CatKnight

hahaha that thing is 4 cubic feet it wouldn't fit in your car!

5000 watts * 8 = 40,000 watts RMS probably want 50,000 for margin. 50,000 watts = 50 kilawatts run that for 4 hours and you've used as much electricity as most people do in a month.

dont worry, i had the same problem. i guess the plastic is a little too big or something. i just had to push REALLY hard to get it in (as in putting all my body weight into it). be careful though. good luck.

freaking double post i knew that would happen. it takes so long for the submit button to work.

Possible Problems: Your source could be too weak / set too low Your wires could be crossed, check the polarity There could be a bad connection in on of the wires or the power plug

3...2...1......Ignition. Full Thrust. WHOOoooooooooOOOOSH If you don't know what movie that's from then you suck.

i bought mine cuz i wanted the headphone jack for my sony v-6's. the bass does seem a little tighter, but that might just be my imagination. the headphone preamp isn't very good though, there is a slight buzzing noise.

noooooo no more paradigms! we study them up the *** in my philosophy of science class (Thomas Kuhn reference).

although bose DO suck (believe me they do), you are still comparing a $1100 HT system to a $250 multimedia system. technically, you should be impressed that they sound nearly as good (or better!) then the your old speakers, considering price difference. as for the only being able to listen at 40% volume, try turning your source down more and the speakers up more. they should sound better. you probably have a powerful source to overdrive the klipschs at 40%. and as a last note, the 4.1s are not FAR superior. they have the newer preamp (which you can upgrade to) which fixes the scratchiness, and the only other difference is improved crossovers which make the mid-range a little better. i have also heard that the 4.1's limiter is set lower, so with a v.2400 and a cp-1 you might have better sound then a 4.1, depending on your tastes.

I find that the pro's high's are clear, but sharp. Also, the recessed midrange is slightly annoying. I like my klipsches because they are clear and powerful, but I don't particularly enjoy the 'klipsch sound', nor would I want to intentionally buy headphones with that type of sound. harsh highs give me headaches

very nice article. that guy from UMD took what that other guy said completely out of context and basically bashed him for his grammer. ack too many pronouns. oh well you know what i mean.

i agree. the pro's have an excelent sound, and i love them. but no speakers can compare to good headphones. the sound is just so much more detailed and clear. i have sony v-6's btw, which i love about as much as my pro's. and moviefreak-i dont think k was bashing the pro's, he was just stating that headphones will always be better then speakers (at comparable price levels)

in other words, it's vega. it just happens to be misspelled in the manual...

i thought it was called sony vega

Ray: that is most certainly true with 128 and 160 kbps mp3's, but 192 mp3's or above encoded correctly with lame are indistinguishable from cd's. i have sony v-6 headphones (which many people regard as being more accurate and slightly better sounding then grados). if you have a hi-fi stereo system and the money to afford it you might as well just buy cd's and a cd changer.

whats the point of 20 gb of mp3's if it only has 4 hours play time?

the only way you could hear the distortions caused by encoding at 192 or higher is if you had a very expensive hi-fi system (i.e. several thousand dollar system). on klipsches or medium-high quality headphones you cannot hear the difference. and mp3's ARE cd quality (relatively). if the mp3 is encoded well and you can't hear ANY distortions caused by encoding,then it is effectively cd quality.

quote: babies come from college dorms nine months after frosh week... *looks around anxiously* ... what???

quote: It sounded better than the stuff I was doing at 160 or 320! I compared it with the original .wav file and it sounded identical. I ripped a few more at 128 and they too sounded better. I have used both Music Match 6 and Real Player Juke box to do the ripping. both give me the same results. Well there's your problem. Real and Music Match suck bad. It's unlikely that the 128 rips sound better, unless maybe your cpu wasn't powerful enough to encode 160 and above on the fly, which might degrade the sound. Anyway, use CDex and only CDex, using the LAME encoder, high quality, 192 kbps (more is not necessary), and joint stereo. turn off on the fly encoding, and make sure you are using mpeg-1. also, set CDex's cpu time to "Highest" to help prevent jitters. this should give you cd quality mp3's.

the lame encoder's joint stereo DOES preserve phase variations in stereo channels (i.e. dolby data) oh and hofy, if you think 320 kbps sounds muddy, then the problem ISN'T your mp3's, its your player/decoder.

quote: In a couple of years, we'll laugh at the poor quality of 128's. people who know about audio and mp3's already do. i recently deleted all my mp3's (60 cd's worth) becaues i had ripped them at 160 using xing before. now i am re-ripping all of them using CDex at 192. i tested to see how the quality compared with cd quality by ripping to an mp3 then re-burning it back to a cd. i could not tell the difference at all, using my studio headphones.

I agree. My room mate has a pair of aiwas...they stink! Get some v-6's...they are uber sweet. It's like klipches on your head!

i know how to get rid of all the annoying pops, clicks, static, hiss, anomolies, bad singers, overdriven guitars, and crappy drummers too. just slide all of the eq channels to zero. problem solved.

37% of your base are belong to IRS

i have sony v-6's, and am not planning on buying an amp. im wondering which would be better quality, and what the difference is. i pretty much bought the cp-1 for this convienance.