnacle of performance but everyone in the family gets to enjoy it and its not complicated or difficult to use. .."
This is our approach. ..While I do have an AVR (Onkyo), Center and Surround speakers, nowadays we nearly always just play movies through the McIntosh Integrated and Cornwalls with Apple TV Audio set to Stereo. Our days of watching Jurassic Park and other bombastic big special-effect movies are largely behind us. Our last four movies were: Nomad Land, Sound Of Metal, Hillbilly Elegy, and The Trial of the Chicago 7. ..None of which is improved by 5.1 or 7.1 audio. Sound Of Metal, coincidentally, is a cautionary tale about a musician who destroys his hearing playing in a heavy metal band without wearing ear-protection.... After watching that, I've been playing music at (slightly) lower levels. All four were great movies BTW.
But to each their own. ..Sounds like Mayo is at a different life-stage. ..Young kids love watching movies with big booms, and special effects (think Incredibles, Star Wars, etc..) I've been there, so I definitely get the desire to integrate 5.1 - 7.1 into the setup.
13 hours ago, mayo said:
I understand and appreciate your position here. When our birds have flown and more possibilities open up in the house, I look forward to this possibility. Thanks for your input here (as well as your other posts in this forum that have educated me).
Our great room system is highly biased toward 2-channel. ..My center speaker and surrounds are Paradigm and Polk Audio, respectively - so, they don't match. I bought them when my F/R speakers were Paradigm S8v2s. But when it comes to movies, no one in my family is bothered by the slightly timbral/tonal mis-match - we're too focused on the story, etc.. And we don't have a subwoofer. ..Don't really miss it.
On 5/12/2021 at 5:34 AM, Dave A said:
I have to admit they look crude but they work. Klipsch did this much earlier with the pro line on speakers like the KPT-456 and 904.On 5/11/2021 at 4:09 PM, Dave A said:On 9/10/2019 at 9:39 AM, moray james said:
...Box resonance is another issue which brace work will solve. Aside from the vent itself the CW has no brace work, it is a big hollow large panel box very much in need of braces and ties to hold it all together. Manufactures tend to spend their money where the customer can see and appreciate it.
I suppose if one was determined, they could play tones at a very high SPL and find a frequency at which you could get a CW cabinet to buzz. ..But hear it while playing music? ..Not a chance. I have never heard my CW iii's resonate, despite every imaginable style of music, played from whisper quiet to 100db.
Because magazine reviewers and audio salespeople serve up the "knuckle rap test" as a meaningful in-showroom quality test, it's predictable some manufactures will over obsess on this aspect of speaker design, then make hay of it in their marketing. ..But that doesn't mean they've made the speaker SOUND better. ..Or even that resonances would have been audible had they not incorporated all that extra bracing.
I trust the engineers at Klipsch took resonances into account while engineering the CW's; after all, they had all the tools to determine where to add add'l bracing during the design phase - but they didn't. So I feel safe in assuming they felt it wouldn't improve how the speaker SOUNDS while playing music.
IMHO, disassembling CW IVs (or III's for that matter) and adding add'l bracing, replacing cross-over components, wiring, etc.. (as some in this thread have suggested) without clear evidence (ie., double blinded!) it would improve sound, strikes me as utterly foolish. But if destroying your warranty coverage AND resale value is your goal - have at it.
4 minutes ago, mayo said:
Thanks! Apart from some other, more technical considerations, this is what I was hoping to hear . . . [stares blankly, apprehensive of being told something he wanted to hear]
There's a great deal of "perfect becoming the enemy of good" thinking on this forum. ..But when you see what some feel is a perfect setup, you often see a man-cave that is totally unrealistic for someone who needs to keep a SO happy. Indeed, most look like systems relegated to a garage or a basement.
Let me just say, , the fact that your SO is willing to let you have Cornwalls in the family great room puts you in the 98th percentile ..These days, most SO's of audiophiles want tiny speakers that are concealed by a fern or are flush-mounted in a wall. ...Dont sweat the fact that you're maybe wringing just 95% out of what the speaker can offer. ..They'll still sound leaps and bounds better than Sonos.
in 2-Channel Home Audio
As others have said, the first thing is to make sure your stylus isn't worn, and that you have an excellent cartridge that is properly mounted. My cartridge is the Audio Technica VM760SLC Here: https://www.audio-technica.com/en-us/cartridges/type/moving-magnet/vm760slc And it works very very well w/ my Technics SL1210GAE.
If you MUST upgrade your table simply b/c you have the itch (no shame in this, we've all made upgrades for the same reason) I'll point out that if you switch to any but the very best belt-driven tables, you're apt to be disappointed with the speed stability. Your table is a quartz-controlled direct-drive design which means it turns the table at a precise 33 1/3 rpm AND (perhaps more importantly) does not perceptibly drift from the that speed. ..If you switch to a belt-drive table that is in the same price range as the 1200GR you will likely find sustained notes on piano, guitar, violin, etc . are audibly drifting in/out of pitch. To me this is quite frustrating. To others, not so much.
I owned a Technics GR for 6 months before upgrading to a Technics SL-1210GAE. These tables are fantastic. And, to be honest, I'm not sure the GAE offers much improvement over the GR other than a more luxurious feel when handling & operating the table. If it does sound better, it certainly doesn't sound 2 1/2 times better. The $1600 1200GR is better built and sounds better than ANY $4k belt-driven table I have heard. And like you, I simply don't like the plank plinth designs that dominate the market these days, especially in the same price range as the GR.
Here's another thought. ..If you love your vinyl but have grown tired of all the pops & clicks consider one of these devices. ..For the same price (or less) as a 1200GR you can listen to your vinyl with your current table but with nearly ALL of the pops and clicks removed - with a simple push of a button as you listen. ..And it does it without audibly damaging the vinyl sound you love (you can check this yourself as you listen). Yes, some vinyl purists will object to the idea of digitizing the vinyl signal but that doesn't bother me at all. I love vinyl, but primarily b/c the format encourages the listener to listen to an album side from beginning to end (it's a pain skipping songs!) and b/c I love the physical album cover, it's artwork and liner-notes, etc.
I own the Sugar Cube SC-1 Mini and absolutely love it. It's so transparent I leave it engaged at all times.