Lurch

My wife was in a bar (back in her collegiate days) and sitting with a friend. Some jerk was bantering back and forth with them and decided to show off his manhood to startle them. It didn't work. My wife said, "Does that come in adult sizes?" Needless to say, that was the end of the discussion!

I bought a Hitachi Ultravision 51SWX20B last year. Around Xmas, it developed a problem where it flickers during darker scenes and it will get squiggly at the edges during bright scenes. Noticed that I used the present tense. I've been trying to get it fixed for 5 months, but my local "service" center has been atrocious! For example, they were supposed to pick my TV up today. They didn't show and they never called! Before you buy, make sure you know who will be working on the TV (if it breaks) and find out what kind of track record they have. If you have a problem, start a log of everything you do to get the TV fixed. Hopefully, you won't need it. The picture is great on my Hitachi, but I can't watch much of anything without the flicker issue irritating the crap out of me! Jeff

---------------- On 6/14/2004 4:38:18 PM thebes wrote: But with two seperate amps how do you adjust for what must be slight differences between the outputs fromt the amps. I mean the two monos cann'y be exactly the same physically and/or the output tubes may wear at different rates. Is this accounted for by simply tweaking the pre? I mean I wondering how they are kept in phase, I guess would be the right term. ---------------- Actually, just about every stereo amp worth mentioning will have separate boards for each channels' output stage. So, they too will suffer from channel imbalances just as much as a monoblock. Phase shouldn't be an issue as the signal passes thru an essentially identical circuit in each amp. If I had a choice between two amps, of similar design, I'd take the monos every time. Jeff

Here's my nonscientific marketing data: Yesterday, while browsing thru the DVD-A/SACD bin at my local Best Buy, I sneezed. This was brought on by disturbing the dust which coated the discs in these bins. They were also horribly unorganized. I am also the only person I've seen browsing in this section. As for the marketing wisdom of the formats, I don't see much of a market for either. CDs succeeded because LPs were/are noisy, cantankerous beasts, which the average Joe/Jane did not have the time or money to properly maintain. CDs came along and promised "perfect sound forever" and folks thought that was pretty awesome. "You mean I can set my half-eaten jelly donut on it, rinse it off and it still plays????" And, you can put it in a portable player and take it for a jog or play it in your car. Couldn't do that with your LPs! You needed a tape deck to record a copy for portable or vehicular use. Guess what? DVD-A and SACD are tying folks back down to the listening room just like LPs. And you'll be hard-pressed to discern much of an audible difference between stereo versions on SACD and CD. You mainly have to be prepared to sit in the sweet spot and listen intently while not doing something else (which few people outside of forums like these are willing to do). How much of the percieved differences are due to proper remastering and not the more "advanced" format? Is there some reason why CDs are suddenly not very exciting for the BIG hardware manufacturers? Well, I would say that perhaps it has something to do with the royalties on CDs running out. And now, we have a format war, because everyone wants to have a piece of the next format. Same with HD-DVD. Anyways, getting back on topic...... Has anyone been so drawn into SACDs and DVD-As that they can't listen to stereo any more??? For me, I have not been overwhelmed by either. I've noticed that some instruments have come forward in the mix, which shouldn't. I was hoping for a significant improvement in the "You are there" factor, but it hasn't materialized. Frankly, I haven't heard anything that is worth the added effort, expense and other negatives associated with either format. Granted, I haven't listened to much of either, but if someone could point out a particularly successful multichannel experience, I'd love to hear about it! Jeff

---------------- Could I unplug just the woofers from the x over in the speakers and keep the mid and the tweeter on the same amp and then a different amp for the woofers with a lot of power. I really can't afford to triamp nor do I have enough room for 3 amps I think I could do a biamp. Where can I get one of those active preamps that you were talking about? Thanks, Taylor ---------------- 1. Yes 2. An active crossover is useful in some situations and not in others. Basically, if the speaker you have uses no EQ or other other little tricks in it's crossover, then you can use an active crossover. Then, you have to set your active crossover to the appropriate slope (how sharp of a crossover slope do you want), match the levels of all the drivers and find the correct crossover point. Not an easy world to live in. Jeff

