mas

Phase and Polarity Controls That's a very good question! Many units have a variable phase adjustment that allows you to variably tune the phase between 0 and 180 degrees. Since it doesn't tell you at what frequency, we all get to guess. I wish that it were as simple as specifying "the crossover frequency". It has very little function, but it is impressive as Hell, isn't it? If the delay were more sophisticated (literally, meaning it cost more and they actually spent a few more minutes designing and building it) it would be calibrated in time. Instead you have some form of LC circuit or a pot and an all-pass filter that is pretty much useless. And they are seemingly everywhere. I wish I had better news regarding these 'controls'. If it is a variable phase adjustment, I would set it at "0" (hopefully to pull this function 'out' of the circuit) and use the "set-up" delay function on your receiver to set the distance(time) from the sub to the listening position. The irony is that most instruction booklets use the terms "phase" and "polarity" as if they are interchangeable (which should give you an idea of how much time went into their design!). My guess is about 180 degrees worth. And since phase is a measure of time, your guess is as good as mine as to how much time that actually was!! With luck, by a phase switch, they actually mean "polarity", which should simply be a toggle switch which determines if the woofer moves in, or out, with the application of voltage. This should be "in polarity" with the main system, otherwise, phase cancellation can occur. If it is 'polarity', you can attempt to listen for the switch position that provides for the greater amount of bass. But depending upon placement, you may still be experiencing the superposition of two signals that will result in the cancellation of particular frequencies. Changing polarity is not normally an optimal solution for this! In order to determine proper polarity, a good tool for this is track #52 of the ProSonus SRD Studio Reference Test CD to verify polarity (as well as use the pink noise source on the CD to determine room modes),. An even better option providing much greater acuity can be gained by obtaining the ETF/RPlusD software for $150 to check the impulse response. This will allow you to accurately adjust and fine tune the signal alignment of your sub in addition to all of your various speaker sources. (and much more!) ------------------------------------------------------ Is the difference between phase and polarity becoming apparent? They are not simply interchangeable. And while with a perfect continuous sine wave we can say hat polarity is simply 180 degrees out of phase, in the real world with time variant material, this is not correct! Comparing two drivers in polarity means having both sources begin by moving in the same direction at the same time with the application of a voltage. Out of polarity would imply that one driver moves forward while the other moves backwards with the application of voltage. Phase, on the other hand, refers to time. And it is a relationship between two signals of the same frequency. And as such, if we focus on the start times, it means that one source begins vibrating before the other source. The time differential is refered to in terms of degrees of a cycle or in units of time. We are able to synchronize two signals in time realtive to a point by adjusting the delay of one signal relative to another source. Assuming that the sub was closer to the listener than the satellite speaker with which it is crossed over, then the signal to the sub can be delayed to a degree (depending upon the circuitry employed). But phase relationships are frequency dependent, meaning that you can potentially adjust the relative phase between two signals at a particular frequency. And this is further complicated by the fact that the 'general' phase adjustment is not calibrated. It is often simply a potentimeter attached to an all-pass filter. And you are left with a most inelegant tool that provides you with little reference by which to determine the optimal setting. At most you are able to determine a polar null at your particular lovcation relative only to a particular frequency - as the lobes vary in spacing and number with frequency! But let me muddy this up a bit more, as what you need to be dealing with is absolute phase - having two or more signals be in sync (in phase with proper polarity) from the absolute beginning), not simply in relative phase. What do I mean by this? Let me try to create a simple analogy.Let's say that I run track, and that I run at a rate of 1 stride a second. If you also run track and run at the same rate, if we begin running in the same direction (in polarity) at the same time, we will run with our strides matched for the entire race (assuming we never tire). We will be in polarity, and in phase. If, on the other hand, you begin running 20 strides in front of me, you will begin ahead of me and while in polarity, we will be 'out of phase' by 20 steps. .If we divide the circular track up into degrees, with 360 degrees equaling 1 trip around the track from starting point back to the starting point, the difference between our positions can be stated in terms of either time (seconds) or in terms of the number of degrees. And if it takes 360 strides to make one revolution of the track, you would lead in phase by 20 degrees. Let's take this even further and say that I arrive and begin running this race much later than you. In fact, say you have already run two laps before I start running and you are now at a point where I can see you just a little ways off in front of me. This difference can be stated in absolute and relative terms of phase. In relative terms, if you are only a little ways 'in front' of me, you might be said to be leading me by say, 20 strides or degrees of the circle. But in absolute terms, you would be leading me by 2 revolutions (360 degrees each) plus the 20 degrees, for a total of 740 degrees absolute. To someone who just happened upon the scene, they would have no idea of the absolute difference, they would only be aware of the relative difference. Does this matter? Sure it does! It may not matter much to someone watching the race, but what if these two runners were parts of a song. In fact, if they are part of the same word of a song, but one is carrying the low frequency component and the other is carrying the high frequency component of the sound. In order to understand the lyrics of the song with maximum intelligibility, you would want the various voices to be singing the same words at the same time. If they become too far out of sync - out of phase, the intelligibility goes down the toilet. (And the overlap in the frequency range between the two sources can cancel when they are 180 degrees out of phase.) So, to oversimplify this a bit more, your goal is to make sure that the two sources, the sub and the satellite, are not only in absolute phase - meaning that they start at the same time, but that they are in sync. And unfortunately, the control, if it is variable, only gives yoiu enough latitude to adjust for a maximum difference of 1/2 cycle of cone motion; or, if it is indeed polarity, it allows you to make sure the runners are running around the track in the same direction, meaning that they are at least running in the same direction with a time/phase offset, or if they are out of polarity, meaning that they are in the same place only several times as they pass each other in opposite directions. And if you are now totally confused, then my job is almost complete! Your job, if you accept it, is to insure their agreement in polarity AND to try to align their phase - at least in tems of delaying one signal relative to the other at their starting times. And as such, without more efficient measuring tools to see the signals with greater accuity, the best you can do is to attempt to make sure they start by moving in the same direction, and that their 'basic' delay is set so that their arrival times at your listening location will be the same. And the adjustment that comes closest to this (assuming it is calibrated!) is the setup fuction in your receiver, where you can specify the distance of each driver from your listening position to where you are seated. I am going to reist going further, as the simple analogies fail to adequately address the issue. And to put 'variable phase controls' into a wry perspective, while I DO advocate signal alignment in time, on the one hand, with variable 'phase' controls, you are basically told to adjust the system by ear, as fractions of a cycle (360 degrees being one cycle) can be easily heard and tuned by ear....hmmmm..., while on the other hand, many here will just as quickly also maintain that they can't even determine absolute polarity by ear... and that acoustic origin offsets in the order of multiple feet with the significant attendant group delay cannot be heard. Subsequently, passive crossovers for Heritage speakers are 'just fine'. Hmmm... So, as with the legendary beneficial effects of tiptoes for speakers, the GROSS errors measured in feet are indistinguishable, while the miniscule fractional variations just jump out and are intolerable! Group delay (the rate of change in the relative phase) is such fun! In other words, the bank won't miss that million, but an inaccuracy of a few cents will bring the house of cards tumbling down! I hope the irony is apparent! . (You will of course pardon my mixture of units for the example; everyone knowing that distance relative to the speed of sound has a correlative time value! ) []

