Jump to content

BS Button List of worthy Myths


ClaudeJ1

Recommended Posts

My opinion, which is probably not worth much, is very little difference especially in a sealed enclosure. But now we have something to argue about for a few pages more. Is not that what social media forums do? I just hope we all remain friends even though there is disagreement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

My opinion, which is probably not worth much, is very little difference especially in a sealed enclosure. But now we have something to argue about for a few pages more. Is not that what social media forums do? I just hope we all remain friends even though there is disagreement. 

This is the main reason why I started the thread. To get different viewpoints and experiences from everyone who invested in air pushers/air squeezers and associated electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:

So for all of you that say woofers don’t break in. When someone says the bass of a particular speaker is thin and weak, but after playing the speakers for many hours the bass is full and satisfying, did they just get used to inadequate bass? Are they fooling themselves? Lying to us? 

It's psychosomatic over time. I never said woofers don't break in, I just said it's not as significant as the exaggerted MYTH would lead you to believe. It's not whether it does or doesn't, it's a matter of DEGREE and detectability to the ears.

The most important band is 100-10Khz. with more or less falloff at both ends. How else can one explain the success of a LaScala? (hint, low AM and FM distortion)

Getting the bass down to 20 Hz. is costly in terms of dollars and cubic feet. Getting flat to 20 Khz. is not as expensive as getting to 20 Hz. and it's much easier with today's magnet/diaphragm/horn technology. Keeping in mind that most Klipscheads are over 50 with bad upper response, accumulated from all the rock concert and noise pollution exposure.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

Hmmmm…..so throw away years of personal observation because it’s not earth shaking to Claude. Hmmmm

  

I like your attitude, Bro! Especially from the guy who basically stuck a big Cornwall inside of a 5 foot bifurcated horn to be able to shake that earth mo betta than most!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:

Cmon guys, answer the question. Are people that hear significant bass improvement after hours of use liars or delusional? You made the claim, now support it!

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

Sadly, it seems most audiophiles would rather tirelessly defend their belief in imaginary differences than take one small step in their direction of empirical testing.

That is an easily doable (and Free) A/B method that anyone can do.

 

But people don't want to hear the TRUTH, they would rather dig their heels in and defend their favorite myth, regardless of proof to the contrary they can get from themselves or others' setups.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, henry4841 said:

Only takes a short time. One must run the engine at around 3,000 rpm on startup for the short time needed for break in. We are getting into technical conversations when the subject of breaking in a car commonly thought by most refers to the first 3K, thereabouts, required for breaking in a new car off the showroom floor. I've seen many a camshaft destroyed because of not breaking it in correctly. So technically a racing motor does require a few minutes, when we are talking flat tappet cams, but we are talking 10 minutes vs 3K miles of breaking in. 

 

Ever seen a top fuel drag racing motor torn down and rebuilt between runs down the track. Very short, if this is what you are calling breaking in. In general terms a racing motor does not require a breaking in unless you want to talk about minutes. 

 

Engine blocks flex far more then most people realize. We use to take a telescopic gauge that is used to measure a bore, along with calipers, and screw it tight in a cylinder and then take our hands and push against the walls of the adjacent cylinders and watch the telescopic gauge fall out of the cylinder.  Drag racing motors use a glue, much like concrete, to fill in the water jackets of the engine block to prevent as much flex as possible. They do not need water for a 1/4 mile run. If you notice between runs they cool the engine with fans.

 

And they have piston clearances of .012" and up. Try that in yer mini van.

 

And flat tappets aren't really flat. They have about a 60 inch radius.

 

I've built engines that have set 14 landspeed records and paid the bills doing it for decades.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, geezin' said:

And they have piston clearances of .012" and up. Try that in yer mini van.

 

And flat tappets aren't really flat. They have about a 60 inch radius.

 

I've built engines that have set 14 landspeed records and paid the bills doing it for decades.

My kind of friend. You did not mind some piston slap when trying to set a record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only set one up that loose and it wasn't mine. An air cooled "Harley" with S&S low silicon pistons meant for nitromethane use. Strong but sounded like a thrasher even hot. Made stupid power and went like stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tom05 said:

A friend of mine had a subscription to Consumer  Reports years back , they pretty much picked speakers by frequency response graphs. It’s amazing how the room interacts , even a few feet can make a huge difference at certain frequency’s.Its interesting to walk around a room with a meter while playing test tones.

