mas

Gil, While both formats were to develop enhanced versions, Sony introduced both Super Beta (and then ED,etc) and Hi-Fi versions at a lower price point far earlier then did JVC. And the release dates did not overlap significantly with VHS lagging behind the Sony releases (and with a higher price). SuperVHS remained prohibitively high priced for quite some time. While the Super Beta (400×480 w 300 lines)HiFi became readily available at reasonable prices around 1984-85 (I still have the receipt for my SL-HF550 dated September 1984), Super VHS did not become available in a comparably priced version (meaning similarly priced to the Sony SB-HF units) until almost 1999-2000 when the JVC units (SR-H4(5/6)00U) were introduced. (And unlike the enhanced Beta video, the S-VHS format is not playable on a non S-VHS machine - all you get is snow/noise). I used the SB-HF unit for audio, as it also benefited by the heavier backing minimizing print-through, but never experienced any "buzzing" the article refers to. I was however aware at times of a high pitched whine/whistle similar to many DVD units that was only apparent up close to the player - but not through the playback. And then by the early 90's we had moved to DAT which rendered the issue moot.

Gee, thanks Barn! Some of us don't worry about it like YOU do! LOL! We all feel safer now!

Heck, the entire forum is in trouble if he ever discovers that the forum consists of ~9 unique threads repeated over and over...[*-)][|-)]

From what I have been told (I haven't verified this), DHL uses the US POst Office as their major means of transport.

LOL! Another personal attack! What has your panties in a wad now!? Nevermind. Who cares...

No problem. I just wish the assumption was not that I was being nasty. Flat print loses all inflection, visuals, etc., and anyone who knows me knows that there are few things that I say that don't have an a significant aspect of wry humor and a wink or grin attached. (And, anticipating any 'suggestions', half the time the emoticons don't launch correctly or they take longer to load then posting the entire message - plus it is usually a matter of just picking one of them as few seem appropriate anyway...And I am not going to add one to every statement!)

Look, you are the one who begain by pointing your comments at me, and I had nothing to do with what you so cutely tried to say in your "sign of respect". How about giving credit where it is due instead of trying to be cute and dumping on me? And you explain why a relatively simple problem resulted in nearly 50 pages of speculation? Little regard? All I said was that others were responsible for the continuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuued debate, and not myself as you implied. Or is that just a bit more of the respect that you claim to embody. Funny how its OK for you can make comments about me, but for others to acknowledge reality is somehow offensive to you. The irony is that my comment was meant lightheartedly. But of course only you are allowed that luxury.

Oh. Several of us had it answered it in 3 pages. But the other swoofter folks continued to debate it....for almost 47 pages! And how many still don't get it? It reflects the forum as a whole amazingly well.

This issue was settled in the first 3 or so pages of the thread .... So... you might focus instead on what caused it to persist for so much longer (almost 50 pages worth).

If you understand the scenario, in a larger sense, you can construct an equivalent force diagram with any plane that common sense says will fly instead of not flying. That is done simply by realizing that the earth is spinning (and moving through space), and a plane remains stationary relative to the earth as it is sitting on a runway. . This is essentially equivalent to a plane's wheels matching the converyor belts speed and remaining motionless relative to the conveyor belt. But since we tend to ignore the motion (as we have nothing to compare it to experientially), we treat it as stationary and focus soley on the plane and its application of force relative to the air. The only thing that matters (given that the wheels can move freely and not create additional drag opposing the applied acceleration) is the ability to accelerate the plane relative to the air - that which provides the lift. Since the scale of the example with the earth is large, we tend to ignore it. But it is nevertheless real. But no one (nowdays!) expects that airplanes cannot fly, or that they even have to take off in a direction opposite the direction of the earth's rotation. Instead, planes generally take off into the wind ;as by the wind opposing the direction of the applied thrust, it adds additional lift. As it has been mentioned, you have essentially two force systems at play, and the motion of the converyor and the wheels sum to zero - all the while being a red herring as the means of acceleration for the plane has nothing to do with the wheels. The entire problem is stated akin to what any good magician does as they intentionally divert your attention to focus on an inconsequential portion of the act while the 'trick' occurs elsewhere.

