Olorin

I don't have 6.0, but if 6.0 can do actions, you can suck at it with megahoover force and still get the job done -- all you need an action that will take your image and resize it to whatever size it is you need. You use one image to record the action, and then you can run that action against any image, all the images you have open at the time, or an entire folder of images. Check it out and hit me up if you need some guidance with it.

Do you have Photoshop?

93277

Your first thought was my first thought, and it's the absolute best reply, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

It might help if rather than thinking of it as a volume control, you think of it as an attenuator. In this model, turned all the way up is really zero, and decreasing the strength of the output signal is the only capability the control has.

<------------- Also jealous. What a fantastic find! Congratulations Jordan, that's a really nice piece of memorobilia you have there.

The IMAX theater in Fresno, CA is chock full o' Klipsch. Avatar sounded great.

Most people are happy with a woofer, squawker, and tweeter, but you've gone one better by adding mewlers. Not only that, but they damp cabinet vibrations and improve your bass. Nice upgrade.

Winner. The 247 has HDMI and 7.1 analog in.

You might be surprised by how well your RB-75s image and fill in the middle, and trying it is free. [] If that turns out not to be satisfactory, I'd use any Reference speaker of the same generation before I'd use any other speaker of any kind.

I'm far away so I have the benefit of being able to look at this from far away. [] Personally, I'd put the RC-7 on the top shelf of a linen closet and run phantom center. The only thing that never changes is that things change; you might not have a downsized space forever, and you'll regret having sold that RC-7 should that come to pass. I prefer phantom center to a mismatched center. Some people feel the same, some people don't, but you have nothing to lose by trying it.

Drive by Truckers Nomeansno Nice Strong Arm Rage Against the Machine Victim's Family Neurosis Massive Attack Iron & Wine Death Cab for Cutie Dropkick Murphys

^^^^^^^^ This. The answer to the original question depends entirely on the answer to this question.

I'm looking at the crossover schematics and it appears that in the stock configuration only the mid is padded while the tweeter runs at full throttle. The midrange could be opened up by changing the taps on the autoformer (or bypassing it entirely), but it probably wouldn't sound right if you couldn't somehow get the tweeter's output up to the level of the other parts of the system. Try it and tell us what happens. []

The Type ALs in my 83s had four screws holding each one down, and two each four were quite well hidden.

Nothing a little quality time with a grinder won't take care of. []

Well played.

Welcome to the forum and a lot of enjoyment with your audio gear. 1) Not to be flippant, but it's the one that fits your space and budget and sounds good to you. If you are pretty easy on your gear, whatever the current Reference-line 10" sub will probably make you smile, and if you like to travel at Ludicrous Speed, you'll need to go bigger. 2) Maybe, and yes. It's all about what you like and what fits all your factors, so I'd try it with just two and see what I think. If it's not satisfactory -- and that's not the same as wondering if a third speaker would be better, hehehe -- add a third and check it out! 3) That's a function of your receiver setup; you should be able to configure things so that you're only using LR + sub during music listening. 4) If I understand you correctly, this is answered by 3. Enjoy!

Are you the forum police? I love irony. Do you have any more?

Reviving a seven year old thread? Really?

Good work, Michael. I'm glad to hear life is good.

Not sure what you mean by "cross into," but 80 Hz would be the horn's f3. So the "small" horn is about 4" wider than a La Scala. []

I'm glad to see the refurb issue brought up. Some manufacturers, and I don't know which ones, do sample testing instead of testng every item. They can do this because the reliability rate is so high that it costs considerably more to test every single piece that comes off the line than it does to deal with the rare bad one on a warranty basis. The testing rate for refurbs and factory certified, though, is 100%. That's why, if I'm on the market for a receiver again, I'll buy one of Harman Kardons refurbs from their eBay store. Not too long ago they had a long run of AVR-347s go through at a very good price.

You're right about both of these things, and we've landed square on the root cause of your problem. [] Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, and I hope I don't come across as argumentative, but I think what you're describing is largely a matter of perspective. In my view, the hardware and software have both evolved as time has gone by, and it's natural, normal product evolution in computers that processors and memory get faster, and hard drives become larger. Old hardware can run old software quite happily forever, since they were literally made for each other, but old hardware is crushed by new software, as new software is made for more powerful, more capable new hardware. This isn't a vendor-specific phenomenon, but rather a characteristic of computing as a whole. Not to be too much of an Apple apologist, but rather to look at things from another angle -- by way of comparison, would you expect to load Windows 7 on a seven year old PC and get XP-like performance? If your answer is no, then why would you expect to load its Apple equivalent on a seven year old machine and get a good experience? Back to being helpful . . . as I feared, what you have is a systems architecture issue. Unfortunately you have a square peg in the form of the work that you're doing, and the iMac is a round hole, and it's not that OS X isn't a production-capable OS, it's that the iMac is a consumer-grade computer and you're asking it to do professional, production-level work. The same result would come from trying to do video editing on an entry-level PC as opposed to a highly spec'd gaming or workstation machine; your productivity and your user experience would suffer because the hardware wouldn't be up to the task. You might be able to improve things by making sure all of your scratch drives for Photoshop and so on are are the main, internal drive. The bandwidth available to the internal drive is several times that available to the external drive, especially the USB drive. USB drives are really only suitable for low-impact storage like iTunes libraries, and for unplugging and taking data with you that needs to travel. They're hopeless as primary or even secondary I/O devices. The FireWire drive does have decent I/O but, unless your iMac is old and uses ATA instead of SATA drives, FireWire performance isn't at the level of the internal drives. I think if you approach this as a sytems engineering problem, you'll out pretty well at the end.

Not My external drives. I've tried everything, asked all kinds of questions on Mac boards - nothing worked. The final solution was a script application which "tickles" each drive once a minute to prevent them from spinning down. PITA. It's just one example of how OS/X is uncompetitive for production work. I say production work, because if all you do is browsing and some email it's not noticeable. But, I often work in 5 programs at once trying to build web sites or other media related output and the OS is always in the way. I refuse to keep buying faster machines, I want them to make a faster OS! I feel your frustration and I know it's always painful when things don't work the way we'd like them to. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "external" drives? Are we talking portable USB, FireWire, SCSI raid in a chassis? eSATA?