Fjd

That's really impressive. I did something similar with my old Camry as I had a very limited time-window to pick up a pair of split La Scala speakers and no opportunity to rent the cargo van for a day. One bass bin strapped (I had the thick straps with the ratchet and heavy rubber bungee cords to the roof of the car (tried to find a spot where the roof would not cave in) and one bass bin strapped in a similar manner wedged into, but hanging out of the trunk. The top hats were squeezed inside the car. With one of those small compact cars, if semi-regular hauling is in order, maybe a sturdy roof rack similar to this guy is the way to go. .

The 8 ohm rating on the back is considered the "nominal rating" and the actual impedance will typically change from the nominal rating with changes in frequency. Basically, an impedance analyzer is used to measure the loudspeaker’s impedance as it will change across the frequency range. The lowest impedance that is measured is typically at DC, which is also known as the DC resistance. The IEC method of specifying the nominal impedance of a speaker is set so that minimum impedance should not fall below 80% of nominal. Therefore, in general, an 8 ohm nominal rating of a speaker should be 6.4 ohms minimum; and for a 4 ohm nominal rating it should be 3.2 ohms. However, in certain situations the "nominal ratings" that we see for consumer speakers do not seem to follow this formula. I posted the impedance curves of the Forte II and several other Klipsch speakers to demonstrate how it can vary among the different Klipsch speakers. For example, with the Klipsch Forte II (re-posted below), has an overall impedance curve that is all over the place and varies widely. The chart demonstrates that the Forte II impedance curve drops to a low of almost 3.5 ohms at the range between 100 Hz to 200 Hz and rises to a peak of about 106 ohms at about 2,150 Hz.

OP, does your Yamaha have "YPAO Volume"? That specifically was designed to address this quirk of human hearing, similar to Audyssey's Dynamic EQ. Give it a try. edit...oops, doesn't seem that's the kit you're working with, sorry. Does the Onk have a similar feature? I think a slightly smaller room (e.g., length) to better accommodate a typical listening position from the speakers may help, along with good speaker placement; however, with the phenomena of the Fletcher-Munson curve and equal-loudness contours, I believe that it will be really difficult to achieve the "bass punch approaching live bass" that you are looking for at lower dB listening levels. I tend to believe that it risks coming across as artificial or unbalanced, somewhat like a "bass hump" that is designed in the frequency response of certain speakers. It has bee a long time since I played with the old HK receivers, but in thinking about the old HK 430 a little more, if the switches and controls are all clean and working on the HK 430, I would try using those. The HK 430 does have a bass control (I believe it is a boost at 30 Hz so it may not help much with the difficult aspects where the Forte has the most difficult impedance dips), treble control, and a contour switch. The interesting aspect of the contour switch on the HK430 is that it typically works in conjunction with the volume control to increase bass energy at low volume settings. I do not remember the range of boost; however, by activating the switch it would mean that it would have the most significant impact on the bass at very low volume levels and progressively decrease its effect as the volume level is increased. The effect would be completely disengaged once the volume control passed the “12 O’clock” straight up setting. I know there is a significant portion of the audio-community that are against tone controls, equalizers and contour switches and would probably like to see the terminology added to the "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" (or post on an internet forum); however, I believe that a person's design goals for an audio system and listening experience are very personal aspects of an experience unique to that individual, and I have assembled systems that have little in the way of the signal path, as well as systems that rely more heavily on shaping the sound. When placed in the correct room environment, I believe that both approaches have merits and their own respective trade-offs, and both can lead to very rewarding listening experiences. Nice post, informative to the untrained like myself. Nice post, informative to the untrained like myself. Fjd, might be the most informative post I've read here. Great job of explaining why it's important to match the amp to the load it's driving. Thanks for taking the time to post this. Mark This thread also brought back a few memories of when I was a kid in that the lower the sound level when playing music and trying to achieve "balanced sound" across the frequency response range, the more my equalizer looked like a “smiley face,” and as I would increase volume, the more I would need to flatten it across all frequencies until the smile disappeared. A couple of points of clarification regarding the vintage receivers. In general, back when I was growing up in the 1960s (and even into the 1970s) it seemed that very rarely would you find a mass-market speaker that would dip much below 8 ohms. Even many of the individual drivers used in theater set-ups, where I was fortunate to obtain used on the secondary markets, were 16 ohms or in some instances 32 ohms. Essentially, it seemed that in those days that there was not a general need to provide 4 ohm power ratings for consumer gear, and since consumer 4 ohm speakers were not really mainstream as they are today, there was not necessarily a real business case to design consumer receivers and amplifiers that could drive complex, low impedance loads lower than 4 ohms in the mass market consumer sector of the audio business. Given the above, it is not necessarily that the better vintage solid state receivers cannot handle 4 ohms, many of them actually can handle 4 ohm loads, although they will run noticeably hotter as the receiver tries to meet the current demand of the low impedance load. In fact, the ability to handle a 4 ohm load is true of most receivers of the time-period that were designed to handle two pairs of speakers simultaneously. When the receiver would allow for the use of two sets of speakers there was typically a warning in the manual and sometimes on the back of the receiver itself about the need to use speakers above 8 ohms given that two pair were often ran in parallel and would lower the impedance and require a more demanding draw of more current from the receiver. The first quote was the old Harman Kardon 4 ohm warning for the HK430 (the pictures below; HK430 4-8-16 ohms, and HK730 only references 8-16 ohm speakers) and the second quote was from the old Sansui integrated amplifiers that could run two pair of speakers at the same time. “Note: All stereophonic solid state amplifiers can normally accommodate only one pair of 4 ohm speakers. This means that if you have connected a pair of 4 ohm speakers to SPEAKER SYSTEM 1, no additional speakers of any kind may be connected to either SPEAKER SYSTEM 1 or SPEAKERS SYSTEM 2 without consultation with your dealer, Harman/Kardon, or the manufacturer of year speakers.” "When connecting two sets of speakers, care must be taken to ensure that both sets are rated at 8 Ohms or higher." Not much different than some of the differences between pro gear and consumer gear that must be recognized and dealt with, standards 40 and 50 years ago for consumer audio gear were much different than they are today and it can sometimes be problematic to assume that today’s standards apply to 40 year old receivers. .