Yes and no, and perhaps not for the reasons commonly assumed... 2 subs will not 'fix' room modes that are determined by the resonant frequency (and harmonics) of the room dependent upon its dimensions (functioning as a tuned pipe - with complications due to coupled spaces). What does tend to mitigate the perceived response is the relative positioning that alters the balance between direct and ambient energy experienced by the listener. And while that can help mitigate the situation if one is sitting in a null, it is not the optimal solution to any of the issues at hand.

I´m sorry I did not mean you. I meant the rivalry in gerneral since page 2. Yup, Anachronism JUST showed up in this continuing "rivalry in general" on "the bottom of page 4". ROFLMAO . Few things have been asserted that so misrepresent the full scope of his involvement, but no one can dispute that this misleading claim of his is anything unusual. There have been at least 3 full threads where he has been a prominent player in the exact same role. Yeah, he just showed up "towards the bottom of page 4." Can we all say: "a lie of omission." LOL!

Richard, call me.

Isn't it quaint how Barney feels the need to redefine statements for his own purposes in every single post? Amazing. He doesn't even require a conversation, as he is content inventing both sides of an assumed conversation with the voices inside his head. In fact a conversation with the 'two of him' would severely cramp his 'style'. You see, while you can misrepresent my main point that was against the incessant Bose bashing all you like and attempt to shift the discussion to mass merchandising, etc.. The fact is: you missed the point as you actively were bashing Bose. And I wasn't the only one to point that out! So discuss marketing or whatever you fantasize was my main point. The secondary characteristics regarding Bose was only an effort to posit counterpoint to the folks who continue to bash Bose! Like you! So, while you continue to claim to agree with any seconday point you choose, you utterly missed the primary one! So please tell us once again how you agreed with my fundamental point! I have no interest in having a conversation with you. However, I have no problem taunting you - as in "come back again and I will taunt you a second time, you silly knigggget!" But if I had any role in "facilitating" your posts, I am very sorry. My bad. I doubt anyone intentionally desires to do that. . But I had no role in 'fascilitating' your bashing of Bose. But it is rather cute how you follow me around like the purple Barney - if only to claim to agree with your own fantasy- as you missed my point. For future reference, if anyone says "Hey", it wasn't me. Bye Barn.

You're of course right Barney, the comparison was literal. I literally meant Toyota and Bugatti, except the real difference to which I was refering was that one was a 4 door suitable for 4 or 5 passengers with a substantial trunk, and the other, a 2 door roadster appropriate for 2 passengers with only a vestigial trunk. The difference in price...a neglible $1.190M [*-)] After all, the only reason someone would buy the Toyota over the more extravagantly designed Bugatti is due to "massive advertising"... Yup, take the example literally. The fact is, you claimed to agree with my post, the focus of which was my opposition to the repeated threads preoccupied with bashing Bose as they have grown quite old - but as you claimed "to agree" you nevertheless continued to bash Bose - even as you took time out from "not bashing them 'per se'" to bash them yet again. Yup, whatever it was that you think you agreed with, you certainly did not agree in your actions. You see, you never quite got the main focus - regardless of any peripheral reasons regarding why you may think that they are successful. You missed the point! And since you have again failed to figure it out: I have no desire to have a conversation with you. That was already made abundantly clear. . ( I know, I know, you will again try to tell me what I really meant! ) : So why would I want to watch Barney after being subjected to your impersonation of unrequited agreement? And hence the earlier allusion. It would simply be redundant. And Anachronism should go back and try to figure out his conundrum of how to tune the "frequency response" of a room! You are both idiots. And just sometimes the words are meant literally.

