m8o

Mallette, yep, I'm running RAID-5 from the onboard RAID-5 SATA-300 controller that came on the motherboard. I would have run 5 drives but the controller only has 4 heads on that channel. I did buy a 5th 250 giger as a spare if I lose one drive; was going to buy another yesterday but I learned they were out of stock. Are any of those NAS boxes gigabit ethernet capable? 100Mbps doesn't cut it IMO when I tried it last.

Intruiging idea in the light that I just purchase ONE TERRABYTE of disc storage for $420! (4 250 Gig SATA-300 drives @ $105 each ; they're out of stock now). Even at the highest bitrate that's 250 records. (which I don't have but some of you may I image.) Question, why 24/88.2 and not 24/96? Thanx.

Is the JBL 2404 a 'good' match for la Scalas given its 100deg X 100deg dispersion pattern though? Isn't that too narrow for matching the mid-horn?

from UUNet? (alt.binaries.multimedia , etc. ?)

I love that they've satired that too... []

The memory of watching it last night that this thread just spurred in me resulted in a big BIG smile. I was roaring during it. Both somewhat sensitive and thankful to him and ruthless at the same time. A killer episode (no pun intended).

I know it's a 'shunt' but not much more then that; or what frequencies it is to operate over. I'm only [ahem] qualified to answer the last part. It seems either 'doohickey' or 'dohickey' will do almost equally well, with perhaps the nod going with 'doohickey' as being more appropriate in this context. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=doohickey http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=dohickey ...as "An unnamed gadget or trinket." is not defined under 'dohickey' but is under 'doohickey'. ...though that might just be a clerical error on the part of someone @ dictionary.com too... []

Good thoughts indeed. Just to show I'm not opposed to there being another explaination from the 'magic wire direction' theory... Youse Gies got me thinking about the connections. The 1st connection between the pre/pro and amp was via the pre/pro's pre-out RCA connector. A connector that had for many many [many] years been jumped to the pre/pro's amp-in connection via a jumper connecting the inside + connections. Nothing had touched those outer ground connections for those many many [many] years. Seems likely they could be oxidized now that you mention it [needed to hit me over the head with it I guess]. The 1st connection between pre/pro and amp was a bit over a week ago; that being the very first connection to those RCA connectors for as long as I owneded the 939. When I reversed the leads just recently, the disconnect of the leads very well may have 'brushed' the pre/pro's outer RCA connector just enough to have yielded a better connection on the subsequent hook-up ; in-turn yielding the noticable improvement in sonics (that increase in sonics is one I won't acquiece on). ...I have to admit, it's quite possible. I have to flip the cables some more individually and en-mass to put this idea of the direction of signal flow in a wire to the test. If I do still notice sonic difference due to interconnect direction, it would be great if I could figure out how to use my ATB-3 to quantify that. But I'm not sure how given the complexity of dynamic music program material and how that affects psychoacoustics. If no sonic effect is further seen with subsequent flips of the wire, it was the connection's integrity that I 1st noticed and I'll immediately change the Subject Title of this post, suffixing with a '[NOT]' or something. [^o)] edit: btw, I do have 'cables with little boxes on one end of the cables' too, but they're not being used in this application.

All good thoughts. Though the original connections were just made about a week prior with cables taken from other equipment that had been sitting a long long time and no changes were made to phase. Also a thought. These interconnects only have their shield grounded on one side. It's supposed to be grounded on the driver side of the signal source. Perhaps the ever so slight "muddleddedness" of the signal is introduced by having the shield connected from the other receiving end of the signal path instead of the source side? Why [if even]? I imagine I'd have to go to the library for that one as opposed to finding in-depth knowledge about transmission line theory on the Internet...

Name an interconnect you respect then? I can't research more today as I really have to close this down and work, but my quest to read up on this subject will go on and I will do so on published material from interconnect companies you respect as well. [] edit: but again, I don't see how they sell more cables by having a directionality arrow on it. Why would AudioQuest, Monster Cable, and I'll imagine a good few more though I have to search to be sure -- say it?

