ClaudeJ1

"Dead in Tombstone" with Danny Trejo. Exercised my DTS-10's more than Flight of the Phoenix, overall.

1. they were together less than 10 years 2. the audio quality of some of their recordings 3. half of them are dead.

Walk away from the keyboard. I repeat, walk away from the keyboard......................

LaScalas start to lose bass in the 100 Hz. Range. the horn length is less than 3 feet, so at 1/4 wave it's about 100 Hz. rolloff. But the oversize "sealed doghouse" has a resonance that attempt to extend the bass below where the horn part has already unloaded. Sub required.

It's like owning a Bugatti Veyron and no place to drive 220 mph. plus without killing yourself and some innocent victims.

Well, I started to mention that. OTOH, I MADE them when my ears were 20 years younger and they were quite silent. Some of the R2R I made in the 70s using DBX and Ampex GrandMaster. AGM on a 15IPS deck was pretty close to silent anyway. DBX 2:1 compression yielded an SN in excess of a 100db. Dave Yes indeed! I remember the first time a heard a master tape on a Crown R2R with DBX, back in the 70's, during the development of the Philips CD standards (as a member of the Audio Engineering Society). This was a preview of things to come from the digital world in terms of silence, sound dynamics, etc. Heard over a pair of Khorns at the time and it blew me away. This was why I was on of the first people in Mich. to spend over $1,000 in 1983 (what would be over $3,000 today) for the very first CD player, a Sony. Problem was finding available program material even at $20 a pop. I remember Telarc used to make all-digital classical recordings put to vinyl, so they were the first to provide CD demo material because it was easy to convert.

I think it was Les Paul that advised Bing Crosby to sing close to his mic. with a T-pad compensator, AFAICR in an Audio Mag. interview. Ever since then, vocal clarity in the mix has been improved and the main reason why they use a nylon stocking stretched over a wire frame (6+ in. circular, black being sexiest, LOL) as a low pass filter between singer and Mic. The inverse square law dictates that the distance is critical within a fraction of a inch for a radical change in those sharp peaks.

Jubilees are Klipschorns. Properly called Klipshorn Jubilees.

It doesn't.

Isn't Oris for an 8" Lowther rather than an Altec 1.3" driver? Looks like apples and oranges to me.

ClaudeJ1 must be getting his list together for you Thaddeus, but I agree with him the "Nightfly" is a great reference recording. Engineered by the late, great Roger Nichols. DR database gives the 1982 CD a 16 on a possible scale of 1 to 20. Yessir this recording is dynamic for being of the pop/rock genre. babadono I had it on LP before I got the CD. Because of bad vinyl in those days, the CD sounded much better. CD's have always had the potential to give you and perfect copy of the master tape, hiss and all, without adding any non-linearities to the sound, like wrong RIAA curves, wrong capacitance and or resistance on the phono section, etc. A great example of this is "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis. Recorded in 1959, it is the largest selling Jazz recording of all time. The late, great guitarist, Duane Allman said he got his improvisational style of playing by listening to that recording, and almost nothing else, for 2 years. You can clearly hear tape hiss but you don't care once you get lost in that amazing piece. I will do a list of CD's everyone should own, then a longer list of individual tunes and what to listen for.

LOL, Well you do have to listen for everything I talked about. Would like a list of "test tunes," sir? Trying to make up for slight digressions here, but, hey, they made me do it! That would be great! If you find yourself with copious free time, tell me why they're your test tunes and some things I should be listening for. Sorry I missed this one. Give me time, and I will do it here.

That's where we differ, Claude. For a music lover, there were no "good old days" or "good new days." Every day with good music from any source is a good day. A super clean, dead silent. flat from dc to light recording of crap is a recording of crap...but a great performance recorded 85 years ago is a SMOKE! Dave No we don't differ at al. We agree. This is why I used to buy English or Japanese pressings, Mobile Fidelity, Sheffield Labs, and 45 RPM direct to disc recordings. On virgin vinyl (not "short pressed" with recycle crap) good recordings and good music was wonderful. 78 Shellac records didn't require a tweeter (see old PWK papers). I wanted both good music AND a good, clean medium to carry it. PERIOD. One without the other is not good. In the "microgroove" LP days, audiophiles wanted better sound so badly we were willing to pay 4X the price for it while overpaying for Moving Coil cartridges hand-wound by a blind guru in the mountains of Tibet. I did mention that my worst recording was on CD, right? We don't differ at all. Modern digital MEDIUM has the POTENTIAL for unparalleled sound excellence but the world has gone to low bit MP3's, which BTW, can equal CD quality at 320 VBR from a Lame encoder, but it slows those $1.29 ea. downloads from the servers too much. Greed is only good for the greedy. Very few people give a damn about quality throughout the chain of events. It only takes one missing link in the chain of sonic events to break up the party.