So could NPR...and PBS.

[*-)][|-)]

Let's see, a search for "speaker wire" in just the technical questions section only returns 4471 items. (and my gut reaction is that this is from the last two weeks alone!)[] Get yourself 20 feet of 12 or14 guage speaker wire from Home Depot or Lowes. Guage feet/ohm ohms/foot 10 490.2 .204 12 308.7 .324

I like Tom Waits by Tom Waits. About the only cover album that has ever worked for me was Nilsson Sings Newman, where Randy still played piano. And still I like Newman performed by Newman best!

Really? That explains allot! Nesmith was talented in his own right. Tork was Steven Still's roommate and a player as well. (BTW Stills tried out as well but looked too old) Dolenz and Jones were actors with as much if not more credits than perhaps all but Shirley Jones (a real rocker, she! right...) of the Partridges. The Monkess sold more albums that the Beatles and Elvis combined in 1967, oh, and some guy named David Jones had to change his name to David Bowie to avoid confusion as the other Jones was more popular. I wonder how many Partridges had to change their name - for reasons other than embarassment? And supported by the writing of Goffin-King, Boyce&Hart and Neil Diamond, I guess the Monkee's songs were worse too.

It amuses me to see the issue of alternative sourcing of "HD" content deemed a failure unless it is 1. Streaming 2. 1080p 3. Ubiquitous. In other words, unless it achieves that which neither BluRay and HD-DVD have even come close to doing! The fact remains that the VAST majority of the country as well as the larger world market lacks the ability to even display 1080p. And NONE of the commercial entities have even expressed an interest, let alone a commitment to it. And dispite that the broader "HD" market is doing just fine! And the notion that ALL must have access to a service as a prerequisite to its being successful, is absolutely ridiculous. Thus cell phones are a failure. Cable TV is a failure. Existing DSL (developed in 1989!) is a failure. Large cities are a failure Professional sports teams are failures. ANYTHING that is not readily accessible to every person is a failure. And as such few things qualify as market successes. Interestingly enough, None of that matters. In order to be a success, all that is required is the ability to make a profit within the designated marketplace. After all, it IS a business and not some altruistic moral campaign as some here might wish. So, in order for alternative HD sourcing to be successful in the real world marketplace, NONE of the previously mentioned conditions need be met. And the fact that some Yahoo in rural Nevada or Montana may not have 50MB/s online access is superfluous. All they need do is to satisfy a sufficient market demand for acceptable HD content. And if they want to focus on high density regions and cherry pick locales based upon disposable income, they are welcome to do that as well. In any event, the requirement that EVERY person have the service capabilities is a fantasy. After all, the MASS market has NOT refused to watch a movie or show as a result of their feeling that SD, upscaled DVD, 1080i or 720p are "unacceptable". Oh sure, a few here will lament how "$h!tty" SD and anything less than 1080p is as they continue to watch it. But who cares. They don't determine market success any more than the DVD-A, SACD or 1080p folks do - despite their fanboy bravado and chest pounding.. I think stating the future of HD solely in terms of streaming and 1080p – a format the vast majority of folks who have bought a new 'HD ready' TV (not because they simply REQUIRE HD, nope!, but because the government has mandated that we buy a new set - so much for market demand! LOL! ) do not even have a TV capable of displaying – is a red herring. But as mentioned, there is more driving the adoption of alternative formats than simply high resolution. The fact is that HD comprises a MUCH broader market than simply 1080p. And the majority of folks are already finding alternatives to 1080p quite satisfactory. And 720p is quite streamable. And Apple TV offers it. Now. But even so, the notion that downloads must be streamed is simply incorrect. Convenience comes in many forms, from ordering a movie after viewing a movie the night before or ordering a movie in the morning and having it ready to go when you return home from work later the same day – thus avoiding a side trip and standing in line during rush hour. It could consist of stopping by a kiosk and downloading the content to a flash or HD key. Or it can take the form of cable pay per view. And many more are content to simply receive it via satellite and cable and off air via scheduled programming - and it need not even be 1080p!. So it can come in many forms, and as we have already seen by the widespread acceptance, 1080p is not a pre-requisite. Just think, more than a few folks enjoyed watching the SuperBowl in "HD" on their new giant screens, and NONE of them saw it in 1080p! So I guess that it was really a failure. But where are the complaints. Not even the Patriot's fans complained!!! Compared to the preponderance of the mass market, 1080p is at most a niche market – if for no other reason than the technical capabilities of the monitors possessed by the majority of the market. And a still larger percentage of the market is content to have existing formats streamed to ‘convenience’ devices. And while some may complain, they nevertheless constitute a large and growing percentage of the market. The market will continue to evolve, and judging from the increasing investment and research activity, online deliverables point the way to the future, whether one likes it or not. And the potential for alternatives to hardcopy deliverables, including but not limited to online delivery, no more requires that everyone have access to it, then does the success of the PS3 require that everyone have a console at home. So in the spirit of Anachronism's absolutely hilarious "Write something original"... "and not an argument of your own invention." (I'll let you ponder the idiocy of the illogic as I ROFLMAO!!!); here is a pretty good article regarding the BUSINESS that will determine the advancement of alternative distribution technologies, as such concepts seem to befuddle many who still think that mere technological capability necessarily detemines market growth. Its an interesting article from The Economist that looks at many business aspects of the movie marketing business: (Gee, is it a business? Go figure! Next we will be told that they even try to make a profit! I guess that means we will be again subjected to the tirades of those for whom all business (except theirs of course) and profit are bad, and that all new technologies are a step backwards... And to think there is more to the market than just BR fanboys (but whatever you do, don't let them here you say this!). It is interesting in the article to note that the ONLY reference to BluRay and HD is with reference that “high-definition discs are unlikely to bring growth back to the home-entertainment business.” Hollywood and the internet Coming soon Feb 21st 2008 The internet could be a boon for Hollywood—but only if it can conquer its fears TO SEE what the future of film distribution might look like, go to a website called ZML.com. It offers 1,700 films for download to personal computers, iPods or other hand-held devices, or to burn to DVD. It is inviting and easy to use, with detailed descriptions of each movie, editors' picks, customer reviews and screen stills. And the prices are reasonable: “Atonement”, for instance, costs $2.99. There is one small catch: ZML.com is a pirate site. Hollywood's movie studios, which are used to dealing with scruffier crews like Pirate Bay, a Swedish outfit, are aghast at how professional the newcomer is. “It looks like a fabulous legal website,” says one studio executive. The existence of ZML.com illustrates why Hollywood is in two minds about the web. On the one hand, the internet has brought a potent threat: pirates are plundering films and carrying off booty that rightfully belongs to the studios. Online piracy costs Hollywood less than the physical variety, ripping off DVDs, but the gap is closing. “We are more concerned about internet piracy than physical piracy, because controlling it is harder,” says Ron Wheeler, head of anti-piracy efforts at Fox Entertainment Group. Some in Hollywood believe that internet theft could even be the death of America's film industry. On the other hand, the internet offers Hollywood a great opportunity—which it has so far been slow to exploit. There is every reason to think that people will want online access to films, just as they do for music, newspapers, television and radio. ZML.com is proving that people will pay to download films to see at home when it suits them. And once people can buy or rent films on demand, the chances are that they will watch more of them. The web is already making its presence felt in the heart of Tinseltown: this year's Oscars extravaganza, which is due to take place on February 24th, nearly fell victim to a strike by writers over pay for the distribution of their work on the internet. But for the time being Hollywood is mostly stuck in the physical world. Every year it sends thousands of heavy, expensive reels of film to cinemas by road. Only in the past year or so has it started an effort to send out some across the ether as ones and zeros. The DVD is a digital format, to be sure, but it comes in shrink-wrapped plastic. Some studios are enthusiastic about the internet. “In 2008 we will move full speed ahead online,” says Thomas Lesinski, president of digital entertainment at Paramount Pictures in Los Angeles. “It's the great hope for new revenue for the movie business.” But the industry has by and large been slow: studios have only tentatively backed legal online film-download services. Television, by contrast, has been much faster to embrace the internet. On the buses The choice of what is legally available online today is patchy. For instance, London buses are carrying ads for FilmOn.com, a new download service. It promises “tons and tons of great movies”, but you will not find “Mulva 2—Kill Teen Ape!” near the top of many people's lists. The internet has lots of legal sites like this, which promise thousands of top-class titles but in truth resemble the worst shelves of a bad video-rental store. ZML.com has a far better collection than most legitimate services do. Another legal site, MovieFlix, based in Los Angeles, makes its money from independent films, student movies, straight-to-video titles and other eclectic fare. Its founders, Opher Mizrahi and Robert Moskovits, stay away from Hollywood studios because of their high fees. MovieFlix, which had revenues of $1.2m last year, is rare among download sites: it turns a profit. “We are the cockroaches of this space,” says Mr Mizrahi, “and we are survivors.” Many better-funded services have fared far worse. Movielink, which the studios themselves set up in 2001, with about $150m of start-up capital, was sold last August to Blockbuster, a video-rental chain, reportedly for less than $20m. CinemaNow, which counts Microsoft and Cisco Systems among its investors, started offering movies online in 1999 and is not yet making a profit, to the surprise of its chief executive, Curt Marvis. Back then, he says, everyone thought that selling films online would be a huge business by now. Nor are the studios making much money online. They have dozens of deals with internet services around the world. Warner Bros, for instance, supplies small selections of its films to 38 separate digital-distribution services, according to Screen Digest, a research firm in London. In 2006, estimates Screen Digest, online distribution of movies generated a total of $58m in America and western Europe. Screen Digest expects this to rise to $1.2 billion by 2011. But that is still below 5% of its forecast for total home-entertainment revenue. Consumer-electronics firms are longing to supply Hollywood films. According to Screen Digest, online viewing is most likely to take off on services based on their devices. So far, people have been most interested in buying films for gadgets such as Apple's iPod or Microsoft's Xbox 360. Apple's iTunes has captured almost 80% of the download-to-own market; the Xbox has won more than 70% of online rentals. At the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas in January, everyone was waiting for Apple to announce that iTunes would start selling new movies from all six leading studios. Hitherto, only Disney had granted Apple access