meuge

---------------- On 8/5/2005 10:28:19 AM Anakin26 wrote: You have just given the answer to yourself! You end up with 990% on the one amp (and its connected speakers) and 1000% on the other amp (the one with the shorter wire), thus you have a 10% loss on the "990% side". What I was pointing out is, that you will "amplify" the signal difference. 1% of signal loss on a speaker wire will not be audible. But amplifying the 1% loss by factor 10 through the amp might be audible. I don´t know if this really is the case... i was just figuring it might be this way. ---------------- But it's not a 10% loss! It's still a 1% loss, because 990/1000 is 1%.

---------------- On 8/5/2005 6:25:07 AM Anakin26 wrote: One thing that MIGHT be audible is the fact, that a longer cable will have more resistance than a shorter cable with the same diameter thus there will be greater signal loss from the pre-amp to the amp. As the amp will then amplify the signal the effect might be audible, as it will also multiply the "signal difference". Say you are loosing 1 percent of signal power from the pre-amp to the amp. The signal is then amplified by factor 10. So you would have 10% less power coming out of your speakers. Nick ---------------- I don't get how you came up with that conclusion. If you lose 1%, you're left with 99%... if you amplify it tenfold, you have 990%... NOT 900.

I do not know what to say. My prayers are with you and your wife. I do not have the power to help you, but people I know, good people, are working days and nights so that no one will have to go through this.

---------------- On 8/4/2005 11:42:54 AM Colin wrote: not such a good Red wine Clari T review: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue18/clari-t.htm ---------------- The review is very close to how I felt about my Teac. It had a nonexistent noise floor, and extreme clarity, but it just couldn't handle complex musical material, and its soundstage was very narrow.

I am 6'3" and I am a student. Guess who gets to fly coach all the time? If I find the man who designed the airplane seats, who is also the same man who designed the long-distance bus seats, I will separate his head from his body... not for revenge... but just to measure his neck. If it's longer than an inch, I'd be surprised. In most airplanes, if I cannot get a seat at the emergency exit row, my knees are planted firmly into the back of the seat in front of me... and that's when the seats are upright. So far I've nearly gotten into 2 fistfights when extremely rude people sitting in front of me decided that the difficulty they're having lowering their seat back because of my knees, could be resolved by repeatedly banging the seat against the apparent obstacle.

It's up to you. I like PR or Sealed designs better, but ported will work, as long as you design the port correctly.

I like sealed subs. They are very clean and fast-sounding. If I ever make another sub, I'll add a passive radiator.

Here's a design for you: This is a sealed Titanic III 15" in a 20x25x20 enclosure, using 1" MDF. The -6dB is at 27Hz and -10dB is at 20Hz. With some PEQ and a 1000W amp you should be able to improve that significantly. The file is here: TitanicIII_15_122Lbox_20x25x20.WID

Even though this will be a learning experience, the difference between making a sub you will keep for 10 years, versus something that will be in the trash a year from now, is almost negligible financially. I would say go for a Titanic 15", with the 1000W PE amp (it needs it) in a large, sealed enclosure (24-24" cube).

Actually, I think that subwoofers are the most forgiving of speaker projects. The Titanic is a good subwoofer driver, but the Shiva and the Tumult might be better alternatives since you're going to be building your own box. As far as amplification goes, I like the partsexpress 1000W amp if you're going to build the amp into the box. However, since you're making your subwoofer from scratch, you can also look into making the box passive, and running high-level signal from a pro-type amp in the rack. As far as materials go, I'd use 1" MDF for all sides, and maybe 2 layers for the baffle. But before you go to cut wood, you should decide on what type of enclosure you want to build: - Sealed - Ported - Passive Radiator (a noiseless variation of ported)

Two of my friends got the 20" one as well... during one of those crazy <$400 deals. These monitors are amazing. Rich color, very dark blacks... no ghosting or trailing that I can see. I would get the 24" one, but firstly I don't have the money, and secondly, I play games sometimes, and a video card that would let me run modern games at that resolution would have to be quite expensive as well.

