BS Button List of worthy Myths

[Travis In Austin]

On 5/15/2022 at 5:36 PM, ClaudeJ1 said:

Doesn't this belong in a Subwoofer thread? What is it doing here? What you say is not a MYTH and  not the best sub placement, which can be modeled for free.

You just made it a myth. Add it to the list.

[Travis In Austin]

10 hours ago, ODS123 said:

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.  

 

You may have missed what I was saying. He doesn't think that some "break in" is a myth. He has measured it. @Edgar has as well, but what he measured only had a 2% difference. That may not have been significant in connection with what he was doing or the types of drivers he was testing. 

 

Roy has mentioned that getting drivers that are not properly broken in makes a difference in his world. (Anechoic chamber, lab grade microphones, wave tubes, measurements, etc.). I think he has a standard set of suggestions to manufacturers who want to submit samples for consideration how they should "burn" them in to be competitive. As I recall it was a certain amount of power, for a certain amount of time. I can't remember if he said pink noise, or specific frequency or something else.

 

 

 

[Chief bonehead]

11 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

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"

So you think I said this because of dealers?  Too many assumptions made……

[Chief bonehead]

10 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

I'll always go with the 98-99% that offer insignificant difference in the before/after burn. As opposed the the maybe 1-2% you speak of.

Interesting…..I think you may have the numbers backward and too high/low. 

[ClaudeJ1]

8 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

Interesting…..I think you may have the numbers backward and too high/low. 

Audible Significance with measured data in concert with the data will always win.

[garyrc]

17 hours ago, Idontknow said:

 

I don’t think everything Bose made sounded bad.

 

With a very powerful amp (>350 w.p.c.) and good positioning, the 901 can sound good.   All 901s I've ever heard sounded pretty bad, except at Alphonso's Mercantile in Mendocino Village, starting in 1972 with a Phase Linear 700, moving up through the years with a parade of big amplifiers, ending up with a 1,000 watt per channel McIntosh (Alphonso is gone now).  The super secret sensitivity (with required equalizer, etc.) of the 901 is so low that a Klipschorn, La Scala or Belle is about 22 times as sensitive. 

[ODS123]

7 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

So you think I said this because of dealers?  Too many assumptions made……

 

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.

[ClaudeJ1]

2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

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.

Interesting premise in the last sentence.

Since the 90-95% you speak of happens to be true and measurable (not a myth), why is there so much time wasted in such a grossly disproportionate manner on the the things that can also be measured to prove they don't matter at all.

Or if they do, they are such a minor part of the total sound that they should not even be considered.

Like, does anyone know or care what gauge wire is used on a battery for a 4 cylinder engine vs. an 8 cylinder one? As long as the engine starts, we trust that the proper wire was designed and used by the engineers for the purpose.

[Edgar]

Just now, ClaudeJ1 said:

As long as the engine starts, we trust that the proper wire was designed and used by the engineers for the purpose.

 

But it starts so much better with the cryogenically-treated wire! 🙂

[Travis In Austin]

Paul W. Klipsch on the subject:

 

“As long as man brags of conquest, man will claim his great discoveries. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people.”

 

I believe that quote is from the late 1950s. 

[Curious_George]

11 hours ago, Travis In Austin said:

 

You may have missed what I was saying. He doesn't think that some "break in" is a myth. He has measured it. @Edgar has as well, but what he measured only had a 2% difference. That may not have been significant in connection with what he was doing or the types of drivers he was testing. 

 

Roy has mentioned that getting drivers that are not properly broken in makes a difference in his world. (Anechoic chamber, lab grade microphones, wave tubes, measurements, etc.). I think he has a standard set of suggestions to manufacturers who want to submit samples for consideration how they should "burn" them in to be competitive. As I recall it was a certain amount of power, for a certain amount of time. I can't remember if he said pink noise, or specific frequency or something else.

 

 

 

A speaker (or woofer more specifically) power tested on a Klippel System, assuming it survives, will be well broken in after that test. For power tests, pink noise is typically used unless there is some unusual requirement for the test.

[ODS123]

4 hours ago, Travis In Austin said:

Paul W. Klipsch on the subject:

 

“As long as man brags of conquest, man will claim his great discoveries. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people.”

 

I believe that quote is from the late 1950s. 

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.  

[Shakeydeal]

12 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

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.  

 

Wouldn't matter if he did. It still wouldn't make it so.

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

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.  

No I made it up :). Of course he said it, and many, many variations of that same thing. His four core design principles all flowed from testing vs. performance. A classmate at Stanford told him "all speakers will sound better if you put them in a corner." Rather than take that as a known truth, even though it was something he observed on his own, he set out to know why does it sound better and the most root level he could achieve."

 

He also said that you still have to listen to them because that's what it's all about. 

 

His Dope From Hope articles announcing changes to the Heritage models are very illustrative of his thought process on what justified a change, whether it be drivers, balancing networks, etc. The specific ones I recall all made a reference to testing, sometimes followed up by subjective listening, to justify the change he was announcing. 

[Travis In Austin]

This guy acknowledges that woofers require some amount of run in and require "exercising the suspension." Most posts I have seen on here recently have been about needing some about of break in have all been in reference to the woofers. 

 

"First off, I don't even consider myself a member of the general public. I know that my own requirements in a loudspeaker are those I've discussed. Judging from what contact I have with the general public, though, I conclude that 99 percent of the general public doesn't even know what accuracy of reproduction is. My company is for the one percent composed of perfectionists who buy these expensive speakers." PWK

[Travis In Austin]

He really said this too: "First off, I don't even consider myself a member of the general public. I know that my own requirements in a loudspeaker are those I've discussed. Judging from what contact I have with the general public, though, I conclude that 99 percent of the general public doesn't even know what accuracy of reproduction is. My company is for the one percent composed of perfectionists who buy these expensive speakers." PWK

 

 

[Edgar]

If you've ever owned a pair of real leather shoes or boots, you know that they eventually break-in ... and that they also eventually break-down. We try to minimize both problems in loudspeakers and electronics.

[Curious_George]

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

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.  

If you knew anything about PWK, you would not have made the quoted comment. Paul could have cared less if he was welcomed in audiophool circles. The term is somewhat self-deprecating today. 

 

"I" challenge the idea of audible differences below a certain level... you can't believe your ears and brain, they lie to you. In the end, people have their favorite equipment and to argue about it is pointless. 

[Curious_George]

Claude,

I think you should change the thread title to "BS Button List of Worthy Colorful Metaphors".

[ODS123]

34 minutes ago, Curious_George said:

Paul could have cared less if he was welcomed in audiophool circles. The term is somewhat self-deprecating today. 

 

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.