to new releases (Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs, sits on Disney's board); a couple of other studios were giving it older titles. In the event, Apple's deal was disappointing: it got the go-ahead from all the studios only to rent their films, not to sell them. According to a person familiar with the negotiations, however, this was because of the Hollywood writers' strike over new media. Now the studios are waiting to see whether actors walk out over the same issue. When the labor troubles are past, Apple is likely to get a proper download-to-own deal with all six studios. For Hollywood, this would be a big step towards the internet. The color of money There are two broad reasons for Hollywood's tardiness. The main one is the industry's aversion to making big changes to its business model. In part this is because it takes so much risk in its day-to-day operations. “Every weekend, we sit on pins and needles watching to see if our films will flop,” explains a studio executive, “and that doesn't encourage risk-taking in the business as a whole.” There is a less defensible explanation too: “Hollywood's value system is not necessarily about growth,” says Dan Jansen, who runs the Boston Consulting Group's media practice. “It's about recognition for films.” For the moment, most people are still happy with DVDs, so the studios have had little incentive to switch to an unproven new format. The DVD business is huge, bringing in $23.4 billion in America last year, against $9.6 billion from the box office. The studios are terrified of damaging that source of revenue. In 2006, when Disney made a deal with Apple to sell movies via iTunes, Wal-Mart, America's biggest retailer, reportedly threatened to retaliate: the internet, after all, bypasses it. Wal-Mart accounts for about 40% of DVD sales in the United States and if it sharply cut shelf-space for DVDs, the lost sales would far outweigh new digital sales in the near term. At the end of last year Wal-Mart shut its ten-month-old movie-download site. Now that it no longer has a foot in the internet camp, studios expect it to take a harder line against any further efforts they may make to favor online distribution. Not everyone agrees, however. Wal-Mart and other big retailers rely heavily on DVDs to bring higher-income people into their stores, says a studio executive. “So they don't have a leg to stand on threatening to pull shelf-space.” For this reason, he believes that Hollywood should be able to cultivate online revenues without greatly disrupting its existing businesses. In any case, there are now signs that the DVD boom has come to an end—which should also encourage the studios to worry less about Wal-Mart and to move faster online. After its growth slowed in 2005 and 2006, spending on DVDs fell by 3% in 2007 (see chart 1). Some in the industry are pinning their hopes on fancier, “high-definition” discs—another physical format—rather than on the web. But so far, sales of such discs have been minuscule—largely because of a war between two formats, HD DVD and Blu-ray. Although the war ended this week, when Toshiba said it would abandon HD DVD, high-definition discs are unlikely to bring growth back to the home-entertainment business. Indeed, Hollywood's desire to preserve its existing business rather than embrace a new one echoes its misgivings a few years ago about the DVD itself. In 1997, when the new format was about to be born, three studios, Paramount, Disney and Twentieth Century Fox, came out against it, remembers Warren Lieberfarb, who is widely credited with having fathered the product as it is today. They were worried that selling DVDs for $18 apiece would cannibalize their sales of video cassettes to rental stores for $65 each. None of the three studios is proud of that episode now. Moreover, as well as boosting sales overall, the internet will make it easier for the studios to make money from their libraries—bricks-and-mortar retailers, after all, have limited shelf-space, and mostly stock new releases. Digital sales yield a higher profit margin too. Virtual distribution does away with manufacturing, packaging, transport and inventory costs. At the moment, the studios get $18 per film from a Wal-Mart or a Best Buy and about $16 for a digital sale, but because of the lower costs they make about $3 more on each film when sold electronically. A bigger risk than angering Wal-Mart is that Hollywood will be undone by internet pirates. Imaginative, reasonably priced legal products are the best antidote to piracy: anti-piracy heads at the studios, indeed, clamor for well stocked, convenient movie-downloading services. Fox's Mr Wheeler says that content owners should offer people “ubiquitous access to our products online at reasonable prices”. Mr Wheeler also hopes that internet-service providers can be drafted into the fight. In November France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, backed a proposal to require ISPs to detect and cut off conspicuous pirates. Britain's government is said to be considering a similar law. The second reason for Hollywood's sluggishness is that the studios and the consumer-electronics industry have not overcome three technological hurdles. Downloading a film still takes a long time—in America, about 30-40 minutes on average (see chart 2). Movies in high-definition format would take about four times that. But broadband speeds are increasing all the time. In Japan and South Korea it now takes between five and ten minutes to download a film in standard definition. Another obstacle is that most people want to watch films on television, not onpersonal computers—especially if they have wide, “home-theatre” TV screens Products connecting PCs and televisions have been available for years but have not caught on, because they are hard to install and operate. That is changing. Apple has just overhauled its linking gadget, Apple TV, to make it easier to use. At the CES in Las Vegas, says Alan Bell, Paramount's chief technology officer, new televisions and set-top boxes that connect directly to the internet were on show, “so the PC is not the bottleneck in getting digital content from internet services to the TV screen that people saw a year ago.” The last hurdle, and perhaps the highest, is the lack of common standards among websites and devices. “Imagine if you went to Wal-Mart to buy a new DVD player and then found that your DVDs from Best Buy didn't work on it,” says Mitch Singer, chief technology officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Movies on the internet, he says, are “a format war on steroids”. Each download store sells different usage rights. Hollywood is trying to do something about this. Late last year a group of studios, retailers and consumer-electronics firms met to discuss an idea of Mr Singer's for a standardized electronic movie product called Open Market. But the talks are at an early stage, and it will be tricky to get companies such as Apple and Microsoft to agree to common standards. Hollywood's dealings with the consumer-gadget companies also betray its habitual caution. The studios fear that Apple could become the Wal-Mart of the internet—a giant with power to push them around, continually pressing prices down. Maintaining pricing online is a particular worry. “People think that if it's online it should be free,” says one studio head. One answer to pricing pressure online, though not a complete one, would be to experiment with putting advertisements around films. Last year Paramount gave a selection of films to a service called Joost that streams them free, supported by advertising. Movies are doing very well on the service, says Mr Lesinski. Paramount plans to conduct more online experiments in 2008, he says. The lion's share of its library and all its new releases will be on the internet within a year or two. Short of selling films on it, Hollywood certainly knows how to use the internet to its advantage. Its use of viral online marketing is one of the most sophisticated of any industry. Jeff Berg, chairman and chief executive of ICM, a talent agency, says that about 8% of the total marketing spending on films goes to the internet; in five years' time, the web will take 20%. Paramount's “Cloverfield”, a low-budget monster movie shot as if by an amateur with a camcorder, earned $40m in its opening weekend in American cinemas last month, crushing the competition. It built its audience on the internet: a mysterious trailer for another, unidentified movie led to a website and started an online treasure-hunt for more clues. Popular movie websites such as aintitcool.com buzzed for months about the mystery film. How the web was won Creatively, too, Hollywood is harnessing the internet. Studios are using it to find global pockets of interest. “If there's 1m people around the world who are interested in ice-fishing,” says Jeremy Zimmer, co-founder of United Talent Agency, “we can make a movie for them.” Studios are using their customers' opinions to shape their films. “Snakes on a Plane”, for instance, started off in development as a horror film. As the project got attention online its maker, New Line Cinema, listened, and changed the plot to be more comic in tone. Blowtorch, a young media company making video content for 18- to 24-year-olds, is pushing this further. It will allow audiences to influence its movies via the web. They will be invited to vote on elements of a film's soundtrack, an actor's wardrobe, or even character development. Don't lose it in your popcorn ICM's boss believes that the internet will lower barriers to entry for new film-makers. “Sites will spring up specializing in independent films and short movies,” says Mr Berg, “and these will be showcases, similar to film festivals.” Jaman.com, a download service for independent films from around the world, is a good example. The makers of “Indoctrinate-U”, an independent film about a lack of free speech at American universities, have used the internet to build an audience. The movie's website invites people to sign up with zip codes; if enough do, local screenings are arranged. United Talent Agency has set up a special internet unit, UTA Online, to find and develop new talent. The new unit encourages people to get in touch—unheard of in the original “don't call us” business. In the long term, many people expect that the internet could undermine Hollywood's system of exclusive “windows”. Cinemas get a film to themselves for a period of weeks, then it goes to DVD, then to video-on-demand and online services, then pay-cable television, and so on. And many films are still released in different countries at different times, usually starting in America. The system is a gift to pirates. But the studios are wedded to it, especially the cinema window. The internet creates immediate global awareness of movies, says Reed Hastings, chief executive of Netflix, a DVD rental-by-mail company, so the studios are increasingly choosing to release films at the same time everywhere. They have already shortened their windows, he says, and that could be a step towards getting rid of them. As people buy home-theatre systems and the convenience of the internet makes it even harder to get people out of their homes, the cinema window will come under ever greater pressure. It will doubtless take Hollywood a few more years to work out how to deliver films over the internet. Meanwhile, studios and retailers are poised to introduce movie-download kiosks, using flash memory. Several companies, such as MOD Systems, of Los Angeles, have cut download times to a few minutes; Ireland's Porto Media claims a time of 17 seconds. The idea is to put kiosks in such places as shops, airports and gas stations. Using Porto Media's system, films are downloaded onto a tiny device (pictured) which plugs into dock attached to a television. Kiosks could hold more titles than physical video shops and would never be out of stock. Twentieth Century Fox is looking at several competing kiosks, says Mike Dunn, head of the studio's home-entertainment unit. It will test them this year. “The flash-memory-enabled kiosk is an interim solution which overcomes many of the weaknesses of the present model and the current deficiencies of the internet,” says Mr Lieberfarb, who is on the board of MOD Systems. Customers will get used to downloading films and transferring them between devices, which will prepare them for proper online distribution. Kiosks will make money for retailers too, so that they could help the studios keep Wal-Mart and others sweet. That is the kind of careful step forward that even Hollywood can dare to take. .