---------------- On 8/2/2005 3:18:55 PM dgb wrote: Oh now you're whipping out a profession quality burner on me! I think you should have to burn using a standard computer CD-ROM since that and the Philips 765 are the only experience I have. I would back off my statement of hi-speed burning with high quality components made specifically for that purpose. But in the interest of a good bet, I will take it anyway. A 10 pack of Maxell XLIIS are about $10-$15 depending on where you find them. But I really just want to make you buy blank tapes. ---------------- This "professional quality burner" is currently $47 on newegg.com http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16827152047 Previously I used a $55 Lite-On 48/24/48 cdrw... until I got a dvd burner. Both would fail audio CDs at max speed about 1/2 the time, but every time they'd complete a CD, it would test fine. Furthermore, if I back down to 40X, the failures stop altogether.

Dell 2405FPW 24" LCD http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-4221&cs=19&c=us&l=en Wide-Aspect Display 12ms response rate 1920x1200 resolution built-in USB hub integrated flash-card reader under $1000!!! Aside from the 30" Apple Cinema display, which requires a dual-DVI video card (only on desktops, and you'd have to drop $400+ on the card alone) that's the best LCD on the market.

---------------- On 8/2/2005 9:33:20 AM dgb wrote: How about you copy the CD onto one cheap CD at 48x and one good CD at real time, then copy samples of both to a good CD at 1x. If I win you buy me a ten pack of Maxell XLIIS tapes, if I win I'll buy you a 50 pack of Office Depot crapola CD-Rs. I'm up for the challenge, although make sure you use some demanding source material. Of course copying successfully at 48x is another problem. ---------------- Deal. I do not know how much the Maxell tapes are, but I am sure we can work out an even bet. My suggestion for good benchmark CDs - Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" and a superb recording of Tchaikovsky's 4th? Give me the name or product number of a specific type of CD you want me to use for "good quality" burns. FIY - I will be using a top-of-the-line DVD/CD Burner NEC 3540A 16/8/48/48. I do not remember what my "cheap" CDs are, but I'll let you know. They came out to about 12c/disk I believe.

---------------- On 8/2/2005 1:22:59 PM dbflash wrote: I have a question. I have heard that the best sounding copied CD’s are made using Apple instead of Windows. Something about the way Apple compresses the music during the copying process. My friends have both platforms, but always use their Apple when burning CD’s. Has anyone else experienced this? I am hoping to finally buy a PC later this year for the house. I mainly am buying one to burn music. I hate driving around with store bought CD’s in the car. Not only am I worried that they will get scratched but stolen. I am looking at an EMac. Thanks, Danny ---------------- What you heard is incorrect. Real copies are bit-perfect, regardless of the platform used to make them. There are many reasons to get a Mac, such as style, security, convenience, anti-Microsoft sentiment... but higher quality of copied CDs is not one of those reasons.

---------------- On 8/2/2005 8:29:44 AM dgb wrote: If you cannot hear the difference between an original CD and a CD burt on crap media at 48x you might want to get some Bose. ---------------- I will put my money where my mouth is. I will get a couple of witnesses, then I'll get an original CD with reference-quality recording. Then I will make 2(!) successive copies of it using the cheapest media, at 40X. I will allow the software to check the data after the burn to make sure it copied successfully. Heck, I'll video tape the whole thing. Then, I will rip each CD to WAV, and have someone assign random names to the files, so that neither of us knows which files came from what CD. That information will be sealed in an zipped file under password, which my witness will give to you at the end of the experiment. I will then burn the files onto the most expensive CD I can find at the slowest speed possible, and send it to you, along with the original. According to you, the poor media will have caused the sound quality to deteriorate, thus affecting the rip as well (since it's digital, after all). After you make your judgement, you'll post the results here, and then my friend will post the password (heck we can even get someone from the board to do this so it's completely fair) and compare your judgement with the truth. If you can pick 75% of the tracks that are highest quality copies of the original, I will buy you a year's supply of the most expensive media I can find. If not, you can do something equally valuable for me... we can decide on that as we go. ARE YOU UP FOR A TEST?

