Schurkey

If it was me--and it may be at some point--I would wire for 7.2 not 7.1. My current system has the bass going to the front main speakers, so technically I have 7.0 (no discrete subwoofer) However, if your main speakers won't do the bass, I gotta say I like the idea of two smaller subs rather than one large one. Fewer issues with standing waves is one benefit.

So...just to ask...ummmmmmm...How many of us does there need to be before Klipsch arranges for a dealer to set up some demo speakers and equipment? Twenty enthusiasts (us), a medium size meeting room, and an ad in the local paper, and next thing you know you've got a Klipsch open house for all of Minneapolis to visit. Worst that can happen is that our group has a great time. And Klipsch gets a batch of proseletyzers to schlepp equipment, serve punch, and to be generally enthusiastic, if need be. If I come, I'd be happy to bring along some Aragon amp(s), preamp(s) and other equipment. All my Klipsch speakers are out of production (surrounds and center)

I'm interested--depending on details like price of the room and whether I can fit it into my work schedule.

I have--mostly--the Radio Shack interconnects in my system. There is one Monster digital cable, a pair of low-end Monster interconnects that I bought years ago, and an 8-channel Cobalt Cable interconnect that uses a DB-25 connector at one end which fits the 8-channel analog input of the Aragon Stage One preamp/processor I use. Two observations: 1. Pretty much all the RS interconnects are now made in China. I HATE buying Communist-sourced items. The price in dollars may be low, but when you consider that you're supporting virtual slave labor, the economic impact of the Chinese/American trade deficit, and the ecological impact of unregulated Chinese industry, buying Chinese costs you your soul. 2. My Stage One had a problem with the main channel RCA jacks--they were not properly grounded. Using interconnects which have the shield attached at only one end--so called "directional" cables--produced a heart-stopping hummm from the speakers that would about make your eardrums meet in the middle of your head. The cheap RS interconnects and a temporary ground allowed me to use the Stage One without repair until it was convenient to send it back.

Better idea: Forget the "noise canceling" headphones, 'cause they're still an emerging technology. (Translation: They don't work as good as the ad copy says they do.) Last I heard, noise-cancelling headphones actually achieve about 10 db of noise reduction. You can do that with a good pair of ordinary headphones--as long as they're the closed-back (sealed) kind. You can double the isolation with in-ear-canal headphones--about 20 db. I couldn't find any specs on the Bose units. Typical. Buy a good pair of isolating headphones, drive 'em with a Headroom headphone amp--your choice, they make several. I'm going for the Micro, as I expect to travel with it as well as use it at home.

This Stage One is a good deal. As I type this, there's only 12 hours left 'til the auction ends, though. Comes right from Klipsch, with a 90-day warranty. AUCTION

http://www.sacdmods.com/NC555ES.htm http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=all#SonyNC555ES you need to scroll about halfway down the page--and it's a long page. Slow to react to layer changes. I hate that Sony is playing games with SACD vs. DVD-A. But since I don't own any of either, I guess it doesn't matter much. I think I'd like to buy one of these players. They're discontinued and I thought they were all sold out...

FOUND! CALIBRATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR THREE MODELS OF RADIO SHAFT SPL METERS: 33-2050, 33-2055, 42-3019 See the links at Eric Wallin's "new" page http://home1.gte.net/tammie_eric/audio/audio.html And a review of the modified meter: http://www.stereotimes.com/acc032902.shtm

DELETED

The solder project WAS hosted at: http://www.gti.net/wallin/audio/rsmeter/33-2050/33-2050.html This link is no longer active--at least when I tried it just now. It was for RS # 33-2050 meter. Perhaps it is being hosted somewhere else, and I just don't know about it.

A much more comprehensive set of corrections is available at: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/utilities-download-page.html Do keep in mind that Radio Shaft has "upgraded" the analog meter, and added a digital meter, and, by now, probably discontinued both again. [edit: The digital 33-2055 is still current. My analog 33-2050 is not listed on the RS web site.] Somewhere, I remember seeing a solder project where you go in and actually CORRECT the defect [edit: in the analog 33-2050] by adding resistors, capacitors, etc, rather than looking at a cheat-sheet all the time. When (if) I find it, I will post an update.

Understand, first, that the impedance "ratings" of a speaker are over-simplified. All speakers have an impedance range, which is frequency dependant. So even an "8-Ohm" speaker may dip to 2, 3, 4 ohms at a certain frequency, or go to 12 or 15 ohms at another. Some speakers have a wider "range" than others. Back in the "good old days", a receiver may have had it's power rated using an 8 ohm load, but there was enough transformer (power supply) and heat sink area to increase the available power into lower impedance loads. For instance, my college system had 120 watts into 8 ohms, but was also rated for 160 watts into 4 ohms. Today, greedy manufacturers have removed all the quality from mainline audio equipment, and some receivers aren't even rated to be used with 4-ohm speakers because the increased current draw is more than the circuitry can tolerate. And that is the issue: reduced impedance will draw more current from the amp/receiver if the voltage level is the same. Since your Scott is rated for a 4-ohm speaker, use it without fear. Yes, you don't want to connect another pair of speakers in parallel. You could connect another pair in series, though.