I realize that most people do not read an entire post, let along all posts in a thread and I realize that in most situations you seem to be dealing with people that like 100 dB listening levels; however, in the OP's first post, he states the bass is "anemic" and that he expects "more punch at 65 dB - 75 dB." In my experience, with all else checking out fine, I believe that at 65 dB - 75 dB listening levels he is most likely experiencing more of the phenomena of the Fletcher-Munson curve and equal-loudness contours where the midrange is perceived as accentuated and bass / mid bass is perceived as de-emphasized rather than something else.

I found a few aspects of your post that I have "bolded" that caught my eye. Typically, lower level listening (65 dB - 75 dB) allows more detail appreciation than listening at very loud levels (90 dB - 100 dB) primarily due to the impact of the Fletcher-Munson curve and equal-loudness contours where the midrange is accentuated and bass / mid bass is de-emphasized. In addition, once placement issues are addressed, the Forte series speaker (e.g., I and II) tends to be more difficult to drive in the frequency region below 200 Hz vs. something like the Khorn, La Scala or Heresy; and as the impedance of a speaker dips in certain regions of the overall impedance curve, the amplifier needs to deliver more “current.” Many vintage receivers, new budget receivers and budget amplifiers can become very anemic in the sub-200 Hz range when asked to deliver enough current to properly drive an impedance load around 3.5 ohm. Many of the vintage receivers would have difficulty driving 4 ohm loads; unless you went TOTL and even some of those would have difficulty. The HK430 isn't rated for 4 ohm; and for example, TOLT Marantz 2325 rated power of 125 watts per channel is not recommended for 4 ohm speaker impedance loads. Although, the Emotiva mini x has both an 8 ohm and 4 ohm rating, while the company has disclosed 8 ohm as 50 watts / channel RMS; continuous into 8 ohms; 20 Hz - 20 kHz; the company has conveniently omitted the frequency response range where 4 ohms can be handled and only discloses 80 watts / channel RMS; continuous; into 4 ohms (we don't know if that means it can only handle 4 ohms from 1,000 Hz through 10,000 Hz or some other range that does not stress the amp like the bass frequency range can stress an amp). I think that many of us are reading past the bass issue regarding the lower level listening of 65 dB and while it doesn't address the aspects of the Fletcher-Munson / Equal-Loudness issues at lower level listening, here is a great example of how ADCOM gave a lot of insight into the 4 ohm specifications. Here is the ADCOM GFA-555 II below that would have easily driven any of the low impedance dips that fall below 4 ohm in the Forte series impedance curves. Rated Power Output 200 watts per channel into 8 Ω from 20 - 20,000 Hz at less than 0.04% THD, both channels driven. 325 watts per channel into 4 Ω from 20 - 20,000 Hz at less than 0.04% THD, both channels driven (requires fan option to do this for any length of time). 600 watts into 8 Ω from 20 - 20,000 Hz at less than 0.04% THD, bridged mono (requires fan option to do this for any length of time). 850 watts into 4 Ω from 20 - 20,000 Hz at less than 0.09% THD, bridged mono (requires fan option to do this for any length of time). Dynamic Headroom 2.5 dB at 4 Ω.