---------------- On 6/1/2004 4:03:04 PM T_Shomaker wrote: How would you biamp in a three way speaker? ---------------- If you are using an active or passive crossover betwixt the preamp and amps, you'll need 3 stereo amps. If you use the crossover in the speaker (in other words, after the amps), it will depend on how many connections the speaker has. If it allows for biwiring, there is usually a connection for mid/tweeter and one for bass. Then you would need 4 channels of amplification (2 stereo amps). If your speakers allow you to tri-wire, then you would need up to 3 stereo amps. I say up to, because you could still run one amp on the bass and have another driving the mid/tweeter. It's all about what you can afford and if you can hear enuff of a difference to warrant all of the expense. vr, Jeff

If anyone finds an invisible jet, y'all better print directions because I'm on my way.......

You can biamp with a passive crossover. If you hookup one amp to the tweeter's part of the crossover and one to the bass drivers' part of the crossover (usually exactly how a speaker with 2 sets of binding posts is configured), then you are passively biamping the speaker. This would be less optimal than active biamping in that the amps are still processing a full-range signal and the passive crossover is still splitting the amplified signal. The active crossover splits a low-level signal and should not be as unkind to the signal as the passive crossover. However, the EQ built-in to the passive crossover probably can't be mimiced very easily. Passive biamping should still provide some benefits since each amp is only driving a section of the speaker. Jeff

Taylor, How would you characterize the sound of the ADS speakers? I've never listened to them, so I can't make a good recommendation without some input on your perceptions of them. You may want a "warm" sounding amp to balance the sound out or that might be too much of a good thing. As far as needing 200 watts, I'd be careful about getting caught in the numbers trap. It's very easy to do. When I bought my Vandersteen 3s (rated at 89, but measured at 85 db for sensitivity), I thought I needed a BIG amp. I used a Forte 6 (200 wpc) and a Mark Levinson 23 (200 wpc) along the way. Then I used Quicksilver 8417 monos (rated at 60 watts; closer to 50). I found that I could enjoy the music a lot longer, since the sound was so much more to my liking and I never really noticed them running out of steam. Naturally, YMMV due to room size, musical tastes, listening levels, etc., but this was a big room (22X18x12) and I wasn't listening to Zamfir on the Pan Flute. Look for an amp that has the sonic characteristics you are looking for and you will be much happier in the long run. BTW, seeing what you had in your old system (in your signature), I would definitely recommend a tube preamp. You will miss that tube magic!!!! I would tenatively endorse the B&K recommendation and throw in one for McCormack as well. In fact, the McCormacks are a better match for a tube preamp, since their input impedance is 100Kohms. The B&Ks are almost universally 33K. The McCormacks have a punchier bass, in my limited experience in demoing both, and both have a very musical sound. Check out this preamp: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14974&item=5701620175&rd=1 I own one and I am very impressed with the price:performance ratio. No super-esoteric/expensive tubes on board either, so you can do some tube-rolling. Anyway, let me know what you think you want to get from the amp tonally and we'll see where it goes from there. vr, Jeff

------------ Isn't the "D" model one of the supercharged versions? No. The A model had the Allison engine. The B model introduced the Packard/Rolls Royce engine and the D model introduced the tear-drop canopy, which makes it pretty easy to pick out. ------------ I remember seeing a Mustang in the movie '1941' (John Belushi). Actually, they used the P-40, which is historically accurate. The P-40 used the same engine as the P-51A, but was about 25 mph slower due to aerodynamics! The P-51 only came about because of the P-40 though. The British approached North American (NA) to have them produce the P-40 under license. NA said phooey to that, we'll build you a better aircraft. The Brits said fine, but we'll need a prototype in 120 days. The P-51 rolled out 117 days later (albeit with the landing gear from a T-6 Texan trainer and no engine - thanks to the P-40's higher priority). Meanwhile, the F-22 has been in development for 23 years!!!! ------------ That movie was a fairly corny affair but the cinematography was stunning and the gags were pretty funny. I think that Slim Pickens (as "Hollis Wood") really stole the show in that movie. Agreed..... Jeff