Just to amplify what Doc has said. The EQ of a speaker system is accomplished during the design phase of a speaker. NOT after it is placed in a room! And you must also be cognizant of the comb filtering and polar lobing that occurs between multiple drivers that an EQ cannot correct there as well! In fact, that is exactly why we were both opposed to using 2 spaced drivers placed either side of a tweeter. The effect is NOT simply more gain as so many suppose! {Digression regarding the use of the MTM/D'Appolito driver configuration: The D'Appolito/MTM configuration is NOT optimal, despite is being commonly misapplied. And ironically so many think that this is a superior center speaker configuration because of simply seeing it commonly used! It is NOT!. Ironically it was first used in an attempt to physically adjust for a 15 degree vertical polar lobing problem that resulted from the use of a 3rd order passive LR crossover. The addition of an additional driver (the 2nd "M") introduced an additional phase cancellation source that caused interference that offset the polar tilt by adding another source of interferecne. It simply created an offsetting lobe! Now, don't misunderstand this! It did NOT correct the problem of polar lobing! In fact, it made it worse! It STILL created more errors, but it caused the primary lobe (at a mid frequency) to be located 'on axis' so that at least it pointed toward the listener instead of at the ceiling - while additional nulls (the phase cancellation spaces in between the lobes) in the dispersion were created!! So much for 'fixes'! But hey, back in ~1980-81, that is what they had to work with! We now have better tools, and hopefully, a better understanding! Note: the proper solution would have been to use an active crossover that allowed for signal synchronization - the alignment of the signals in time! It would have helped minimize the phase cancellation - at least in the horizontal plane... Thus a speaker such as a Heresy, Cornwall or LaScala would be a much better HT center (and L/R) speaker!! - made even better if signal alignment is utilized} I hope that this does not seem like an overwhelming problem. It simply requires a fundamental shift in your awareness and focus. The message is that the traditional method of looking at problems in the frequency domain, and trying to solve them in the frequency domain does not work in the VAST majority of cases. What appears to be a frequency domain issue through measurement with an RTA or SPL meter is actually a problem created, and which can only be resolved in the time domain. It is also why I wish more folks would take the money they are investing in SPL meters, RTAs and EQs, and instead invest in a $150 ETF/RPlusD software package!