I found a few aspects of your post that I have "bolded" that caught my eye. Typically, lower level listening (65 dB - 75 dB) allows more detail appreciation than listening at very loud levels (90 dB - 100 dB) primarily due to the impact of the Fletcher-Munson curve and equal-loudness contours where the midrange is accentuated and bass / mid bass is de-emphasized. Fletcher-Munson curve In addition, once placement issues are addressed, the Forte series speaker (e.g., I and II) tends to be more difficult to drive in the frequency region below 200 Hz vs. something like the Khorn, La Scala or Heresy; and as the impedance of a speaker dips in certain regions of the overall impedance curve, the amplifier needs to deliver more “current.” Many vintage receivers, new budget receivers and budget amplifiers can become very anemic in the sub-200 Hz range when asked to deliver enough current to properly drive an impedance load around 3.5 ohm. Many of the vintage receivers would have difficulty driving 4 ohm loads; unless you went TOTL and even some of those would have difficulty. The HK430 isn't rated for impedance below 4 ohm; and for example, TOLT Marantz 2325 rated power of 125 watts per channel is not recommended for 4 ohm speaker impedance loads. Although, the Emotiva mini x has both an 8 ohm and 4 ohm rating, while the company has disclosed 8 ohm as 50 watts / channel RMS; continuous into 8 ohms; 20 Hz - 20 kHz; the company has conveniently omitted the frequency response range where 4 ohms can be handled and only discloses 80 watts / channel RMS; continuous; into 4 ohms (we don't know if that means it can only handle 4 ohms from 1,000 Hz through 10,000 Hz or some other range that does not stress the amp like the bass frequency range can stress an amp). Forte II impedance curve Heresy impedance curve La Scala impedance curve Khorn impedance curve There is a good chance that "harsh" is source related as there are many crap recordings on the market. Regarding "shallow" I believe that Deang and willand have outlined a couple of points that I excerpted below that can be significant impediments causing "shallow." Regarding "no punch" you will need an amplifier that can generate enough current to drive the impedance curve portion that is below 4 ohms satisfactorily, along with the portions that hover between 4 ohms and 8 ohms; and that listening experience will also probably require additional volume than the 65 dB or so listening level to overcome the Fletcher-Munson curve. If you have tone controls or equalizer controls, you can give it a bass boost in that area to help overcome the Fletcher-Munson curve for lower level listening. Also, I'm not aware of any Norah Jones music that is significant to the area of the impedance curve in question. Regarding "Heresy speakers sounding more dynamic," the Heresy speaker has a very benign impedance curve that can be driven by most any amplifier/receiver that even remotely has a hint of quality built in. Given the impedance curve of the Forte series, listening distance, and spacing of speakers, none of his receivers/amplifiers would be on my "recommended component" list for Forte speakers. I've listened to a lot of the vintage Harman Kardon receivers and amplifiers over the years and while many were “high current” designs, and noting that the HK430 should be satisfactory on a pair of Khorns or La Scalas, and excellent for a pair of Heresy speakers, given the Heresy benign impedance curve, it would not be at the top of my list of recommend components for the Forte series due to the impedance curve of the Forte dipping below 4 ohms for most of the 100 Hz through 200 Hz frequency range. In relation to the Harman Kardon vintage HK series of receivers, even the HK730 receiver isn't rated for 4 ohms and it was a significant step up from the HK430 design; and totally different as the HK730 used a complementary symmetry amplifier design. I believe that many people confuse the HK430 with the HK730; however, the HK430 actually has much more similarity to the HK330 than it does to the HK730. I believe that the HK330 and the HK430 are basically the same as they both used the same circuit board except that the HK430 tuner circuit board has FM muting section populated, the HK330 does not; and the HK330 has only one power transformer on the 20W rated HK330. .