 

Consumer Reports has a long history of enshrining frequency response as the primary way to judge loudspeaker quality.  This was true since at least 1959, when their loudspeaker issue called the acoustic suspension AR-1 the best speaker (but adding an outboard tweeter was recommended).  It sounded muddy to the 14 year old me.  Didn't these guys ever hear of distortion?  Dynamics?  At the Hi Fi fair that year, the favorites of my little group of 6 early teenagers, most of whom played in the H.S. orchestra every day, and some of us in the band, too, were the JBL Paragon retro vintage modern hi-fi: 1957 JBL Paragon retro vintage modern hi-fi: 1957 JBL Paragon | Vintage speakers, Jbl, Hifi audio(clean as a whistle, but could have more bass), The KlipschornGarso kolonėlės | Ausinės | Namų kino sistemos | Klipsch some big EVs th?id=OIP._VMh_5PUyX5E_qO6OX7xHwHaGG&pid  ?, and for those who liked softer edges, and very pretty sound, the big Bozaks th?id=OIP.DiVg-7ay53Y5GLMyGUbufgHaFj&pid  One poor guy liked Consumer Report's favorite, the AR Acoustic Research AR-1, and was met with polite incredulity by the others. He didn't play in the orchestra, and had rarely gone to live concerts.  Meanwhile Consumer Reports, loving it, said it needed 22 times the amplifier power as the JBL D130 (in the midrange) "to produce a reasonably loud sound."  The D130 had the same sensitivity (or "efficiency," as we called it then) as a Klipschorn (in the midrange, only).  Memory lane.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

I was lead astray by specs when I bought an AR3a. Klipshorns did not have very good reviews when rags were the rage. My thinking is they did not advertise enough in their publications. 

Klipsch and Associates, were fond of "Stealth Marketing" at the time!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2022 at 3:11 AM, ODS123 said:

@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.  

 

 Even in the Seventies, there were variations in the way amplifiers sounded.  Back then, I moved in with a woman who had a Technics receiver and BIC Three bookshelf speakers, bringing my stereo with Yamaha receiver and Dynaco A-25 speakers, also bookshelf sized.

 

Since those items were easy to move and I was curious, I swapped the parts around to see if I could hear any differences.  Much to my surprise, the receivers differed a lot more than the speakers, which sounded very similar.

 

I haven’t had that opportunity lately, and the differences between individual amplifiers and receivers are probably smaller now, but likely still greater than between digital components like optical disc players, which do differ, in spite of the “It’s all ones and zeroes so they have to sound the same!” arguments that surface occasionally, less and less frequently lately, I’ve noticed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's a myth or not, but consuming this beverage while listening always helps my speakers/music sound better 100% of the time! (And it's a lot cheaper than interconnects that cost a mortgage payment, wooden pucks that keep your "perfectly insulated cables" off the floor, gimmicky tube connectors, etc)  Plus, the more I consume, the better I can sing and dance.... coincidence?

 

23,981 Bourbon Glass Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iteachstem said:

I don't know if it's a myth or not, but consuming this beverage while listening always helps my speakers/music sound better 100% of the time! (And it's a lot cheaper than interconnects that cost a mortgage payment, wooden pucks that keep your "perfectly insulted cables" off the floor, gimmicky tube connectors, etc)  Plus, the more I consume, the better I can sing and dance.... coincidence?

 

23,981 Bourbon Glass Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock


Nope. That’s not a myth at all. I’ve done double blind tests to prove it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marvel said:

No telling how distracted you were...

 

🙄

 

If I had the time and the focus to be carrying receivers and speakers around, and then carefully listening to them, I wouldn’t have been all that distracted, lol.  We had energy to spare in our twenties, didn’t we?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 7:19 AM, ODS123 said:

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.

I think the hobby will be just fine.

 

"Empirical testing" also demonstrates performance differences in amplifiers, but you seem to struggle with the idea that this translates to audible differences. We've had this conversation before, where I pointed out that DBT was once used to show that there were no audible differences between a Pioneer receiver and $14K Mark Levinson monoblocks. I was using Dahlquist DQ10's and a Dynaco 400 back then, and anyone in that camp thought the results were just silly. 

 

"linear operation". What speaker? What load? What room? What volume level? 

 

Many years ago, when Klipsch was ready to launch the Cornwall III, they did a blind test between two loudspeakers. Everyone suspected that one of them was the Cornwall III, because most of us had foreknowledge that Klipsch was getting ready to release the thing. There were handouts with questions and for us to take notes. As soon as 'Speaker A' started playing, I knew it was the RF-7. I mean, I know what my own speaker sounds like. The highs on 'Speaker B' sounded recessed by comparison and there was more bass. After the demo, I had three people tell me that they had trouble telling them apart, and that they sounded more alike than different. 

 

To some people, small differences seem magnified, while others don't even notice them.

 

"You can't hear that."

"But it measures differently"

"Those numbers don't matter"

"But they are different"

"You can't hear that."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...