If this is to be used to EQ the (for instance) vocals - the source fed into the system, you might find it useful - and I might suggest a parametric EQ - but you may also find the PEQ in the mixing console adequate for this job. If, on the other hand, you intend to use it to EQ the multiplexed signal fed to the speakers and subsequently experienced at the listening position (I suspect that this is what you mean by 'shooting' the room - with an RTA), what you will be trying to do is to correct for the superpositioned signal ( the direct signal summed with the reflections at a point in space in the room complete with phase cancellation) and you will be attempting to correct for comb filtering and polar lobing errors. This is where the 'old' methods (EQ) fail miserably. And this is specifically where newer time based methods have superceded the old ineffectual RTA and an EQ. And EQ CANNOT solve this. It cannot resolve 'room issues'. It is the wrong tool applied incorrectly for this job. Unfortunately, this is the all too common and traditional use for an EQ that is also its most common misuse. (This is also why the design of the speaker system is critical - first by avoiding to the best degree possible - the creation of comb filtering and lobing errors so commonly created through the 'traditional' use of multiple summed drivers ('if 1 is good, 2 is better' Not! - thinking it will simply provide additional gain), having a controlled Q, and minimizing the overlap of various arrayed unit coverage as well as minimizing reflections from surrounding surfaces which create additional comb filtering and polar lobing errors - which are nothing but phase cancellations. For you see, this phase cancellation can occur both between multiple 'real' sources such as drivers AND between 'real' and 'vritual' sources such as a reflection. And EQs CANNOT correct for phase cancellation. They are ONLY effective in 'minimum phase situtations where no phase cancellation occurs.) So, in that regard, no, an EQ would neither be needed nor would it be effective. (If I could accomplish one thing on this forum, it would be to have folks understand the underlying reason that an SPL/RTA/EQ that is fundamentally limited strictly to 'looking' at a summed frequency response of various component signals is inadequate for identifying the underlying root causes of the anomalies that are manifest by the interaction of discrete signals that vary in the time domain - a realm invisible to the SPL/RTA/EQ! This is EXACTLY why the time based measurement systems have completely replaced the frequency based tools for basic analysis as they specifically isolate and identify the component signals that combine to cause the frequency anomalies. (And while this does not mean that an RTA is completely worthless,its use is severely limited in context. ...It is still useful for identifying room modes... []) The solution to that issue is pattern control and minimization of the overlap of sources (real and virtual) and the subsequent surgical use of absorption and diffusion. This is where paying someone a couple of hundred bucks to come in with a TEF or EASERA would definitely be a worthwhile investment as they can identify exactly what is occuring (the source of the reflections) and suggest solutions for the sources of the problems rather than simply attempting to ineffectually address the symptoms. I would really suggest getting a copy of Sound System Engineering, 3rd ed. by Davis and Patronis.And just to allay the comical cries that it has some equations in it, you can read it and apply all of the basic principals without undrstanding or performing a single mathematical operation - well, anything other than basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