What to listen TO is just as important as HOW to listen to it. I'm still wondering why you haven't asked for a list of the best recordings and what to listen for on those recordings. I have never seen a thread that wasn't a victim of digression, whether slight or severe.

LOL, Well you do have to listen for everything I talked about. Would like a list of "test tunes," sir? Trying to make up for slight digressions here, but, hey, they made me do it!

Dave, I agree with you that the ENGINEERING is the problem, not the medium. With the advent of the CD, I can say that one of the WORST recording I own is on CD, and the BEST recordings I own are on CD. Now a very few people are putting 24-bit 192Khz. sampling rates on Blue Ray (hey plastic is plastic) which, Oppos currently have the best, built-in Sabre DACs. Although, according to Tom Holman (of Advent, THX/Lucasfilim, and Audyssey fame) only bats should care about that high of a bit rate, but I digress. As tech. editor of several photo mags in the last 20 years, I was also a very early adopter of digital photography and helped (just a little) in the development of the Foveon camera sensor technologies. I have been saying that ever since the Fuji S2, and Canon 10D, all digital cameras are better than 99% of photographers. I'm saying the same thing about the digital recording medium. It's only as good as the producer. One of my reference recordings is "The Nightfly" by Donald Fagen of Steely Dan. It was released in 1983 during the Digital Infancy and has withstood the rest of time. Since, in the right hands, that good of a recording could be produced with the primitive equipment available back then, as compared to today, there is not excuse to ever blame bad sound on the medium anymore. The days of crappy recycled vinyl with Himalayan warps, unplayable on any turntable, along with noise from bad pressings done too quickly by greedy manufacturers are gone. Either the bits are readable or they are not, period. So I need to be forgiven for not being the first in line to wax nostalgic about the "good ole' days" of vinyl. There were way more quality variables back then that could produce excellence or crap. IOW, a wider gamut. Like Bill Joel said: "The good old days weren't always good and nothing is as bad as it seems."

JC, Is this the one you painted black and used with the MCM Grand top end?

The Othorn is the one you want....it's by far the best sounding subwoofer I've ever heard - and I'm not even hitting it with a potent amplifier yet. Hey, Mike. what about the `15-30 Hz. range for HT? The Othorn has great output for PA, yes, but for HT, wouldn't you want to have that "sub sub" octave?

Either one of those would kick butt. However, you want at least two of whatever you build. There is also a Lowarhorn on the AVS forum that is a re-folded version of the Gjallerhorn with a much lower profile.

...blah, blah, blah. Crikey, Claude, trolling with that old saw? How many times have we been done that road? Neither I, nor anyone can know what you hear. Only what I hear. I just had yet another individual up in my listening room who described how he used to listen to music, but had listened less and less over the years and didn't know why. He was giddy at what he was listening to, a record. The record was 85 years old. He obviously hears differently that you...or me. Medium isn't relevant, nor is format. Only the music, the performance, and the engineering. If you are content to do without 80 percent or so of the recorded output of all humankind, excellent. I listen to music, not media and certainly not format. Dave LOL. I'm surprised at your response about LP's. You mean to tell me you NEVER hear ticks and pops? Everything else about LP's I didn't mention was the crappy quality of the vinyl in the late 70's and 80's, how soon we forget. As to "we" having been down that road, it's my first time doing it, so don't take that one out on me, mate. I still have 1,000 LP's, BTW, and just bought a new turntable and cartridge. Too much trouble to convert them to FLAC files. So I'm not anti anything. I agree with 95% of everything you post, you mean to tell me that ticks and pops don't ever bother you?

As I am found of saying, "How can I know what YOU hear?" What is the source? If it is LP, you are likely hearing tape hiss from the master. Assuming you are hearing what you say, musicality and pleasing balance, then your are hearing what you paid for...everything that is present, perfectly balanced. One of the issues with horns is that they are merciless. If it's present, you are going hear it unless something is malfunctioning. Dave I disagree about LP's what I hear is not only the master tape, but the noise of a super hard rock being dragged thought a soft ditch at various velocities and frequencies at 20,000 lbs per square inch of pressure, converting every bit of dirt and dust into a tick and pop, totally spoiling the illusion. This is why I converted to CD's in 1983, even then the only player on the market was a SONY. Knowing how far superior digital could be, I coudn't wait!

I believe those are the woofers I tested at Panacea Engineering in his experiemental "jube-like drones." I think they have a better high and without giving up much of anything at the low end. It will change Roy's PEQ, if that is what you are using. I don't know about "better" but different with a stronger motor, might be a more accurate description.

So how does that sub sound with your big stuff? Is there a big K-402 in your future?

The laws of diminishing returns apply to audio faster than any other art form.

Call it a ZapBoom One