Regarding pricing, it sure wouldn't be the first time that someone reporting on an event got the pricing wrong. There would sure be some very interesting choices competing for those dollars in the $20,000 to $30,000 price range. Regarding beryllium compression drivers, there are many less expensive options for compression drivers with beryllium diaphragms on the market now and I would be interested to learn what brand he is using. Radian practically carries a full line now for each of its compression driver models and Eighteen Sound has expanded its product line to include beryllium diaphragms. There are also other options available to those building speakers. However, I have not explored these drivers mainly because other issues in life need to take priority right now; and, while being much less expensive than TADs, the initial investment (e.g., "cost to play") is much higher than the used JBLs and Altecs, since few of these new Beryllium compression drivers are available on the secondary audio parts markets. In addition, I have not seen many response curves published yet and when I do, in general, it seems to me that this new generation of Beryllium compression drivers have not yet refined the phase plug to highlight the advantages of Beryllium and still tend to roll-off the higher frequencies rather than extend. The old TAD compression drivers with beryllium diaphragms have an extra slit in the phase plug, which I suspect helps extend the high frequencies rather than roll-off. Radian Audio http://www.radianaudio.com/beryllium/ US Speaker lists multiple Radian models with the beryllium diaphragms on its site and carries a 2" throat 651BePB Radian for $699.95 each. http://www.usspeaker.com/hfcompressiondrivers-1.htm ND1480BE with a 3 inch premium Beryllium dome - polymer surround diaphragm http://www.eighteensound.com/PRODUCTS456/Products123/ProdID/197/CatID/3#.V1mK2v_2ZD_ I currently use TAD TD-4001 in my Klipschorns and TAD TD-4002 in my Jubilees, but at some point if I feel the need for more DIY and I start to experiment with compression drivers again and see some published curves, I would like to try one of the Radian 1.4 " compression drivers with the beryllium diaphragms. I believe there may be a few benefits with the 1.4 " vs. 2 " when you have the flexibility of a higher crossover point using 500 Hz or 600 Hz vs. 400 Hz in the Khorns. Although, they couldn't be used for a two-way design and needed to be three-way with a tweeter, one of my old non-TAD favorites was the JBL 2441 compression drivers with Alnico magnets and Aluminum diaphragms. I'm not sure what a "Titanium Nitride Coated Dome" actually means and noting the curve has limited information on how and what horn when determined, but Eighteen Sound shows a curve for the compression driver that seems to do a decent job of making it through the top octave. http://www.eighteensound.com/PRODUCTS456/Products123/ProdID/151/CatID/3#.V1mIj__2ZD9

Before the forum conversion I had the original threads identified and bookmarked where Bob Crites was building a "test box" set up; and a parallel thread where he first "coined" the term "CornScala" in reference to the test box (that ultimately morphed into the various CornScala products on his site). I haven't had a chance to "re-find" those threads since the old bookmark links no longer work.

Babe Ruth sure transcends generations in name recognition and for those that have not read about Jim Thorpe, I would suggest they do. To me, it seems that the “all-time best boxer” (Sugar Ray Robinson, maybe?) or “all-time best heavy weight boxer” or “Greatest Athlete of the 20th Century” is more of an opinion that will have strong generational bias and really becomes more of the opinion of “best for a certain generational period.” Whether the person is a sports writer or an individual spectator, the first-hand detailed knowledge will typically cover a span of about 20 – 25 years. For, example, in general, most of the people that I have talked with that actually saw boxing in 1930’s – 1950’s, for the heavy weight division, seem to go with Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano or Jack Dempsey. In general, I find that most in the baby boomer age group tend to prefer Muhammad Ali, while the most recent generations tend to vote for Mike Tyson (along with the “what if” crowd), Evander Holyfield or sometimes I hear Lennox Lewis name thrown out there. Yes, Ali appeared to have gained crossover appeal to people outside of boxing, when boxing was a mainstream sport, which appears to help him tremendously in these types of polls and opinion contests; however, I believe his manner and some of his decisions left a lot to be desired. Having his own self-delusions of grandeur and self-importance is one thing, but trying to elevate that self-importance at the expense of others is in extremely poor taste. Of course, he would be quick to state it was all in the name of promoting the match, but some of the stuff he said should not have been said in any situation. Keep in mind that during Muhammad Ali’s three-year hiatus from boxing for refusing the draft, Joe Frazier was a friend, helped him financially, and actually took the time to testify before Congress and petitioned to have Ali’s right to box reinstated. Muhammad Ali returns these gestures of friendship by “promoting” the first fight with Joe Frazier with his own cultural and political agenda. Of course, he plays the part of the revolutionary and the civil rights champion to all, while he assigns the part to Frazier as being the pawn of the white establishment and an “Uncle Tom.” Bryant Gumbel feels the need to join in and get on the Ali bandwagon and writes a magazine article asking "Is Joe Frazier a white champion with black skin?" So where does this type of behavior leave Joe? Joe becomes isolated from everything and receives death threats and his children are subsequently bullied at school. I don’t believe that anyone deserves that type of treatment, regardless of the type of justification or whether it is just in the name of promoting a boxing match.