Duke, the irony is that this is nothing new. Contrary to what many think about the 60's, it was SOP for hired guns to record the music for almost all of the groups! Remember the bruhaha over the Monkees playing their own stuff? That was normal for all bands! The irony is that the Monkess, with their resultant fight with the label over this became one of the first groups to actually begin to play their own stuff! Hall Blaine, et. al., didn't become rich simply by selling instructional books! Its amazing to listen to folks idealize the good old days. Funny, our parents summed up the 60's and 70's as there being "alot of crap out there" too.

Not sure what a P-trap is...unless you are discussing plumbing Nor exactly the significance of the 90 degree phase shift, as the phase shift only has meaning relative to a particular frequency... But in any event, an offset in the acoustic origin of the drivers will result in destructive superposition.And that can only be adressed by signal alignment - at least relative to the particular plane in which the drivers are positioned, which I am assuming to be the vertical plane. Any addition phase shift that varies with frequency will simply exacerbate the interference. Phase plugs, etc. will not address not resolve issues (comb filtering and frequency dependent polar anomalies) resulting from the offset of the acoustic origins of different drivers. Phase plugs will only address phase issues within the driver itself - and there may also be issues with comb filtering and polar anomalies due to various signal path lengths within a single driver which may then interact with an additional driver resulting in additional superposition. So we have the potential for different 'orders of magnitude' where superposition can occur: within a single driver, and also due to the interaction of the shared passband of two separate drivers. But if its any consolation, I would hazard to guess that the type of wire attachment, be it spring clip or solder lug, has little bearing. []