Billie Holiday - Body and Soul (or just about any of her others...) Ella Fitzgerald - Ella and Louis Again (or just about any of her others...) Jeff

---------------- On 5/20/2004 1:47:44 PM dgb wrote: Of course we find out it's what I think was a P-51 coming to the rescue. ---------------- It was a P-51. "D" model. Spielberg seems to like them, just take a look at Empire of the Sun. And he has good reason to. Outstanding aircraft with an interesting history..... Jeff

---------------- On 5/19/2004 6:27:53 PM D-MAN wrote: People that clap at movies are totally lame. Applause is traditionally used to show the performers that their efforts are appreciated by the audience. No performers = no clapping. I personally do not care that some idiot in the crowd liked the movie or has to otherwise burn off excess adrenaline by clapping at a movie because he/she/it got excited. Frankly, inappropriately excitable people give me the willies. I'm with bchild311. DM ---------------- Obviously, you never saw any of the Rocky movies in a theater. During Rocky IV (which I saw while in high school), the crowd went CRAZY. People were standing up and cheering and yelling....you can't get that at home. Also, I went to Ghostbusters during it's opening week and the laughter was so loud and continuous that we missed half the dialog. We ended up going back the next week to see/hear what we missed. You couldn't have had that experience at home, unless you invited a LARGE number of people over. Sure, going to the movies has its drawbacks, but human interaction is not necessarily an evil. Except for some people..... BTW, don't come over to my house to watch the NY Giants or NY Islanders play. I WILL give you the willies!!!!! Anyway, the best part of going to a movie is taking my wife and NOT the kids! About the only way I can watch a movie in uninterrupted bliss. Jeff

My component wideo cables are from them. They are very detailed and well-built. Also, my order was shipped quickly and was well-packed. Not much more you can ask for. Jeff

---------------- On 5/18/2004 9:44:27 PM Skidmarks wrote: Its not this particular sub , just the proper way to run a sub from my system. I intend on getting something larger soon, for I run RF7s for mains, so the little HSUstf2 is hardly noticable over the boomy 7s. ---------------- So, are your RF-7s too boomy??? If so, then you probably need to move them further away from the room's boundaries. I would recommend running them full range and finding the best spot for them in your room (with the usual caveat for keeping the significant other happy). Then, you can add the sub and use it to fill out the bottom-end. You may not be able to please the spouse and smooth out the bass though, as the RF-7s may have to be placed too far out into the room to flatten out the bass. This is where the sub can help you, because you may be able to use a higher crossover frequency setting on the LFE output to the sub to tame the problem. By setting the crossover to 80hz (for example), the RF-7s might be filtered out of the frequencies where you are having problems. You may be able to place the sub near a room boundary and it might be smoother than the RF-7s run full-range. Also, this gives you the advantage of extending the dynamic range of receiver's amp sections and the RF-7s woofers, since they no longer have to work too hard under 80 hz. Easy....right???? This problem has always confronted folks with subwoofers. Finding the best blend between the mains and sub involves a lot of trial and error. Experience is VERY helpful. If you can get your dealer to help you, that should significantly reduce the headaches involved. Good Luck! Jeff

