Edgar

Gotta correct you on that one, Travis. While I admittedly wasn't blindfolded, I abstained from the booze, as usual. But your statement gets down to a finer point: how can a person's opinion be invalid? An argument can be invalid, if it's not supported by facts. But an opinion needs nothing more than a person to formulate it.

I should mention that, prior to the Bonehead Class in late 2019, I had never heard a Cornwall of any flavor. So my exposure to the CW3 and CW4 was with no prior history, no preconceptions, and no skin in the game. I thought that the CW4 offered superior sound quality to the CW3. YMMV, and that's OK with me.

Designed more than a decade apart, to different price targets, with the availability of different components and materials, with the aid of more advanced design tools. If two of my designs, made a decade apart, were identical, my manager would fire me for not keeping up with engineering technology.

OK: To my ears, the CW3 midbass sounded boxy. The midrange was good but not special enough to move me to want one. To my ears, the CW4 eliminated all of the bass boxiness, but it was the midrange that truly impressed me. I thought that the CW4 vocals were even more lifelike than what I heard from the (underground) Jubilee the same day. I jokingly commented at the time that the only speaker I wanted to sneak into the back of my car while nobody was looking was the CW4, despite having auditioned the entire version 3 and version 4 lineup, plus the Jubilee (which wouldn't fit in my car or my living room anyway) that day.

Also forgot to mention that some of us design audio equipment professionally, so we are quite familiar with what is and what is not.

Vodka? Nah. Caffeine-free diet Mountain Dew.

https://stlouis.craigslist.org/ele/d/house-springs-klipsch-academy-center/7479662457.html No affiliation.

I like the taste of Listerine, too.

Yeah, Roy, we knew. We were on to you the whole time. We were just going along with the joke.

We're talking about subjective differences here. Are you claiming that I need to prove statistical significance when I say that I prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate? No? Then why here? While double-blind tests with controls are appropriate for determination of whether a difference exists, they are not appropriate for preferences. If people preferred the CW4 because it was "prettier", then so be it. One doesn't have to justify one's preference.

That ranks up there with, "Hold my beer." Some things are universal. Some things are true. Some things are universally true. Some things are universally true and profoundly sad.

Are there any official plans for the eclipse on April 8, 2024? I haven't seen anything.

It may come down to definitions of parameters. If you are deriving the shelf filters using the RB-J Cookbook, then the critical frequency is the frequency at the midpoint of the boost or cut. RB-J also defines a "shelf slope S" parameter that is usually set to 1, but doesn't have to be. By comparison, when I implemented shelf filters in firmware, I defined the critical frequency as the frequency at which the piecewise linear Bode Plot would break from 0 dB (which corresponds to the ±3dB frequency for large boost or cut), which I think is what most people expect. I also avoided confusion with the "shelf slope" parameter by providing a choice of either fixed 6dB/octave or fixed 12dB/octave. Both methods are correct. You just have to know which one you're dealing with.

I cannot speak to the NC-400 specifically, because I have no experience with it. However, Class-D amplifiers typically employ passive output filters to suppress the high-frequency switching noise, and those filters interact with the reactive loudspeaker impedance in ways that are predictable with circuit analysis, but may be undesirable if not taken into account.

Here's an ancient thread that might serve as a starting point: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/103773-analysis-of-klipschorn-and-la-scala-cabinets-with-several-drivers/

If the wire falls out, it's too loose. If the binding post breaks off, it's too tight.

Not a dime's worth of difference. Do what works for you.

Granted. Assume a 1mm x 5mm cross-section for the bridge, 50mm (2 inches) long. That's 5mm² cross-section, roughly equivalent to 10ga wire. Brass has a resistivity of 4.7e-8 Ωm, so working the math, the bridge will have a resistance of 0.00050 Ω. Copper has a resistivity of 1.7e-8 Ωm, so the 10ga wire will have a resistance of 0.00018 Ω. As PWK would say, "Not a dime's worth of difference." Add to that the better contact area of the bridge, and that 0.00032 Ω difference might very well be erased completely.

Unlikely that wire would be better than bridge in this application. The bridge offers greater contact area for the binding posts, and the potential for greater cross-sectional area, too.

DIY suggestion; see post by finkdigital here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/high-quality-speaker-switch-box-for-multiple-amps

I do not. Some resistors of a few hundred ohms, permanently attached to the tube amp outputs, are often used as protection against accidental open-circuit operation. But basically, "Don't do that."

Search for "audio amplifier switch box". Just remember that some amplifiers cannot tolerate their (-) outputs being connected together, others cannot tolerate them being connected to ground. EDIT: And tube amps cannot tolerate open-circuit outputs.

It's all about context, and I can lose sight of that as easily as anyone, I guess.

While differences in the sounds of amplifiers tend to be very subtle, one area where those differences are occasionally very apparent is in sibilance. I have used perfectly good amplifiers to drive perfectly good loudspeakers, and found the sibilance to be so pronounced as to be painful. Mate that amp with a different speaker, or that speaker with a different amp, and the sound was fine. Some amps just don't work well with some speakers, and you can't know about it until you try.

It occurs to me that the problem may be in the definition of terms. I am an engineer who specializes in signal processing. So I think of AC and DC in terms of the associated mathematics: a DC signal contains only components at 0 Hz, an AC signal contains at least one component that is not 0 Hz. That may not align with the popular definitions, where DC means that the signal is either always positive or always negative, and AC means that it crosses 0V at least sometimes.