A TWO driver Bessel Array??? The optimal combination is 5. With options at 7, 9, etc. - but none less than 5. And it would have been even more effective if it had been oriented horizontally instead of vertically! Instead they ended up with wide vertical coverage reflecting off the floor and ceiling with a narrowed horizontal coverage! Think a line array laid on its side... And DynAudio - their arrangement is correct because of "symmetry"? Really? That's indeed news! Its not quite that simple. Just because someone does it (even a company with a big name), does not make the physics correct! If you are going to copy a design, please be sure that the fundamentals are correct. Oh, and for horizontal placement, turn the diagram on its side. Oh, the frequencies are normalized. Whoa there. I did not copy a design, or even claim to, I just said reputable maufacturers have used multiple tweeters in their own designs. They may be junk for all I know - probably are. My reasons for using two tweeters were higher power handing, increased spl, wider dynamic range and lower distortion. Whether my tweeters are horizontally or vertically oriented is a secret. You seem upset over the reference to "copying" a design. You are missing the point. I don't care if you copy a design or not - there are few unique topologies in the speaker world. But whatever you do, you are still subject to the 'laws' of physics. And your stated reasons are the same reasons that many have always added drivers. The problem is that while wanting to achieve the stated goals, you also introduce some destructive variables and response characterisitcs that cannot be overcome. And the negatives generally far outweigh the advantages you sought to achieve. And MANY designs did EXACTLY what you suggest in the past before a better understanding of the resulting interference patterns. What use assume will be achieved does not manifest itself as you imagine it will. In fact, it is a fundamental reason that line arrays have largely replaced point and shoot arrays for SR use! I am sorry if this is not what you hoped to hear.. Rather than try to convince you of this, I will simply refer you to one of many sources that document this problem. Sound System Engineering. 3rd ed. pp. 342-347. You are better off going with a more efficient single HF driver IN ALL CASES than using multiple drivers (short of a line array or 5 unit Bessel array). But if you do opt for either of the latter designs, you also need to be cognizant of the substantial phase issues at the crossover characterisitc of the array configurations...

Yup, early adopters always get screwed. People freely chose to be early adopters. People are smart to chose to be early adopters and to be screwed. So what's your gripe? That they are smart and they enjoy it!? As to reposting the same old bull dookey...well at least we don't have to move into the digital age to summarize your SAME OLD TIRED RANT. We were intimate with that phenomena way back in the good old days of vinyl. ...Be it Neil Young, or record companies, or, heck anyone who markets a product and sells it for a profit, which by your definition is ripping off poor but 'oh so smart' customers - we've read it. Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again....... Some have figured it out (in fact the majority of the market in this case!) If you don't want the risk, or if you don't see the need...don't buy it. Pretty simple. But it still confuses some who are far too smart to figure it out.

Until he convinces everyone to keep their old SD players and simply stream their HD movies over their unlimited broadband connection directly to their TV's and revise their movie playing habits until it suits the technology. I know how you feel buck.... it makes you think he must have recently taken a marketing or computer class and feels the need to show he thinks he understands what it all means. As usual Anachronism crawls out of his hole and contradicts Buck as he tries to support him. Let's see, the topic was market obsolescence, with the early adopters being screwed, wasn't it. And that would mean the early adopters in regards to HD-DVD in this case. But it could have easily been BluRay. So to be an early adopter of either was a risk. But now Anachronism, you know, the tool who adds nothing of substance to the discussion and who only offers personal attacks, shows up and claims that I am trying to keep anyone from buying either. While ol' Buck claims that I evidently enjoy seeing folks screwed as I support competition and the freedom of individuals to chose (and yes Buck, I still have a perfectly functioning Super Beta Hi-Fi that still works just fine. I was an early adopter and I didn't get screwed at all! Confusing as that must be to you!). While Anachronism simultaneously (but just as erroneously) says that I will not be satisfied until everyone isconvinced to keep their old SD DVD players. Of course they are both wrong as they debate their opposite points of view in support of each other! So which way is it to OZ, geniuses? The MARKET has decided that it is not embracing HD pre-recorded media with an exorbitant entry cost and high media costs except as a niche market. And of course Anachronism hates that. Not the prohibitively high prices mind you, just the fact that he can't dictate to others what they should do as he can't stand SD or any sources less than 1080p. You see, he would force you to buy a newer TV as well! While ol Buck would whine that we are all screwed as1080p is not the FINAL format for all eternity and that its only a ploy to get you to spend more money. After all, Buck still laments the passing of the stereo viewers, as he has a large cache of cards. For you see, Buck eschews change, while Anachronism laments that technology is not changing quickly enough. And ol Buck hates the fact that people can freely access the market and make the choices they dem appropriate, as he would limit folks choices too. But like most tyrants, he would do it "for the good of the masses" As he only wants to protect them! LOL! Gee, and to think that there is an opening in Cuba for just such an altruistic leader! But don't expect poor Anaqchronism to actually discuss the implications of the market developments. Why should he, when he can do the ONLY thing he is capable, and that is to ocassionally climb out of his hole and complain about others. For you see, for Anachronism, the majority NEEDs BluRay, despite the fact that they lack TVs capable of displaying its 1080p picture, and the fact that their $50 upscaling DVD player looks just fine playing movies that they easily purchase for $7.50-$10 - compared to the >$300 player that is not even yet capable of what Sony envisioned as its entry model and the small selection of $20-$30 titles that are available. You see, for him, only an idiot, defined by him as anyone who disagrees with him could tolerate SD or upscaled media. Poor Anachronism - forced to live in such a mediocre world. It seems to me that the public has it right this time. The early adopters can indeed buy the high priced player and media after assessing the market risks, while others have decided to either wait or to forego the platform entirely as they find other sources of HD programming, be it network, cable or upscaled DVDs, that are indeed 'good enough'. And Anachronism hates that to, for you see, in his eyes, the public is just so stupid, as some have the audacity to be satisfied with existing options. Sort of how Buck sees the stupid folks who, by making a choice for anything new, are screwed. But then I guess that is what sticking with the use of dried oak leaves instead of being an early adopter of toilet paper will do to you. Gee, and just think of all those poor early adopters are stuck with (or should it be "stuck to") sassafras leaves! In either case, ol Buck and Anachronism just can't stand folks deciding for themselves. And it is fun to watch as Buck laments anyone buying any of them even by their choice (as he so altruistically cares for them!), and Anachronism laments not being able to tell folks what to buy. You see, competition and the freedom to choose is anathema to both of them. Meanwhile, I am fascinated by the market dynamics and don't have a dog in the fight. I don't care which format utlimately wins. And while I am not a fan of volatile downloads, ultimately alternatives featuring less expensive supply chain delivery mechanisms will become dominant; be it downloadable kiosks pushing content to a users USB memory key, or online delivery such as iTV, or some another means foregoing the exorbitant SCM costs of hard media, will become dominant in the next few years. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! ROFLMAO!