Again, knock yourself out. I speak from pragmatically backing into the whole thing accidentally and have no concern from your understandably unyielding viewpoint. I guess I speak to those open to new ideas. The absurdity of the very idea (to me as well) has spurred me to research it. I repost this from AudioQuest's website: Running-In: As with all audio components, audio cables require an adjustment period. This is often mistakenly referred to as break-in. However, break-in is properly used to describe a mechanical change-engines break-in, loudspeaker and phono cartridge suspensions breakin. A cables performance takes time to optimize because of the way a dielectric behaves (the way the insulating material absorbs and releases energy), changes in the presence of a charge. Cables will continue to improve in sound or picture quality over a period of several weeks. This is the same reason amplifiers, preamplifiers and CD players also require an adjustment period. The key difference between adjusting and breaking-in is that things dont un-break-in, however, electrical components do unadjust. Several weeks of disuse will return a cable to nearly its original state. The run-in time is essentially the same for all cables. However, the apparent need for run-in varies wildly. As with amplifiers and other components, the better the cable, the less distortion it has, and therefore the less there is to cover up the obnoxious distortion caused by being new. Since human perception is more aware of the existence of a distortion than the quantity, the better the cable, the worse in some ways it will sound when new, because the anemic forced two-dimensional effect resulting from being new will not be ameliorated by other gentler distortions. Please be patient when first listening to any superior product. If I didn't experience a notable difference flipping the cable, a) I wouldn't believe it, I wouldn't ever even be reading this above because of, see "a". Additionally I have to ask myself, what do they gain from making that public statement if there isn't truth behind it? I can't come up with anything. They'd sell the same amount of cables if it had or did not have a directionality arrow on it (Monster has it too) ... so why make this statement for the world to read? I don't need convincing. Btw, I have to also ask myself if I had a 'lesser' amp then I finally have now and less sensitive speakers, if I would have ever noticed the difference... Consider that if you will.

Follow-up... (perhaps I'm a gluten for punishment in some of your eyes) Laugh all you want ... after a few hours of critical listening mostly at low levels, to mostly electonic based music (both with a beat and without) there's no longer any question in my mind whether there was a true benefit or not. I'm hearing the 'buzz' associated with synthisizers (sic) in electronica as it should be, with a great deal of attack; having distinct silence interleaved with sound during heavy hi-frequency modulation enveloping the notes, where I wasn't getting it at low levels before. And the 'pulling' effect you get in your ears when the mixing engineer works with the phase of the music is now readily apparent. I'd say the directionality of the interconnects has its greatest effect on the phase of the music across the frequencly spectrum. It's like turning up the sharpness on your TV image from 25% before to 75% now (I don't expect to be @ 100% until I replace the Onkyo 939 I'm using as a preamp/processor). In addition, I had to turn the bass down from +2 to 0 (I had had mid-bass and treble @ 0 before and they remain there now). It's really going to be hard to turn this off and go to sleep! FYI, I've never read a single word about cables or cable directionality to sway my thinking. Further, I've probably been the most skeptical here about interconnect in general for years; I've bought good cables ranging from $40 - $125 per 1meter pair, but never really knew if I was throwing my money away, and wouldn't think twice about putting a cheap RCA cable in the signal path if I didn't have better interconnect free @ the moment. Well all this is a relief and reassurance at least to me regarding money well spent; and I at least won't be ignoring the directionality of interconnects. edit: interesting how everyone can also ignore my statement regarding center to front&surround balance. For about a week I was very puzzled at how I could tune the La Scalas and Heresys to a noticably louder level with pink noise then the M&K centers, yet the non-horn M&K centers still ruled the roost. I just figured it was that the centers just had more program material, or music had more mono content in it then not when listening to MusicChoice through digital cable. Today I find that was the only interconnect facing the correct direction. I flip the others and the tables have turned; it's almost as if I have the centers turned off. ...I have a Terrasonde ATB-3. I just have to get off my lazy procrastinating tail to see if I can quantify this too with measurements.

I'll take the abuse. Like I said, I first figured "it's AC right?"; I was as skeptical as all you. I guess I have to put it back and forth more then once then to decide if I need the dunce cap or not. [^o)]

In reasearching my mishmosh of interconnects I'm using connecting my processor to my 5-ch amp, I discovered 4 of them were facing the wrong direction from how the manufacturer recommends the signal path to flow. (that's what I get for being impatient in wanting to plug in the Butler 5150 asap to hear it!) ... hey, it's all AC I figure. Well how wrong was I! You see the one channel I had right was the center. It just so happens also, that though I'm running much more efficient horns for left, right and the two rears, and only my M&K S150THX for the center as I don't have room for another La Scala or Heresy under the 50" TV -- and though the M&K level was actually set a tad under the la Scalas and Heresys to the ears with the pink noise -- the centers were unexplainably more predominent in the room in an unbalanced sort of way. [*-)] Well, now that the cables are facing the right way, there's quite a bit more effortlessness to the left and right La Scalas and rear Heresys. What I'd say is the dynamics are greatly increased across the range. It's not "brighter" (i.e. doesn't have only more treble), but rather more liveliness and depth; I guess that's dynamic range. And the center is just a tad under the level of the left and right; the way I like it.