Barney, you are indeed a flake. Only to be joined by your alter-ego, Anachronism. Its fascinating to hear you tell us yet once again what it was that I really meant. And even more so that you agreed. And, Anachronism, the comparison was hyperbole. The examples were chosen as exaggerated extremes in the marketplace simply for emphasis. Hence, hyperbole. And yet the poor monkeyboys interpret them literally. You mean that Toyota an Bugatti don't literally compete for the same targeted customers? Gee, really!? Wow, who would've figured!?. And Barney, yous still seem to have no clue as to what the fundamental acoustical physics flaw was that Bose committed. But we certainly don't need to witness your song and dance routine yet again. You have had ample chances - all squandered. So, in the immortal words of Burt Reynolds: "Do the letters F O mean anything to you?"

Aw, come on Buck, this has become fun in a perverse sort of way. He is just about to tell me again how he agreed with me...despite the fact that he totally missed my original point....[*-)][:S][][:|][*-)][|-)]

It is what you have done in this thread. Go back and read, and then read it again until you understand yourself. The only waffling is due to your inability to read for meaning and your complete inability to understand what sarcasm and hyperbole imply. Sort of like if I say "I would like to hear more of your inane insights." As we will shortly see when you continue to offer more of your insightful(sic) insamity. After the umpteenth time, one might start to wonder why your supposed "agreement' with your interpretation is met with disagreement. Duh! 'But gee whiz, I agree with you that the Bose bashing has gotten very old, but pardon me for a second while ai take a second shot at bashing the Bose line, but ai don't mean to bash Bose per se'....ROFLAMO. You can say you agree all you like, while you embodying exactly the very thing with which I was expressing dissatisfaction! Could anyone possibly miss the point more??? [*-)] Then why on earth do you berate me for not doing so? More doubletalk from you... bah! I have no need to explain it for most folks on this forum - as they all know why the sound from the majority of Bose products is less than ideal. No idiot, more of your inability to read the sarcasm in my statement. you have attempted to tell everyone how bad Bose equipment is and how they misrepresent , blah, blah, blah... You have nothing to offer in this regards. Many of us can tear their physics a new one in great detail. We don't care about Bose nor your perceived insights. It was a plea for you to shut up, but yet you interpret it as a call for more!!! My original post in this thread was a call for no more threads complaining and worrying about BOSE!!!!! Not more of you idiotic assessments of Bose! Do you read anything for meaning??? Not any more than you would if I said I got to see Mark Fredericks hand it back to them, or Jill Lewis, or Chris Dorros... so I guess you got me there! You are The Mang! Right after you tell me about the "event" in which I was privy to last weekend. Yeah - pretty stupid stance to take, isn't it? But - if asking other folks to tell about an event to which only you were privy to makes you feel like you have an edge over them - knock yourself out. That makes perfect sense. Nope, it is a rather significant event in the audio industry involving Bose, and in particular Don Davis of SynAudCon when he write and handed a check refunding Bose for their underwriting contribution when Amar Bose attempted to censor findings by refusing to allow the TEF test results made evaluating Bose, Altec and JBL installations in the Indiana U Fieldhouse from being published; as Amar tried to use the fact that they had contributed to SAC's activities as grounds to refuse publication. I could continue on about the various companies' use of medium Q, high Q, and Bose's extension of their 'no Q' approach to SR application, but the point has already been totally missed. But, being as versed in audio and Bose as you are...well, you are again rendered clueless. And I am confident that you are just as unaware of Sam Berkow's subsequent 3D volumetric plots detailing the 901's chaotic polar and projected intensity plots subtitled "Bose: Better sound through enginearing, engnring, ..., engineering, marketing"... All of this is almost 20 years old. Some folks outgrow trying to make the same points, however ineffectually. But not you! Anyhow - thankfully there is not a single Bose cabinet on that campus. Most of the ETCs there in fact have JBL 4400 series cabinets in them - an occurance I am happy to say that I did have something to do with. For that project - Bose wasn't even on the long list, let alone the short one. Its a shame you have no idea of why! But thank you for demonstrating it. (And since we all know you totally miss sarcasm, look around!) Yet you still continue to waste thousands of keystrokes convincing yourself of that. Unfortunately I swat at flies for as long as they buzz about. Its a flaw I regret almost as much as the stimulus that ellicits the response.i Because you don't. Regardless how long it has been going on - you take a piece of something here, a bit of something there, and completely munge what other people are saying and then spit out... something... which doesn't even apply and pick fights with people who agree with you. You are just all over the place with your posts man - you have no linearity in them at all, and it all comes across very scatterbrained, just like in the very post of yours I am quoting here. Anarchist was right on the money with his description of you in the other thread. Focus, young Jedi... stay on target. I didn't start this thread... and everything was fine until you got a case of the *** that I was agreeing with you on your assessment of what Bose is good at. LOL! Everything except that we didn't need your 'agreement' that involved your hackeneyed assessment of their marketing misrepresentation and all sorts of other crap that we routinely read each week and which my statement was specifcally saying I was absolutely tired! You missed the point again! And you still can't figure out why your missing the point did not agree with my message! So just keep on doing it, Barney. Waffling again. Now we are back where we started... you are saying again what you said at first, and which I agreed with. When I did - then you waffled and said you must have been wrong, and now you are waffling again and have come full