Completely different styles. Ali the finesse boxer with some power and Tyson the powerful puncher with deceiving hand speed. Maybe could have been a good match. Bill Maybe? I think that would've been the ultimate heavyweight fight. I would go with Tyson, in his prime he was devastating. Yea..... I'm with Tyson We will never know.... Both Great boxers.... MKP :-) Too bad Tyson couldn’t have lasted for the long-haul. The fight that I would like to see with both in their prime would be George Foreman (not technically a great fighter, but an excellent puncher with 84% knockout percentage in 81 fights) and Mike Tyson (I believe to be a better boxer and one of the most prolific punchers in boxing history), talk about a “home run” derby and constant fireworks with these two guys! I think that different boxing styles can make for an interesting fight. In some respects I think you could put Joe Louis (in his prime before his four years in WWII) and Ali in his prime, both in the same ring and think that I was attending a chess match. When looking at different styles, what I found interesting was how Joe Frazier and Ken Norton (both had a type of style of being hard punchers with that constant all-out relentless attack keeping the inside pressure) could always give Ali fits. Of course, Ali never seemed to learn the classic defense moves such as blocking, parrying and slipping the jab; and seemed to rely more upon his speed, lateral movement and leaning away. Contrast that with someone like Joe Louis, who was a classic defender that knew how to block, parry and dodge the jab, could hold his hands up, keep his chin down and elbows in. Styles sometimes seem to be circular in that a certain style can give a boxer a ‘fighting chance’ against another boxer with a different style; such as Frazier beat Ali; Forman beat Frazier; Ali beat Forman.

Yeah, Sammy pretty much nailed it. I'm such a cheap arse on my own and Mustang Guy really guided me into not cheaping my way into stupid. His decisions (the ones I posted) made the trip easy, safe and efficient. Had I cheaped out the way I wanted to transporting my Khorns I would have thrown them onto my 5x8 utility trailer when they would have been ruined on the 2-hour trip home. They would have bounced up and down on my trailer and you know how rough those metal grates are, it's like a wood rasp. They would have had to weather a driving rainstorm with dirt and water kicking up from below. It would have been a disaster. Where are you guys finding trucks with a lift gate and unlimited mileage for $100 a day? I must not have the right connections as I've done the long haul trips four times now for large speakers and the best price I found for a lift gate truck was a 16 foot truck at a little over $100 a day plus mileage of 0.49 per mile; and this was a couple of years ago now. My 700 mile trips would have been about $450 before tax and gas instead of the $104 total with unlimited mileage for the cargo van, which was a significant reason (along with convenient location) why I went with the cargo van.

I did the 19.95 Uhaul pickup truck rental when i needed to move a pair of KP450's to a warehouse for shipping. The 19.95 is the daily charge plus mileage. They charged me .59 per mile x 37 miles. Not bad for short trips but could get expensive on long ones. That makes sense and probably should have realized that since mileage is the reason why I buy the unlimited mileage on the Enterprise vans for the longer trips. My Jubilees being about a 700 mile round trip would have been substantially more at the per mile rate. Picked up the van before Enterprise closed the night before, then hit the road between 3:00 am and 3:30 am; and had actually completed the round trip and returned the van well before the 6:00 pm closing time the next day.

Won't fit on its face or back in a Honda Fit. The trunk width is only about 30"; the Khorn bass bin is too wide. I'm not opposed renting a car or van.... A 5x8 trailer would be ideal if I had a vehicle what would tow one. No one I know has a truck or van, so looks like I will have to rent. I saw your post btw about you & Mustang Guy grabbing the Khorns - congrats on your purchase!! While I was in Connecticut I also did not have access to a truck or van and did not have a tow hitch on my car; therefore, I have rented the Enterprise cargo van (of course, I bought the unlimited mileage given the distances I was covering) to complete several longer trips for items that were too large for my car. I used Enterprise because it was a mile from my apartment, the lot was part of a shopping complex and large enough to leave my car, and the pricing I got was about $100/day plus gas (timing it right I could easily cover 600 - 700 miles round trip for the one day charge); however, while I did not have a Uhaul location close enough that was convenient, the rate on the side of the Uhaul vans have always piqued my curiosity. .