My daddy always told me to marry a rich old woman with a bad cough.

My response from Buttkicker is that the two products will work together, but the subharmonic synthesizer isn't needed. I bought the Buttkicker kit from bestbuy.com and have it set up. Yeah, it works, and yeah, it's not really a substitute for a subwoofer. I was kinda hoping it would make the lack of a subwoofer less important, but it didn't work out that way. I'm getting the most satisfactory results with the low-pass filter set for 80 hz. With the low-pass out of the circuit, it would shake even though the soundtrack didn't seem to need reinforcement.

Curious if anyone has tried a Buttkicker fed from a subharmonic synthesizer. Seems to me like it should be an excellent paring, although I don't own either component. The Buttkicker BK-LFEKIT is around $475 and the DBX 120A would be another $200 or so--but since I have an extra channel of amplification already, perhaps all I'd need is the Buttkicker shaker rather than the whole kit. That'd knock about $300 off the cost.

I don't think it's as simple as dividing the input watts by the number of channels. For example, that 7-channel amp "could" have a power supply small enough to only supply 500 watts into 8 ohms--400 to the channel under test, to meet FTC regulations, and only an additional 100 spread among the remaining 6 channels, so perhaps 15 per channel. Is that how it is actually built? I'm guessing it has more snort than what I've just described. Probably substantially more. CALL THE COMPANY and ask them! But I doubt that they are actually supply 400/channel into 8 ohms to all 7 channels simultaneously and still meet distortion specs.

I don't want to present myself as an Electrical Engineer. But I'll take a stab at this anyway. 1. The manual, pages 4, and 5, and 19, state that it produces 400/channel. But it does NOT state in the manual that all channels are driven. Now, they do say "all channels driven into eight ohms" on the web site. First guess: The web site is wrong, and the manual is "right" in that it allows them to drive any one channel of the seven. Or two, or three, but does not commit them to driving all seven at the same time. One could even look at the web site description as saying that all channels are driven into 8-ohms, (as opposed to some channels driven into 4, or 6, or 12 ohms) rather than saying that all channels are driven simultaneously, into 8-ohm loads. [EDIT: Remember, Carver's clever about both power supplies and marketing, and used to brag up how one channel could "borrow" surplus power from the other if the demand was great in one channel but not great in the other. An advantage of a shared power supply. Aragon (and LOTS of other amp makers) does the same thing in the multi channel amps, and the 8008ST. It's nothing new, it's nothing unusual, but Carver might have been the first to put lipstick on it so that people could relate to it and understand it as an advantage.] 2. 120 amps peak-to-peak??? For what microscopic length of time??? Ask Steve Donalson what an Aragon will produce. (Actually, it's been asked, and the answer is "whatever you want it to" because there is no specification for the duration of the current pulse. The line fuses will tell the story of the CONTINUOUS current-producing ability of the amp, and the 8008BB will toss 20 amps based on it's 10 amp fuses for the + and the - rail.) See: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/536851/ShowPost.aspx 3. "he is creating energy inside....where does it come from?" Obviously, a Mr. Fusion and a "Tracking Downconverter" flux capacitor packed behind the faceplate...

Carver is the master of the sloppy power supply. And, I suppose, that description (sloppy) is not really fair. Let's just say that Carver and Mondial have about polar opposite philosophy in regards to power supply. Aragon amps were known for having HUGE supplies, and for dual-mono operation (in "most" of the stereo amps--the 8008ST is an exception, as are the multi-channel stuff, for example) whereas Carver tended to have the amp channels sharing a meager power supply that somehow managed to supply enough "juice" to meet FTC requirements. The first I ever heard of Carver was when the "Carver Cube" (I don't remember the model number) stereo amp was new and getting lots of press. 7" on a side, no heat sinks, and 201 or 205 watts per channel. I guess the 201 or the 205 was significant, because the early versions couldn't pass FTC rating procedures for the claimed 200/side. When he worked out the problem, he added a couple of watts to the rated output in order to "thumb his nose" at the FTC--"See, I did it, and power to spare". As MrMcGoo has alluded to, another trick for getting lots of watts out of a given power supply is to play with the class of operation of the transistors--the bias current. An Aragon Palladium puts out 100 or 125 watts into 8 ohms (in class A operation!!) and there was a time that that was the advertised 8-ohm rating of the unit. There was a secret, though. If you crank up the volume, it will throw 400 watts into 8 ohms in class AB operation. So output class is extremely important to getting the most out of the power supply and the output devices themselves. Soundcraftsman used to make a big deal out of "Class H" or somesuch, and I think the digital amps are in class D. Crown, for example, and many of the subwoofer amps supplied with subwoofers also use a very "efficient" output class. Carver has a gift--real and genuine-- for seeing different (usually very frugal) solutions to a given problem. Everything is grounded in real, live engineering--but his trade-offs (compromises) often run against the grain of established procedures. He's not the only one to do this, although he is very, very, good at it. What truly sets Carver apart is his ability to market these "breakthroughs" using terminology and ad copy that makes his choices of compromise palatable to the average or above-average consumer. His marketing ability is probably why his audio companies go Tango Uniform a year or two after he leaves--there's no one else who can market the (slightly unusual, weird compromises) product as successfully as he does. [Later edit] I don't mean to suggest that there's anything "WRONG" with Carver or his companies, or that it's bad to think up new 'n' original solutions to a problem. Heck, I don't see anything wrong in recycling not-new, not-original, but unusual solutions. I DO admire the guy. "The road not (normally) taken" can be a pleasant trip. But, you should be aware that Carver didn't change the laws of physics. He just accepts different trade-offs, and as a rule, they are trade-offs that lower the price or increase the profit, or some of each. Nothing wrong with that, either--if the buyer has some idea of what those trade-offs are, and why the product works the way it does.