circle. Well guess what? I am going to agree with you again. Now - will you next post continue in circular logic, or are you finally going to settle down? Place your bets! That has been my message from the start and which it never varied. I knew it 20+ years ago and I am still aware of it. The ONLY one that is confused on that point is YOU! I don't need you or anyone else explaining it yet again! Your contributions are simply more noise whining about Bose! And your inability to recognize sarcasm and hyperbole stand in your way of figuring this out as you persist in telling me that you agree with me! And to the degree that idiots like you continue to whine about Bose, I find myself almost supporting them just because you and your kind are even more irritating! *sigh* Does it ever get old for you to keep trying to make an argument where there is none, or to refer to situations and events which never happened? AGAIN - I never said nor tried to tell the public how stupid they are or are not for buying/being satisfied with Bose products. AGAIN - all I said was that the sound delivered from many of their products is not as they advertise, and AGAIN - you are not paying attention, or I wouldn't have to repeat myself when you incorrectly try to tell me how I think or what I said for the second time in this thread. I think we already covered this..........and yet he continues saying the same crap. Gee, can we find someone else to complain about Bose??? (more sarcasm, Barney) Oh, I got that. Those people probably a> aren't reading this thread and b> aren't contributing to this thread. I guess we know which camp you fall in. You aren't paying attention again. And yet he continues as he tries to tell me what the point of my original post was with which he erroneously claims to have agreed. If that were true the thread would have died at that point! A consumation which I devoutly wish more than anything else!! a> I didn't start the thread. b> You posted in it before I did, apparently thinking you had something new to contribute. Irony at it's finest. c> I expressed that in my opinion the vintage 501 and 601 series didn't sound half bad, while requiring lots of power (since the thread was taking a direction of their "not so bad" products being discussed), and also that the idea behind the Cannon was interesting. d> you posted again, saying that Bose was good at identifying a market segment and catering to them (I guess this is "new contribution" which idiots make, since we obviously never knew about this before, right?) e> I agreed with you on the statement which you made in d> f> you got your panties in a wad. So who exactly was it perpetuating this "banal topic" again, by adding obviously new, earth-shattering contributions? OK, everready Barney, you prove that you can miss the original point better than anyone here! Who posted to the thread first, and is thereby apparently the obsessed one (at least with their un-ethical market practices)? You. Who started acting like an adolescent and began flailing about wildly when I agreed with their assessment? You. Who is talking about Monster in this thread? Only you (thereby having a conversation with yourself. People get put in pretty white coats for doing that...). And people are shot for less. And few deserve it more. Yes, tell others to avoid a top-20 program... because that is true genius. Subtitled: "Look everyone, I have graphics editing software! Today in our strategic management class we discovered the use of the tool called an "arrow". It is very exciting. It is such a powerful tool that I thought I should point out that my brain is literally the size of the dot above the letter "i" ... Please be gentle with me!" Too bad you missed the intended meaning of the reference. There is a world of difference between "policing" and "suggesting". Policing requires an ability to enforce law, policy, or suggestion. As said enforcement does not exist, it deducts down to merely suggestion - no different than if you were to suggest that DeanG be allowed to do crossover work on Khorns. But no - instead let's use your logic... you are apparently then policing me to go somewhere else, and you are policing others to avoid a top-ranked MBA program. More scatterbrain... whee! Yes, we are very impressed by your ignorance of standard business models. "Whee" indeed. No policing, just begging. Whatever, Barney. Except that I am now torn between your being Barney the deputy and the obnoxious purple dinosaur. The latter quality is definately dominant.. Motrin for occassional headaches, and Zyrtec for seasonal allergies (a nice bonus from school ). However - for you might I suggest (OH NOES! POLICING!) something for the ADD? Not nearly as entertaining as watching you waste thousands of keystrokes on someone you could supposedly not care less about. That, combined with your inability to steer straight down a discussion path makes for quite a bit of amusement. You do know that the theory of "the shortest distance between two points is a very curvy road" only applies to motorcyclists, and not self-proclaimed superior beings, right? Go 'agree'(sic) with someone else. And you wonder why I have continued to disagree with you. You missed the original point. The only one going in circles is you. The difference is that I do this as a distraction, as play. Much like a cat plays with its captive after the catch. How is it my fantasy that I agree with you about what Bose is good at? To the contrary - this whole thing is hiliarious because you do make it up! Bring on the clowns! Oh, if this were only a circus, you would be welcome...and a star attraction. Unfortunately for you, its not. Schoo fly. Let's see, that killed almost 5 minutes... And the real joke is that this guy seems to think that I actually care about what he has to say. And to think that this guy just keeps going and missing the meaning implied via sarcasm and hyperbole! And he probably thinks my playing with this (as I am a bit curious if a single post can take up a complete page in a thread!) implies that I care about whatever he is is saying. The reality is that I long ago lost track of the"you said that I said that you agree with what I said that you agreed with that you said......and why do you argue with me when I am agreeing with you?" Indeed! Amazing! And is there any doubt as the the abundant sarcasm and disdain at this point? Hint! Hint! Maybe all of this nonsense will discourage anyone else from whining about Bose... hope springs eternal...

