klipsch cornwall iv upgraded crossovers

It is true that low cost parts do not necessarily mean bad sound or a substantial compromise in sound quality.  At its price point, the Cornwall cannot be built without some cost cutting and savvy design means making the right choices on where to use “cheap” parts.  But, to suggest that those who substitute parts or modify the design to improve its performance or better suit their preference are just “fickle” and must meet some kind of blind testing criteria to justify their choice is unreasonable.  First, it is a personal choice and does not have to meet a long term market-supported approval measure.  Second, is there any evidence that Klipsch applied blind testing for every one of their design choices?  I bet they do what most of us do; they listen to the results.  I am sure Klipsch designers hear many improvements that they chose not to adopt because of cost, manufacturing difficulty, or some other practical consideration.  Those consideration may not be in play to stop an individual from making a modification.

perkadin

There are thousands of audio videos on YouTube, some of them with terrific A/B comparisons.

I'll never understand why people think they know what something sounds like based on a lossy YT video. It's like using mp3 files as demo tracks.

Cleeds,

It is not like using lossy MP3 videos,; it is MUCH worse.  With any video you are hearing the gear in the video, the room, the recording gear, etc., before you even consider what the audience is using for playback.  Even if the person shooting the video is a recording engineer, the sound would differ based on the technique employed.  I also doubt that $5,000 microphones were used for the recording.  
 

I think you were being too kind in omitting words like “idiotic” in your put down of auditions via YT.

Yep blame YouTube. Blame the recording equipment. Typical excuses. And some of those reviewers use very high end equipment and even include links to non compressed audio. What nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge is that these changes typically produce differences that are so subtle that it’s hard to even notice a change let alone conclude that they’ve made an improvement.

While I’d love to be able to home demo everything that’s just not realistic. YouTube isn’t ideal but at least it’s something. My findings from dac comparisons conducted at home were very much in line with what I heard in YouTube videos. I’ve also found YouTube useful for most speakers and amps, but I still demo in person before purchasing whenever possible.
I think some of you guys really need to be honest with yourselves before posting on here and making claims you know are unlikely to be challenged. You also need to educate yourself on cognitive dissonance and other forms of bias that influence how you feel about subjective tiny differences. I get you might be feeling distressed because you spent a ton of time & money on something that nobody else seemed to notice, but don’t make it worse by influencing others to do the same.

I suppose it depends on what one calls “subtle” and “obvious,” but if something has to survive YT treatment to constitute a meaningful improvement, I will agree that most modifications won’t pass the test.  It is up to each owner whether any improvement is worth the cost and effort.  It is not up to some self-appointed expert on cognitive dissonance to shame those who find such changes desirable.