---------------- On 8/2/2005 2:42:53 AM IndyKlipschFan wrote: please please please do NOT set your wonderful Reference 7 speakers to small... Geeze oh pete shoot the guy that reccomends this on large fully capable speakers.... The sub, when you get it, will augment the 7's not overpower sub slam... Put the x over setting at the lower range of the 7's you will love it. Enjoy the 7's! ---------------- I understand that my 3's are no match for the 7s, but I've found that while they can produce admirable bass, they sound much cleaner when crossed over at 60 or 80Hz. I prefer 80, but I use a very sharp 36dB/octave slope which pretty much means that the speakers play only down to about 60Hz.

---------------- On 8/1/2005 1:07:41 PM dgb wrote: That's not to say a good CD-R set up can't be had, but good media is hard to find, expensive ($2-$3 a disk) and won't work on most CD players made before about 2000. I used EAC to rip and Nero to burn with good results as long as I used Kodak, Maxell Pro or other Gold Disks. Cheap media like Imation, Memorex, regular Maxell, or store brand (Office Depot, etc) will result in poor recordings and poor shelf life. CDs are great for cars and computers, but I personally find a good tape made on a good deck better and more reliable. ---------------- With all due respect, the paragraph above is misleading, at best. The "quality" of CD-Rs is an iffy issue. Deterioration of CDs is a real problem... but curiously enough - I have never encountered it. Every CD I have burned ages ago... still works, and I use very cheap media (10c/disk). But while longevity may suffer, in theory, and in the long run, there is NO DIFFERENCE between cheap and expensive media, or between the original and the copy for that matter. EAC and Nero copy information so that it remains BIT PERFECT. The only way for the audio quality to decrease is to compress the music before burning it.

The guy who sold me my B&K EX4420 said that he used it with a tube preamp (which I shall try soon, courtesy of Dee), and felt that he was getting the best of both worlds, with the preamp sweetening up the sound, while the amp still giving him the power of solid-state.

Well, I can see that, sort of. They are rated to 32Hz, after all... So under perfect conditions, they can be -3dB at 32... and more like -6dB under unfavorable conditions, with another -3dB down to 30. It's not unheard of. My room screws with my subwoofer so much, that even though anechoically (tested outside), its -10dB point is around 19Hz, it manages to drop from flat to nothing (at least -30dB) in the space between 32Hz and 26Hz.

---------------- On 7/29/2005 1:42:45 PM MrMcGoo wrote: It is no big deal that the RF-7s fall off like a rock below 50 Hz. The RF-7s fall off by 20 decibels from 50 Hz to 30 Hz per Home Theater Mag's tests. Bill ---------------- I find that hard to believe, given that my RF-3IIs are reasonably flat down to about 40Hz... and that's in my tiny room.

It's Nero 6 Ultra, and it's great. To copy the CD directly, you can just use the Copy CD function. You don't need to specify that it's music. I, on the other hand, prefer to rip the music to the hard drive first, using CDEx... and burn it to a CD later, if necessary.

First, get burning software that actually works. I would highly suggest Nero from Ahead software. It's the computer industry standard. Nero should copy CDs just fine. There is a check-box in the window where you specify the settings for your burn, just before you start, called "verify" or something along those lines. If you check it, the software will check the CD after it was copied, to ensure a perfect bit-for-bit transfer. If it passes the check, and you still hear a difference, you might want to investigate whether your CD player doesn't like written CDs, or perhaps a tall glass of scotch and a visit to a therapist might be in order (I mean no disrespect by that, honestly).

You've got PM and email.

---------------- On 7/28/2005 9:12:23 AM Speedball wrote: It is not a bad looking heavy duty power cord at all, if you like purple. ---------------- If you're going to power a giant laser with it, then maybe it's not. But for the purpose it's meant to fulfill, it is the equivalent of using an SR-71 supersonic jet for your morning ride to work, which is located 100 feet away from your house.