LOL! And no one's fingers as you go through a doorway! But they are worth every skinned knuckle! Enjoy!

Or you can troll a local college campus and solicit arms and legs (and no, offering candy is not a good idea these days! - unless they are over 18 with a real ID!) to carry them down by saying that (fill in the name with some new alt music group) is going to play and you need help setting up the PA. Hey, it used to work when we had shows in halls where the only load in was through the entrance and down several flights of curvy granit stairs! ;-) And you get the feel for what its like to enter the glamourous (glamourless?) world of sound and 'money for nothing'!

Comb filtering and polar lobing can occur between any two (or more) acoustic sources, be they drivers , speakers, real and virtual sources (speakers & surfaces, susrfaces and surfaces, etc) - and they will manifest themselves as Doc said as different aspects of the same thing. Comb filtering is simply looking at the phenomena in the frequency domain. While polar lobing addresses the spatial distribution of the effects in the acoustical space. The underlying phenomena that results in both comb filtering and polar lobing is called superposition, whereby 2 or more signals are 'superimposed' (I'm not sure where the letters "im" got lost in the descriptive term!). And this can certainly occur in source material prior to the reproduction of the signal. But one must understand the diferences. It is much the same as with the differences between induced distortion and the recording and playback of distortion. In the playback of a destructively superposed signal, you will hear the frequency variations due to comb filtering reproduced (assuming no additional superposed effects are generated), but you will not have the accompanying polar lobing. The additional comb filtering and polar lobing will be of a different 'order of magnitude' resulting from the interaction of both the acoustical playback devices themselves and also with the interaction of the room, where reflections behave as additional delayed virtual sources. Does this distinction make sense? And Richard, to do the experiment, just follow the guidelines explained in the PDF - only adjust the delay electronically instead of physically moving the speakers! I hope that it is apparent that this accomplishes the same thing. ;-) Richard, if you want a really great demonstration...stop by Stokely Athletic Center, the Thomson-Boling Athletic Arena, or the downtown Coliseum prior to a major concert. If you ask to speak with the Road Manager and subsequently the FOH engineer typically around 1-3pm (not during the actual sound check as things become a bit crazier with the'arteests'), I think any engineer who is worth their salt (and doesn't think you are there to get a pass) will be glad to demonstrate comb filtering and polar lobing for you - as you walk in a giant arc from left to right in the audienc space. You will not areas where certain frequencies ae either exaggerated (you won't motice them nearly as much as where) and where certain frequecies seem to simply disappear - which they have! - through phase cancellation! The larger spacing of the lobes and nulls due to the greater angular dispersion by virtue of the greater distance from the speakers on the floor make the effect very pronounced and dramatic - and you will be forever leary of ever again saying a concert sounded great in your life-and instead you will be preoccupied with identifying the particular lobes and nulls in which your seat was located unless you get a seat immediately in front of the FOH mix position! And some people wonder why I can't stay seated during a show! **Or you can simply buy a Yamaha receiver and implement their "presence channel"!!! ROFLMAO! You see, what some see as a problem is marketed as an 'enhancement' to others! And they say you can't fool audiophiles! Or was that audiophiles are fools? Where else can one spend so much for such utter scientific failure marketed as the next best thing?