Silly comment. When people go to a zoo, or whatever, they should be in a reasonably safe environment. Inclusive of enough safety for at least, the far majority of "normalcy" Including children, not necessarily including the relatively very small % of like.suicidal mentally ill for example. Guarding against the likes of that would be (subjectively of course) prohibitive, and would lead to your suggestions. Lars This was NOT. O, and BTW, my children never had bike helmets growing up. Lars Actually Keith's comment is not silly, not at all. Child leases are readily available, there's a reason for that, and I don't think it's a silly one, unless it's being diagnosed by the silly mind, or irresponsible people. Anyone, absolutely anyone, with multiple children of that certain age (which can vary depending on parenting, and mental capacity) can confirm the difficulties and impossible task associated with being 100% protective. Parental diligence is the best safety net for children. If you're the type that depends on the codes and/or the government, you need to be biach slapped and given a wake-up call. Child leashes have come a long way and are now often disguised as back packs. I know a couple of young mothers that felt the panic of a missing child that are now proponents of using the child harnesses when they must have the children in riskier situations. Does anyone remember the story in 2015 where the parent was dangling the child over the railing at the Zoo for a better view and dropped the child into the cheetah exhibit? http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/12/us/cleveland-zoo-cheetah-fall/ Do most parents actually know how to act safely while visiting the zoo and watch out for the safety for those under their care? Well obviously not. Let’s see where else we can place blame. What about the school system? Of course, if that darn education system required course work on “zoo safety precautions.” Since the school system failed us, maybe the Zoo could pick up where the school systems failed? Maybe the Zoo should install barbed wire and motion detectors that sound really loud and obnoxious alarms at the area of breach; and require child harnesses attached to the child and attached to an adult for children under nine years old. What about an hour course that would include online testing and scoring that parents and children must pass with a 75% score before entering the Zoo? Is 75% enough, or would this type of score be determinant that the person still does not understand “zoo safety precautions.” Should the score be 90%? The general course learning topics could include; Learn how not to dangle your children over the edge of a barrier for a better view of the animal. Learn how to read and follow the directions given on all warning signs posted at the Zoo. Learn how not to let your children tease the animals while you watch or take pictures or video tape the actions. Learn how to keep your child close at all times, especially if the child is too young to read the Zoo warning signs. Learn how to just say NO to a photo of your child when that child wants to put his or her head into the mouth of a lion or alligator regardless of how cute you think the photo opportunity might be. Learn how to teach your child how to show a general level of overall respect for the wild animals, especially since these animals will run the risk of reacting to an unusual situation on instinct vs any amount of training that animal may have. .

Before I reply, I wanted to compliment Bubo on an excellent piece. It's hard to put music impressions into words. Well done. +++ Agree MetLO, there is nothing wrong with metal as a listening genre. The only problem I have is you opened up a whole new can of worms. The problem with metal is how to compare it to the source material, just as you said. When you hear a cymbal crash, how do you know if it really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22' ride cymbal? When the vocalists screams out a lyric (I'm being descriptive, not critical) how do you know if it's in tune? That being said, the definition of the metal band for criteria for testing speakers then becomes "does it sound good to MY ears?" That is where using metal as a media becomes difficult to generalize because you might like your metal as it sounds when played LOUD, I might like metal because of the driving drums or maybe the definition in the bass guitar line, just as you suggested. But if we both used a grand piano, we could both agree if a middle C on the recording sounds like a middle C played live! on the piano, or we might agree that a trombone sounds like a trombone. When you are using something like metal to evaluate speakers I just think it becomes even more subjective. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different strokes for different folks. That's why I like to use familiar music in male vocal, female vocal and piano. It exposes a speaker's strength and weaknesses very quickly. I'm not sure I follow the rationale of a recording of metal with a cymbal vs. a recording with a piano. Why wouldn't you have the same issue with the piano as you do with the cymbals? For example, in a similar exercise in trying to determine if the cymbal really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22" ride cymbal, it would seem that the issue with the grand piano (since you specifically identified a "grand piano" I'm eliminating the added layer of detail when using an upright piano) if you could determine if the middle C on the recording sounds like the middle C played on a Steinway, or a middle C played on a Yamaha, or a middle C played on a Bösendorfer? First we would have to agree on what sounds like a Steinway, Yamaha, Bosendorfer, Bechstein, Fazioli, etc. That's a conversation by itself with a good chance for disagreement. Post production can add another layer. Does it sound less like a Steinway because of how they tweaked the master recording? We all have our go-to songs when listening critically or comparing gear. You come to expect certain qualities when listening to familiar music. Audio is so subjective. There are many common paths but ultimately we're all chasing something different from one another. Since you took a small piece of my post and missed my original question in the quoted portion above, I'm not sure if you actually answered my original question; and if you also have difficulty following the rationale (or if the rationale is clear to you) as to why a recording of the heavy metal genre with a cymbal vs. a recording with a piano would be different and why the listening test using the piano would be better than the listening test using the cymbals? Although, with the nuances that you have added in your post, it seems to come down to "does it sound good to your ears" in both situations. My original question was "Why wouldn't you have the same issue with the piano as you do with the cymbals?" Said another way, I was curious and wanted to see if I could gain more insight into why did wvu80 believe that his use of the piano in his tests were better and valid while he tended to discount MetropolisLakeOutfitter’s use of metal and cymbals in his listening tests? My point was more in relation to how easy it is to believe that your own individual test (e.g., using a piano) is better in general (vs. only better for you specifically) than someone else’s test; and tried to demonstrate it where the assertion in question appeared to be that listening to a certain type of music (e.g., heavy metal), questioned that someone else could not possibly tell the difference between the smallest and least expensive cymbals in a drummer’s cymbal set-up (typically used to add “accents” to a drummer’s sound) and the largest and most expensive cymbal in a drummer's cymbal set-up (packs much more punch for a rock drummer than other cymbals). Given the above (although I technically believe the differences between a grand piano and an upright piano or even a digital piano would be a better analogy to the differences between a splash cymbal and ride cymbal), since wvu80 specifically referenced "grand pianos" I simply introduced three grand pianos that can have the exact same tuning for middle C (e.g., adjusting the strings to the correct pitch or frequency), but very identifiable differences in tone. Overall, in general, while I was reading this thread there seems to be a lot of criticisms going on in a lot of different directions on what constitutes a valid test and what does not constitute a valid test, and to me, these criticisms do not really seem much different than the criticisms leveled in another thread about the stupid language that a paid reviewer uses in the audio magazine reviews. In my experience, unless a reader has a solid frame of reference and perspective into the other person’s listening environment (and where on the continuum does the level of ear training fall in relation to the reader), the review, while great reading and great entertainment, probably has little meaning and use for the reader's own listening environment. In fact wvu80 probably made this point the best in this post.