?? " ...a complete isolated ground system" Ground loops aren't the problem (and this presents a greater potential for ground loops) and it offers no improvement regarding noise. There is NOTHING exotic about a separate circuit. Sorry if that seems too exotic for you. And utilizing conditioning simply attempts to put a bandaid on an existing problem. "NASA" and ..."a nuclear power plant"? Houston, with that suggestion "This debate (HAS definitely begun to) spew into a load of crap just like speaker wire and interconnects".and we have indeed entered the Twilight Zone! And obviously a few don't have a clue as to who Bill Whitlock and Neil Muncy are, nor what their expertise is and contribution has been to the industry .

A TWO driver Bessel Array??? The optimal combination is 5. With options at 7, 9, etc. - but none less than 5. And it would have been even more effective if it had been oriented horizontally instead of vertically! Instead they ended up with wide vertical coverage reflecting off the floor and ceiling with a narrowed horizontal coverage! Think a line array laid on its side... [*-)] And DynAudio - their arrangement is correct because of "symmetry"? Really? That's indeed news! Its not quite that simple. Just because someone does it (even a company with a big name), does not make the physics correct! If you are going to copy a design, please be sure that the fundamentals are correct. Oh, and for horizontal placement, turn the diagram on its side. Oh, the frequencies are normalized.

Let's see... The early adopter freely buys a product, with full knowledge that there is a format war. They gain the use of it. Whichever format wins, they still have the use of their equipment and the ability to watch what they have purchased. Screwed? Really? Funny, during the entire time we get to listen to them tell us how great it is. Seems to me that the penalty is that the rest of us have to listen to someone who has not bought a product telling everyone who has freely bought a product, fully knowing the situation, and who claim to enjoy the product, how they got screwed. I don't hear too many of them whining. Yup, competition is bad and choice is evil. And the freedom to do both is even more dangerous. But then I'm sure someone got to listen to the same whine when kerosene replaced candles, and when electricity replaced kerosene and when toilet paper replaced mullen leaves. But we already knew all of this from the unibomber. [] [] And where does this nonsense come from that says the Transformers or any other HD-DVD title will not be re-released on Blu_Ray? [*-)]

Ideally you use an identical speaker to what you have for your LR front speakers. The only exception to this that I know is using a LaScala for the center relative to 2 KHorns, as the critical frequencies for voice are reproduced by identical sections. Everything else is a compromise. And if you go a different route, I really can't tell you what compromise is acceptable.

FWIW, running the Romex is easily understood and performed by almost anyone. This is done with a conductor carrying no current! (Does this need to be stated?) But, if this is not clear, you probably shouldn't touch anything! [] Tying it into the service box should be done by someone qualified. The distinction is worthwhile to understand.

??? If you have access to your attic or to the crawl space/basement, running Romex is easy, as is fishing the wire. Isolating the feed from the additional loads is generally much more effective than buying a mediocre power conditioner in an attempt to clean up something that suffers from noise and surges. A dedicated AC line is perhaps the simplest and most effective way to deal with AC noise, and a whole house surge suppressor at the entrance to the house is the most effective way to address lightning issues. And if you want to debate this, go debate Bill Whitlock and Neil Muncy - THE absolute gurus of AC and noise and grounding - as this is also their position.

Other than contacting the dealer and Klipsch to resolve the issue...no. With luck they will be able to finally resolve your issue. Best of luck... On the other hand, in a slightly more sardonic mood, you could always take up listening to music on an iPod...[]

Huh? Where do they keep them? Seems to me the only deranged person here is you. Especially as the fanboy can't interpret the message properly. The same few keep trying to convince of why BR should dominate. Yet the mass market is the real audience, and they aren't listening! Duh! No one is saying that neither BluRay nor HD-DVD have a higher resolution picture, sure they do. Nor am I against HD! But quite frankly, the price of entry, as well as the price of media, for simply an incremental improvement is too high for the return. And the market agrees. We are simply acknowledging business and market realities that the MASS MARKET has not run to HD as THEY don't see a compelling reason. For most - you know, the MASS MARKET, SD480i (its not 480p!!!!!!!), standard DVDs that are natively 540 btw! (oh!),upscaled DVDs, as well as available broadcast quality sources are sufficient for what they normally view. If you want to whine about the MASS MARKET not moving to BluRay, be my guest. You have allot to cry about! Sounds like sour grapes to me - the mass market just isn't as swooft as you. As the HD community has been unable to create an overwhelming compelling reason for the MAJORITY to switch. The joke is listening to the HD fanboys making claims that are simply not supported by the real world marketplace. We don't have to get over anything, as I am not pushing anything - we just get to point out th market realities relative to the pie in the sky claims of impending dominance pushed by the overly optimistic HD fanboys. And the article sources come from industry analysts!!! LOL!But you just don't get it. The only thing to "get over" is the failure of the market to rush to an HD pre-recorded format. Deal with it fanboy. Market reality sure is a harsh mistress when compared to wishful thinking. Isn't it!? [] D@mn, and the Edsel should have taken the market by storm! LOL!

Sorry, when I find something of positive merit grounded in physics to attribute to the product, I will mention it. But hey, i guess they look purty. But not worth what is being charged.

So, now you are atacking my fancy wire?????????? []

OK, so some should have invented some phony positive responses. They were "uniformly negative" for a reason. One just might wonder why they are unitformly negative - or even ask why! - if they wish to gain a better understanding of the product instead of simply responding with indignation at the "uniform" rejection of the idea.