I read the responses and can only shake my head in complete and utter wonder and amazement. He still gets the vast majority of the points completely wrong. He reframes my points to suit his interpretations, then says he agrees, and yet I find myself disagreeing with his modification of my point. Yup, it must be me who is mistaken, as it certainly couldn't be his mis/reinterpretation! And he seems to interpret every post as responding solely to him! Not to everything that has preceeded - and maybe even been mentioned in another thread. Who wants to dare present the notion that this forum is not all about him? And what is this "waffling" on Bose.? And no, you don't have to explain a thing to me about them. I understand their flawed physics all too well. In fact I got to see Don Davis 'hand it back to them' - but then you have no idea to what I refer - but I am sure you will clarify it for all of us! So please; Tell us about the 'occurance' at the Indiana University Field House. I will be waiting with rapt attention. (Like i really care...) I might check back occassionally to witness more of his babble. OK, the truth be known, I don't care about his opinion. What is really confusing is to listen to his complete misinterpretation of what is stated and then listen to him try to repond to something one not only didn't say, but with which you totally disagree - in addition to responding to him saying what he thinks you are saying. And on top of that, he claims to agree - only to a reinterpreted version that fits his own fantasy. Heck, he is so busy arguing with the voices in his head he doesn't have time to debate with us, other than to totally misinterpret everything that is said! And the amazing thing is that he tells me to pay attention to the discussion, when many of us have been having the same continuing discussion for almost a year - longer than he has even been here. And that is simply in regards to BR and to larger AV market developments and trends in general. And the Bose discussions predate the last ice age... But gee, he sure makes it feel longer! But then I guess he feels he must make up for lost time! And yes, Bose, for all of their flawed physics, has done a marvelous job of determining where the market is, and buidling products to those perceived needs - such that the market eats them up - even at the high prices they charge. Thus the value proposition they present (however flawed we may feel it is) more than satisfies the majority of the market. So now you can go and tell the public how stupid they are for being satisfied with their products. The larger point that you completely missed, Mr. Wizard, is that many here don't care about Bose. The only reason we are repeatedly subjected to such a banal topic is due to idiots like yourself who think you have something new to contribute to a very tired adolescent obsession with both Bose and Monster. And if you got through an MBA program without an in depth understanding of Schumpeter's principles, value pricing models, and of the concept of disruptive technologies and disruptive innovation, I can only suggest that other's avoid the program - with you as a shining example of exactly why. But its always fun to watch someone attempt to debate that of which they are not even aware! Pure genius! And Barney (no disrespect to Trey!), if your attempts at policing are called "contributing"...may I suggest you do so somewhere else.Try Mount Pilot. At this point, the only thing about this guy about which I wonder is 'What drugs is this idiot on'? And does the home know he is loose? But it is hilarious to 'poke' him and watch his reactions. {Oh no! Buck, what is this "with CD sales so low"?!?!?!? Don't you know, Throwback maintains that both CD and DVD hard copy sales are UP! It's all a conspiracy! I suggest we just let him wallow in his fantasy.Any minute now he will accuse you too of being an agent for the RIAA! Hey, I can't make stuff up that is as hilarious as this!}

First, Doc knows my dry wit! Disgust, disappointment, contempt, humor, sarcasm, disdain...maybe!...ok, well probably!...but hostility? Geesh! Come on.... Secondly, this committee has far exceeded its mission statement.