Before I reply, I wanted to compliment Bubo on an excellent piece. It's hard to put music impressions into words. Well done. +++ Agree MetLO, there is nothing wrong with metal as a listening genre. The only problem I have is you opened up a whole new can of worms. The problem with metal is how to compare it to the source material, just as you said. When you hear a cymbal crash, how do you know if it really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22' ride cymbal? When the vocalists screams out a lyric (I'm being descriptive, not critical) how do you know if it's in tune? That being said, the definition of the metal band for criteria for testing speakers then becomes "does it sound good to MY ears?" That is where using metal as a media becomes difficult to generalize because you might like your metal as it sounds when played LOUD, I might like metal because of the driving drums or maybe the definition in the bass guitar line, just as you suggested. But if we both used a grand piano, we could both agree if a middle C on the recording sounds like a middle C played live! on the piano, or we might agree that a trombone sounds like a trombone. When you are using something like metal to evaluate speakers I just think it becomes even more subjective. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different strokes for different folks. That's why I like to use familiar music in male vocal, female vocal and piano. It exposes a speaker's strength and weaknesses very quickly. I'm not sure I follow the rationale of a recording of metal with a cymbal vs. a recording with a piano. Why wouldn't you have the same issue with the piano as you do with the cymbals? For example, in a similar exercise in trying to determine if the cymbal really sounds like an 18" splash cymbal or a 22" ride cymbal, it would seem that the issue with the grand piano (since you specifically identified a "grand piano" I'm eliminating the added layer of detail when using an upright piano) if you could determine if the middle C on the recording sounds like the middle C played on a Steinway, or a middle C played on a Yamaha, or a middle C played on a Bösendorfer?