Actually, you may have read the "2o" in "2ohm" as "20" ... I wrote "2ohms @ 20KHz" []. I measure the impedance using my Terrasonde Audio Toolbox 2 (I upgraded to the ATB-3 Color ; frigg'n incredible piece) and I forget if it was 1.4 ohms @ 20K or 1.7 ohms @ 20K ... I figured it was safest to say below 2 ohms to be safe. I was driving them with with a pair of Audio Research Classic 150 monoblocks (hybrid with a SS front-end and 8 6550 driver tubes) and while that amp has 2 and 1 ohm output taps, I wouldn't get the image depth, transients, dynamic range, whathaveyou that makes the 'magic' sound, on those taps. It sounded best on the 4 ohm taps. I was a-feered at what that current draw was doing to the amps at hi frequencry, so I decided to buy a 4' newform ribbon, and crossed over to it with a simple 1st order passive network @ about 7K Hz ; the result was a perftect flat impedance around 6 ohms I think it was up to 'redline' , with more hi frequency output from the ribbons like Maggis. ...sorry for being so OT... I'll shut up now. I'll close with I love Electrsostats ... probably more then my horns, and boy do I love my horns. If you have a spare room or extra equipement I'll always support the idea of picking some up used.

I'm confused. [8-)] [*-)] Both the La Scala and KHorn specs on this Klipsch site, cite 4.5KHz as the crossover between the K77F and K55X... Is this not the case, or not the case with 'older' [pre-AL#] networks and I'm just too much of the neophite to know the context of this discussion [:$]?

I don't have Magnaplanars but I do have Martin Logan Sequel IIs in my 2 channel system. They are fantastic. But sound is =extremely= sensitive to the toe-in and distance from the rear reflective surface. But when setup right, with the right amp, they are basically, magical. Very different sound from the La Scalas & Heresys I just bought. Usually Maggies don't have a regular bass cone that I know of; the Martin Logans do and I really appreciate it. I said 'with the right amp' before because the Martin Logans are a viciously demanding load; impedance drops below 2ohms @ 20KHz. Sorry if I'm saying this and Maggies don't share the same trait though.edit: oh, and my particular system is a Freakenstein of sorts. I ripped out the passive crossovers and replaced them with a TaCT Digital Crossover and Room Equalization unit; plus I supplamented the high frequency with a 4 foot ribbon from Newform Research. Still working it out. Not there yet.

Wow, I like the attack of the CT125 ... I see now why some people might object to them. It makes me want to buy a pair. Thanx for the work Al. I have a Terrasonde ATB-3 myself. You're inspiring me to get off my tail and do some tests.

Well it seems to me you shouldn't have sent them off then, since had he actually wanted them I would have expected at least one vote, Dean himself... [6] [] P.S. btw, how would one vote in Dean's favor if it wasn't one of the pull-down options to select? []

ya but you just made my decision hard again, as Rotel had been on my short list but I didn't know if I'd want to spen the extra $$$. Now, maybe... [8] Thanx for the link.

How true again; seems I'm always agreeing with you... [Y] I'll mention another exception I know of. My Audio Research Classic 150 Monoblocks. If you ever get a chance to audition them or 120s (I think there might be a 200?) give them a listen. They too are hybrid amps, but unlike my Butlers which are the 'traditional' hybrid tube amp that uses a tube voltage amplification stage and bipolar or mosfet current follower output stage, the Classic 150s are a solid state input stage and tube output stage. They are so incredibly authoritative; I used to use them with my Martin Logan Sequel IIs. And no, they ain't cheap! (bought them used @ aoub t 1/2 price) Perhaps I should branch off a thread asking what the most and least expensive watt is in relation to how good that watt is... []

Heh Heh Heh ... Ya, I was definitely considering 5 Flying Mole monoblocks! (but ended up with the Butler 5150 ... both tubes and ss! watch the heads explode of any who are unwavering die-hard followers of one or the other here... [] )

Are you saying there actually exists a SS amp that will run near its rated power producing hamonics like a Triode?What comes to mind is in comparing a Triode used in as close to the same circuit as you can have with a Pentode (where the Pentode needs some additional circuitry for the add'l grids) . The Pentode may have less overall distortion, but will produce higher levels of higher order, odd harmonics compared to the Triode. However it won't have the strong second harmonic as the Triode will. ...The Triode will sound 'sweeter'. In the end all of this is coloration, i.e. distortion, and that shouldn't be forgotten. So with this I'm saying, sure tube amps are not only made up of even harmonics and ss amps are not only made up of odd harmonics. However the spectum of harmonics from a tube amp will usually, yes as you say depending on circuit, be biased to lower order, even harmonics, vs that of a ss amp. I would agree with "It seems the consensus is that the distortion created by tubes is of a different (biased towards even) order than the distortion created by SS (biased towards odd). IMO, you show me a ss amp that has distortion characteristics of a nice triode tube amp, and I will pray to it as the 2nd coming. []