ROFLMAO... OK, I can't help but have some fun with this (he said with a very large grin!) First of all....this is all over a difference of 5.5 inches in height????? And "That will put the top of the hf section around 26-28 inches. " - just above the belly button of an average seated person.... And just where a TV should be as well...(?) ;-) Should I assume that you have always sat in the balcony at shows? It sounds so simple to do, but it is anything but! And you will not end up with what you seem to think you will. And all of this effort and goofiness just because a LaScala which perfectly matches the LR pair is 5.5 inches TOO TALL?! I would suggest that perhaps in Lilliput that may be a factor. But this strikes me as much ado about nothing - with the proposed result being significantly lacking in EVERY respect compared to the simple alternative. Second, if you do indeed assemble that fascinating collection of 'stuff', and just "get a crossover for it all" what are you assuming the response to be, and do you think it is going to match your LR pair? Oh, but they are all Klipsch components! ;-) But gee, its so easy to design a crossover. It certainly is - but not one that optimally couples the response of the various actual components! This should have all of the other folks who dove into the threads about passive and active crossovers screaming! Here we know even less about what is required for a crossover than in the other threads with a given proven speaker with plenty of known response characteristics, yet here we have a Frankenstein assemblage where we are just going to "get a crossover" (I like the red ones personally...) ... And I would not be pairing woofers horizontally either do to the predominant polar lobing orientation... If you are going to do this, by all means go with a passive, as it would be a shame to spend any more effort than necessary on a train wreck. But now I better understand how some speakers are designed...and it scares the heck out of me... ;-)) Ok, seriously, I would stop and better evaluate the assumptions you are making, as they are anything but as simple as they sound. And I would seriously stop and wonder why 5.5 inches is so critical! And if it is, the first thing I would do is move back a few inches from your TV! You are far too close! And second,I would be sure to avoid movie theaters which place the center of he screen at about the same angle. For a mega screen like Indy's, sure split them (better yet, save or sell the LaScala and pick up an segmented industrial unit.) But for a mere 50" screen??????????? Set it above the upright LaScala and enjoy. You'll have the best of both worlds! ;-)

Hostility? I find it hilarious! And BTW, the link initially provided in my first post ( http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/100165.aspx ) walks one through it step by step as we just had the same question posted about a day before! (Kinda makes you nostalgic for the exotic/magic interconnect discussions, doesn't it?) (1.To ID the pair as distinct from others, you short them and check the resistance for continuity. Repeat as necessary. 2. To determine polarity, you apply a small (low current!) 1-9v battery (no car batteries please*) to the ID'd pair in step 1 and check the +-voltage for the sign with a $3 VOM from Harbor Freight (or $6 at WalMart)!. It doesn't get much simpler.) And when you say each "end of the wire is in a different room", I hope you mean each "pair of wires", as a single conductor wire in different rooms isn't going to do you much good anyway! And why would one need to determine the polarity of a single conductor??? Or should we have a seminar on how 'one wire' systems only become half as loud? ;-) This incredibly simple topic has taken on the aura of a committee formed to determine how best to flip on a light switch! With the result being that all sit in the dark! ;-) *Why do I get the recurring image of a response telling us how the method encountered a few problems after attaching a car or golf cart battery to the leads! After all, we did have a thread go for how many pages regarding diminished KHorn bass response before the forum noticed that the speakers were pulled out into the middle of the room for 'enhanced imaging'!!! I'm still ROFLMAO over that one! ...Of course, we could always have him attach the wire to a 240V heavy major outlet and measure the resultant B fields that emanate from the wire at various distances...that is, while he is able to remain in the house between the start of the fire and the arrival of the fire department...