Mario NJ

I used to listen to music in DPLII Music mode. But then I took the time to properly set up my listening environment (speaker positioning, etc.), and now pure stereo wins hands down, no contest.

I had an RW-10 where the same thing was happening to me. Replaced it and now it is much better. I only hear the chuffing when using test tones 40hz and below at high volumes. I never hear it any more with program material.

---------------- On 9/27/2004 11:33:19 AM formica wrote: I too have an issue with high end Transports. Having read endless discussions about jitter and error correction... it seems to me the solution of producing a perfect transport I quite simple. If there is a problem due to the "real time" nature of digital audio repro, why not eliminate it by adding a simple memory buffer with an error correction algorithm. It doesn't have to be large, just a couple of MB given how quick the data can be read and reread from disk. This would add perhaps a second or two delay to the access time which already varies from machine to machine. Unfortunately, jitter cannot be eliminated simply by using a memory buffer as you describe. Jitter is not read error, it is frequency distortion caused by random, or worse, systemic variations in the clock frequency of the digital chips used to move data around a binary system. So using a memory buffer would only pass along the source of jitter to the clock of the chip that is reading data out of the memory buffer and onto the digital output cable. Of course you could put a memory buffer in your receiver/processor to buffer this data as it comes in, and then the source of jitter in the system would be the jitter in the chip that reads this data and passes it on to the DAC inside your processor. Lucky for me, it appears my ears aren't good enough to detect jitter. When I upgraded my old CD player to my new universal player (both used only as transports) I immediately thought, "Wow, what a great upgrade in treble clarity and soundstaging." But then I had a friend come over and I convinced him to help me do a blind (single blind) test between the two players and I honestly couldn't tell the difference between them. Best, Mario

I too was profoundly disappointed in the performance of my RC-35. From the first moment I heard it I thought, "What the heck, why are voices always so boxy sounding?" This set me off on weeks of tweaking. I tried plugging the ports, changing position, orientation, connectors, cables, every possible receiver setting, but nothing really made it acceptable for me. Finally I became so frustrated I was literally going to chuck it out the window. But then I thought I might as well take it apart and maybe I could find some things to tweak inside the speaker. Sure, I would probably end up ruining it, but maybe I could learn a few things in the process too. Since I knew the RC-35 was a 2 1/2 way design, my first idea was to take out that last 1/2, or the woofer that only functions from 300Hz down. So I disconnected the leads to that driver and found that taking out that extra bass really opened the speaker up and made the dialogue sound really clean, just like when running in phantom center mode. I thought my problem was fixed, Hurray! Unfortunately I must have raised the impedance so much by taking out a driver that my receiver would shut itself down at high volumes, Boooo! So instead of just taking out the bass reinforcement driver I thought, let's try to make it a full range driver by feeding it both the other woofer's and the tweeter's input at the same time. Voila, problem solved. The speaker now reproduces dialogue with greater clarity than my stock RB-75's. I'm sure I've introduced at least a couple of negative side effects, like increased comb-filtering, and for sure that 6.5" woofer has a break-up mode in the higher frequencies it is now being asked to produce, but luckily I have yet to experience any of those things, and hopefully will not until my next system upgrade.

The correct answer is, "You should let your ears decide." But you could answer 95% of the questions on this forum with that answer and then this would become a terrifically boring place. My ears tell me that multipoles are almost always better if you only have 2 surround channels, but that monopoles are better if you have 3 or more.

---------------- On 3/28/2004 9:18:46 PM Fish wrote: What kind of speakers? 100 watts is alot of power if its real power.In answer to your ? yes,just run front pre outs to amp hook up speaks and calibrate as usual. ---------------- Fronts are RB-75's. Yes, 100 watts is more than enough power, but it's quality I'm looking for. I remember when I upgraded from my cheapo 100 watt/channel receiver (which was more than loud enough) to my present H/K AVR 7200 that the upgrade in sound quality was phenomenal. Do you think I won't get any more performance increases by going to a better amp?

---------------- On 3/28/2004 6:55:41 PM Cleve wrote: I'm basically doing the same thing right now - I've got a Dynaco 5 channel 50 watt A/V amp - I wanted more horsepower for my front channel Klipsch CF-4's, and a 'warmer' sound for my CD's, cable radio, etc, so I bought a McIntosh 100 watt/ch stereo receiver. ---------------- Thanks, Cleve! My buddy has some McIntosh gear that sounds great, their 2x200 watt amp is at the top of my list. How did your Mac mate with your Klipsch, did it give you the warmer sound you wanted?

I currently have a 7-channel HT A/V receiver, but I use the system mainly for 2-channel music. I'd like to improve my sound and would like to spend my dollars on a really good 2-channel amp rather than a pretty good 7-channel amp, which the receiver already has. So assuming I currently have a 7x100W receiver and then get a 2x200W amp, can I leave the center and surrounds connected to the receiver and connect the L/R preouts from the receiver to the new 2x200W amp? Do I just have to set the L/R channels to -3dB in the receiver settings to compensate for the double power, or is it more complicated than that? Thanks, Mario