I am using a single mono Monster cable(I beleive 400 seies), but do not understand the alternate left/right connections? The left/right connections are there if you have a stereo signal (sub or full-range) which you want the monophonic sub to reproduce. This is used more often when you have a stereo preamp and run the full-range output to the sub. Normally, the sub would then filter the full-range signal and send it to the stereo power amp. The manual should tell you which input is appropriate for the mono LFE output from your receiver. I only get sound when it is set to out? What would the application be used for? Crossover "out" means that the internal crossover is bypassed. "In" should only be used if you are sending a full-range signal to the sub. An LFE output is a filtered signal. Phase seems to sound better at 180...why? The phase knob is to compensate for the difference in distance between your main speakers and the sub and the listening position. Since a sub is often placed at a different distance from the listener than the other speakers, its output does not arrive at your ear "in phase" with the rest of the signal. The phase knob tries to compensate for this problem. 98% of all speakers are not "time-aligned" (so that the output from each driver arrives at your ears at exactly the same time, but they are close enough to fool your brain. Crossover knob, I seem to rely on the receivers crossover settings, and not the Subs crossover? If you are using the LFE output from your receiver, then it has already filtered the signal which is going to the sub. If the sub then tries to filter the signal (using its crossover), you will end up with all kinds of response anomalies. Pick one, but don't use both! How should the levels be set for the best performance? Like I said I get boom right now, but I would like to understand why and how I should set this up to get the best results. The solution may not lie in the settings of the knobs. Just like any other speaker with significant low bass output, the sub may excite different resonances in your room. You may have to play with where the sub is located to eliminate the boominess while achieving a satisfactory tonal balance. Dr. Hsu actually will help you here. If you submit your room info on the following questionnaire, they will give you the best options for where to place the sub (and hopefully save you a lot of hassle): http://www.hsuresearch.com/support/index.php?id=36 Hsu also has a forum similar to this one, which you may want to check out. Jeff

I'm not trying to separate you from your money, but the one time I listened to a 240 was all about the music. It was driven directly by a Denon CD player into Magnepan MG12s and a Velodyne sub. Just got lost in the music. Occassionally, it sounded like it was running out of steam, but Maggies are pretty inefficient. I probably would have bought the setup, but the Maggies aren't my cup of tea on pop/rock, etc. Jeff

Gents, Check out this: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/faq/joes-tubes.html#6DJ8-2 Is it a little strange for the tube to have a code for Tung Sol (322+date code) and to say "England"? Tung Sol's factories were in Jersey..... Jeff

Actually, if the impedance curve of the CF-4 is anything like the CF-3, then it is a "4 ohm" load. In the Jul 95 issue of Audio magazine, the CF-3 was reviewed and the impedance stayed below 6 ohms except for 3 peaks (2 below 100 Hz from the port tuning and a broad one between 1 and 10K which reached 46 ohms!!!). It still hit 2.9 ohms at 13 kHz. The main issue between the McIntosh amps will be a difference in sound. According to some folks around here, the autoformer-equipped amps are warm and tube-like. I cannot confirm this, but hopefully will soon. For many (I've got several tube amps lying around), the tube is both the Messiah and Satan. The sound is intoxicating, but the maintenance is Hell. The question is which you flavor do you like. I know which I prefer and the fact that I bought the MC250 should tell you something. vr, Jeff

---------------- On 5/11/2004 10:46:45 PM Cleve wrote: Actually, my bridging inquiry related to not the 2205, but the newer MC7100 - Supposedly it's rated at 300 watts @ 8 ohms bridged to mono. I found it hard to believe two of these small amps could produce 50% more power than the massive 2205. I wondered if the 300 watts was 'paper' power and didn't translate into real world power. ---------------- Remember, you are talking apples and oranges.... My guess is that the 2205 would saturate its output transformers before it can produce any more output. While the transistors could deliver the added power, the transformer can only deal with so much power and pass a full bandwidth signal. Especially when you are talking about 200 watts!!!! The 7100 does not face that dilemma, since it does not have the famous Mac autoformers. That is also the primary reason why it is significantly lighter than the 2205. However, few amps are renowned for their sound quality in "bridged" mode. I'd hasten to add that the wattage rating seldom tells you anything about what the amp will sound like. Not having much experience with McIntosh, I'd lean towards the advice of those around here who have heard them. In fact, that's what I've done. I've got an MC250 (which has autoformers) deal in progress. It's only rated at 50 watts output, but I can't imagine why I'd need much more than that anyway, but we'll see. If I like what I hear, I'll probably try to get one of the pretty ones with the meters. If you're running just about any Klipsch, you'd be hard pressed to use the output of a 100 watt amp (depending upon the size of the room). Jeff