How True. (I think last time I tried to post this it timed out ; pardon if this is a duplicate) I'd like to also add a little to this discussion (for better or worse; I guess I'm a glutten for punishment). Headroom. I see it being used in ways that are counter to what I know to be its definition. As far as I know and I see no reason to think it has changed, Headroom is the measure of how much more power an amp can deliver at lower impedance loads then its rated power at its rated impedance. I.E. a perfect 10 watt amp rated at 8 ohms will deliver 20 watts to a four ohm load (3db headroom), 40 watts delivered to a two ohms (6db headroom), 80 watts delivered to 1 ohm (9db of headroom). This is in no way to say that the amp can ever deliver more then its 10 watts of rated power at 8 ohms, because if it could, then it was underrated, and the amount of more 'peak' short term power it can deliver should technically not be termed the 'Headroom' of the amp. It is important to note that the output voltage of the audio signal fed to the speaker/load has not increased or decreased at any of the load impedances compared to the voltage level output to an 8 ohm load; only the amount of current the amp can deliver is increased. - When the voltage drops, this is compression, and this is when the 'Headroom' of the amp begins trailing off to the point where the amp cannot deliver any more current to the lower impedance load and the signal degrades to extreme distortion. The output voltage drops in the ratio P = V^2/R = I^2*R , where P is held constant since the amp is no longer capable of delivering more power and/or current. The four, power [ P ], voltage [ V ], current [ I ] and resistance [ R ] all equate by ohm's law. - If voltage could increase, that means the amp was underrated, which is different then 'Headroom'. ...at least that is what I had known Headroom to mean for the last 2.5 decades...

I think Russell O. Hamm put it best in his famous paper published in the Journal of Audio Engineering titled "Tubes Versus Transistors - Is There an Audible Difference?" ... I must have read that paper 50 times in 1982 while attending engineering school, dreaming about how to use the digital signal processing of the time to 'simulate' the 'tube sound'. I highly recommend you read all three pages of the whole article re-published here @ Butler's site: http://www.butleraudio.com/tubesvstrans1.html I'll quote the most relavant to this discussion. " . . . SIGNIFICANCE OF MUSICAL HARMONICS Having divided amplifiers into three groups of distortion characteristics, the next step is to determine how the harmonics relate to hearing. There is a close parallel here between electronic distortion and musical tone coloration that is the real key to why tubes and transistors sound different. Perhaps the most knowledgeable authorities in this area are the craftsman who build organs and musical instruments. Through many years of careful experimentation these artisans have determined how various harmonics relate to the coloration of an instrument's tonal quality. The primary color characteristic of an instrument is determined by the strength of the first few harmonics. Each of the lower harmonics produces its own characteristic effect when it is dominant or it can modify the effect of another dominant harmonic if it is prominent. In the simplest classification, the lower harmonics are divided into two tonal groups. The odd harmonics (third and fifth) produce a "stopped" or "covered" sound. The even harmonics (second, fourth, and sixth) produce "choral" or "singing" sounds. The second and third harmonics are the most important from the viewpoint of the electronic distortion graphs in the previous section. Musically the second is an octave above the fundamental and is almost inaudible; yet it adds body to the sound, making it fuller. The third is termed quint or musical twelfth. It produces a sound many musicians refer to as "blanketed." Instead of making the tone fuller, a strong third actually gives the sound a metallic quality that gets annoying in character as its amplitude increases. A strong second with a strong third tends to open the "covered" effect. Adding the fourth and fifth to this changes the sound to an "open horn" like character. The higher harmonics, above the seventh, give the tone "edge" or "bite." Provided the edge is balanced to the basic musical tone, it tends to reinforce the fundamental, giving the sound a sharp attack quality. Many of the edge harmonics are musically unrelated pitches such as the seventh, ninth, and eleventh. Therefore, too much edge can produce a raspy dissonant quality. Since the ear seems very sensitive to the edge harmonics, controlling their amplitude is of paramount importance. The previously mentioned study of the trumpet tone shows that the edge effect is directly related to the loudness of the tone. Playing the same trumpet note loud or soft makes little difference in the amplitude of the fundamental and the lower harmonics. However, harmonics above the sixth increase and decrease in amplitude in almost direct proportion to the loudness. This edge balance is a critically important loudness signal for the human ear. RELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS AND FINDINGS The basic cause of the difference in tube and transistor sound is the weighting of harmonic distortion components in the amplifier's overload region. . . . " That the 'basic difference is primarily related to the oveload region' is focusing too much on driving the amp hard to have them sound different IMO though. It ignores that transistors vs. tubes usually have very different slew rates and dampening factors, dynamic headroom, and frequency response to mention a few. ...Still, if you care about the subject I think everyone owes it to themselves to read the complete paper.