Depending on your actual choice of amp, I would (and do) feel MUCH more comfortable with a 10+ year old amp that was designed and built right to begin with than a new/1yr/2yr old amp that is made in China by forced or child labor. I'd also like some clairification: Your number 1 and your numbers 4 and 5 seem to be contradictory. Since you have hugely efficient speakers, you could probably get everything you want volume-wise with half or less of the rated power you say you want.

IF (big if) you are going for home theater, you would be best off to put your primary money into the front three channels. The surround (5.1) and rears (7.1) are not stressed very much. You could use less powerful (less expensive) amps for the surround and rear channels. Since "most" subwoofers have built-in amps, there's no need to supply an amp channel for LFE. So you want the "best, most expensive" amps driving the left main, center, and right main speakers. And skimping on the others is no real problem, at least as a temporary solution. If that temporary soulution sounds good enough, it could become a permanent solution. On the other hand, if you plan to do DVD-A or SACD, then the side and rear speakers may carry much more information, and you'd want equal quality all the way around. I decided that although I'm not doing DVD-A or SACD right now, someday I will, and I might as well be prepared...which is why I bought the four 2-channel Aragon amps.

Are you considering used amps as well as new stuff? Aragon 4004/4004 II, and 8008ST/8008BB. ($500--$1100 per stereo amp) Then there are the multi-channel 8008x3 and 8008x5. The 2-channel stuff is on Audiogon most any time. The multis are significantly more rare, but still advertised periodically. An Aragon 2-channel or a pair of Palladiums/Palladium II/Palladium 1K in front, and an x5 for the rest--Tough to do better. I'm using a pair of 4004 and a pair of 8008BB with one channel unused (no subwoofer) There's also the Aragon 3005, as I write this there's two of 'em on eBay "Direct From Klipsch" and the bid prices are most agreeable. They'll probably sell for less than what you have listed for the 3002. Some 2007's too.

I really liked Shreks I and II, and I really hated Shark Tale. I thought Madagascar was somewhere in-between. I just don't accept a lion and a zebra as best buddies.

I'm REALLY glad that I didn't buy it. Yes, Depp is truly excellent, but everything else is lame. My wife claims that the Gene Wilder version (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory???) is better, but I haven't seen that one.

We had a WOTW festival last week. Saw the Speilberg, then saw the semi-recent one with "Jake" Busey (credited as William Busey at the end!) and the '53 original. I liked the original best, ("Superscience!" Ha!) but none of them were really "good". The Busey one stunk from front to back. Speilberg's was pretty ordinary, while the sound is good, the plot sucks-the aliens are just a MacGuffin between a man and his family. They all suffer from the "Mars Attacks" syndrome. The aliens are supposed to be mysterious and unstoppable. Well, OK, if we really were attacked by BOMs from another planet, I'm sure they would be mysterious and unstoppable. But the lack of character development hurts the movie. And, of course, the aliens ravage the countryside right up to the point where they die en masse. I suppose the original intent is to convey a sense of human helplessness coupled to a morality play whereby God gets some recognition for being wise enough to provide us with an immune system and germs to keep it active. So, in writing this response, I've made an "Ah Ha!" discovery. The BEST War of the Worlds REALLY IS "Mars Attacks"! Just replace bacteria and viruses with country music...

Did the guys selling the ionic tweeter "forget" to tell you about the ozone? I have heard that ionic tweeters aren't available in the US because of indoor air pollution regulations. The arc produces ozone, ozone is really helpful at high altitude, but not so good at ground level. At any rate, it's not new--I remember hearing about ionic tweeters 25 years ago, and they weren't new then. The company was Hill Plasmatronics. I think those got around the ozone problem by connecting to a helium tank. The arc excited the helium instead of air. No oxygen in the helium so no ozone. http://www.roger-russell.com/ionovac/ionovac.htm#hillplasmatronics But you talked funny after listening to them As a science principle, it goes back to some time in the 1800's. As an actual for-sale product, you need to go back to at LEAST the '50's. http://www.roger-russell.com/ionovac/ionovac.htm#generalhistory