If you're going to spend $3K and your last TV was around for 18 years, then I'd highly suggest you go with an HD model. Also, when you are looking at the TVs, make sure they let you see it with an NTSC signal. 99.6% of the channels you'll watch are NTSC and you don't want to buy something with a poor scaler. I would take a hard look at the warranty. If you go plasma, how many pixels can die before they give you a new one? I would also look at what the stipulations are in the warranty. I have a Hitachi rear projection set which has developed a nasty little flicker. It has taken over 4 months for me to not have a single thing done to my set. The local authorized service center is ABYSMAL. I just got Hitachi involved and I'm hoping they will help. But, you'll want to find out about the service record of the "authorized" help. I didn't buy an extended warranty right off the bat and it hasn't been an issue. The same idiots would be working on it either way and now I'm getting offers for the extended warranty, now that the original warranty is about to expire. I wish I could be more upbeat, but the prices keep falling, which means the stuff inside has to be getting cheaper. Be prepared to dealwith that! Jeff

---------------- On 5/9/2004 10:44:18 AM the plummer wrote: WOW!!! What a difference. This was one of the best things to reduce hiss that I have ever tried. I can now throttle up to about 80 - 85% volume with NO audible hiss. I can't imagine how the $100 cables can make any more improvement. ---------------- The performance difference is not necessarily a function of the cables. If the Sunfire is actually a fully balanced design, then the signal out of the balanced XLR jacks should have a 6 db lower noise floor. This is a benefit of common mode rejection, where the signal is amplified by two identical gain blocks and then any differences are "rejected" as errors. In fact, if the unbalanced (RCA) outputs are derived using some cheapo op amp, then the XLR outputs may just be that much better in every way. I had a Forte 40 preamp and 6 amp. Both had XLR connections, but they were not fully balanced. The balanced connection was significantly less musical, at least in my opinion. The XLR cables are probably not doing anything better than you're old RCA cables, assuming they are shielded and the cables weren't VERY long. It seems like the XLR concept is suddenly becoming fashionable on processors. The big question is whether they are probperly implemented or just window dressing. Sounds like Sunfire is doing it right. Jeff

$200-400 isn't much of a budget for a tube amp. That may get you an older, used amp, but these invariably need quite a bit of TLC to make them usable on a daily basis. You're probably looking at an old, low-powered integrated. The best advice I can give you is to do your research, if you're getting an older amp. Don't make any impatient decisions. You have to recognize if something has been modified and why. You should also become aware of what tubes are in production and which ones will set you back a considerable amount. If you buy a relatively obscure product, there will be less info to help you in this quest. Personally, in this price range, I'd look at the Heathkit W-4Ms or an Eico HF-81 integrated. The tubes are readily available and cheap. Lots of info out there on both and decent sound for comparatively little money. Just be prepared to fully refurbish them!!!! Jeff

I've gone thru many iterations of the above. Passives are nice, but they lack dynamics with tube amps and don't have the same midrange magic as a tube pre w/SS amp. Tube and tube is nice, but can be too much of a good thing. I like tube/ss (at this juncture) because: a. No output tubes to mess with (biasing, thermal runaway, etc) b. Tube colorations in amps are generally more obvious than preamps c. Kids won't burn themselves on preamp d. Wife will feel comfortable listening to system This doesn't mean I don't have tube amps lying around (HK Citation 2, Heath W-4Ms, Quicksilver 8417 Monos), but they're seeing less and less time in the system. My current favorite tube pre is one I bought from China on ebay (uses 6SN7s). I also have a Sonic Frontiers SFL-1 Signature (hybrid), McCormack TLC-1 Deluxe ("passive"), HK Citation 1 (tube), AES SE-3 (tube), and HK Citation 21 (SS). Of course, YMMV. Just be aware that if you use an unbuffered tube or passive pre, then you'll want the input impedance of your amp to be pretty high (upwards of 100K). Jeff