So true Dean, and I also know several people that consider good sound to be anything that gets loud enough to crack plaster, one of my cousins among that group, although, I believe that her frame of reference and tastes are evolving. I have also tried to get people to better understand their own personal frame of reference and what they consider "good sound," along with better identification of their own personal listening goals with mixed success. Let's think about the term "snake oil" from a slightly different perspective. Is a review an instance of "snake oil" or just good old fashioned advertising, now updated for this world we live in where one comment can go viral and bring down a product in a matter of days? In many respects it seems that a significant portion of the population will call something they don't understand or something that challenges a historical belief that could cause a shift in thinking, "snake oil." In certain respects, maybe somewhat like the Salem witch trials in the late 1600s. Does anyone remember the bike forum post and the subsequent Wired Magazine article in 2004 where a Kryptonite lock was picked with a ball point pen? Think about it for a moment, a 50-year-old lock design was rendered useless when a brief post to an internet forum revealed the lock can be popped open with a cheap plastic pen. Given the tremendous impact of that one post, some say there is a paradigm shift upon us in how to think about marketing and advertising. http://www.wired.com/2004/09/twist-a-pen-open-a-lock/ Many that are working in the marketing/advertising industry tend to believe that the advertising which succeeds best at seeding relevant and useful impressions, is likely to be the most effective. In the past, I have touched upon how Red Bull embraces “content marketing” in addition to a television ad or magazine ad; and how the Red Bull product has practically universal name recognition whether a person likes the product or thoroughly despises the product. Now let’s think about marketing a product through “reviews” whether written by a “paid writer” or a “consumer.” Either way, product reviews written by real people may actually, from a historical perspective, be the most underappreciated aspect of a marketing campaign, especially in the consumer-content media universe. While there have been a few companies that recognized the opportunity early, content media has only recently seemed to captivate the advertising and media worlds. Audio companies and audio magazines / audio websites just seem to have a “jump” on others and have been ahead of the game in this regard. In general, I believe that an aspect that many people fail to realize is that a “review,” whether a review in a magazine or online; and whether the review was written by a “paid writer” or a review based on “customer feedback” is now becoming somewhat of a type of significant “marketing” channel in its own right for many industries. Just look at all of the online review sites dedicated to collecting “reviews” such as Angie's List, Epinions, Yelp, ConsumerAffairs.com, Zagat, TripAdvisor, Niche, Glassdoor, RateMyProfessors, RateMyTeachers.com, Computing Reviews, among others. Of course, following close behind are unique competition wars and various types of unethical behavior; such as the positive reviews that are sometimes written by the businesses or individuals being reviewed; while negative reviews are sometimes written by competitors, disgruntled employees, or anyone with a grudge against the business or product being reviewed. Shoot, this type of activity has even spawned new revenue generating work flows for the PR industry with businesses called "reputation management" firms that can be hired to submit false positive reviews on behalf of businesses. "Company Settles Case of Reviews it Faked" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/technology/internet/15lift.html?_r=0 "Medical Justice caught impersonating happy patients on Yelp, RateMDs" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/medical-justice-caught-impersonating-happy-patients-on-yelp-ratemds/ In general, I believe that you can find that Jupiter Research, Forrester Research, The Kelsey Group, comScore, among others, all have studies that show that ratings and reviews influence consumer shopping behavior. Several years ago there was a report issued by Jupiter Research citing research that 48% of online shoppers find it critical that retailers post reviews. That report also found that the number of online shoppers who found reviews the most important feature in a site doubled from 2005 to 2006. Think about that for a minute, more people than ever before consider a review to be the most important feature for consumer shopping; and one of two people are going to leave a business/product website and not buy the products of the company primarily because there were no ratings and reviews. A study from 2011 asked, “Which type of advertising has the most impact on the buying decision?” The percentages in relation to various advertising categories from the respondents are listed below: Television - 83% Magazines - 50% Online - 47% Newspapers - 44% Radio - 32% Billboards/outdoor advertising - 13% Magazine reading and online reading are very “active” processes that involve focused reading and screening of the material on each page. Essentially, the reader makes an active choice when turning pages whether or not to look at it more closely. While it may only take a few seconds to evaluate a specific page, the reader does have to look at a page in order to decide not to read it any further. On the “flip” side, every time something is found interesting or appealing or annoying, the reader can take as long over it as he or she desires, regardless of whether the section is editorial, a review, or traditional advertising (or even a forum thread where a person continues to linger on, although annoyed, and read and post even when they cannot stand the topic or the forum members' posting to the thread); all leading to a level of increased "awareness." Given that magazine advertising and online advertising have such a significant impact on buying decisions and considering the active involvement aspect of the reader with magazines and online reading (vs. the passive nature of television advertising), I’m not surprised that most audio-related magazines include reviews of audio products and advertisements for those same products, as they are designed to both work in unison during a marketing / advertising campaign. I look at reviews primarily to help my sense of awareness of what types of product are out there in the market place; and look to other sources of information to determine if something will fit my established criteria. Who knows, I may not buy new, but at some point, with a certain level of previous awareness, this stuff may eventually hit my "audit bucket" list when looking at the secondary markets for used equipment. .

From the November 20, 2011 website as found on the "wayback machine" site. https://web.archive.org/web/20111120082837/http://www.klipsch.com/about-us Fred S. Klipsch and his wife, Judy, purchased Klipsch & Associates from Paul in 1989, moving business operations to their hometown of Indianapolis, Indiana, while continuing manufacturing and distribution in Hope. Fred’s decision to purchase the company almost seemed like destiny. In the mid-1980s, Fred Klipsch saw a loudspeaker advertisement in a magazine that bore a familiar name—his. He tore out the Klipsch & Associates ad and carried it around with him for three years before calling the company’s founder. Although they had never met, Fred and Paul Klipsch discovered they were cousins and, without an heir, Paul began talking about a way to keep his privately held company in the family. From there, Fred and Judy would spend the next two decades transforming the humble company into a highly regarded global brand and technology powerhouse, while keeping Paul Klipsch’s legacy alive. (Read Custom Retailer story on Fred and Judy's 20th Anniversary of owning the company.) Fred and Judy, along with their passionate team, have completely redefined product categories. They’ve navigated the company through major changes in the audio market, as records and cassette tapes have given way to CDs and MP3 files and television channels are now broadcasting in 5.1 surround sound. Today, Klipsch sells hundreds of premium speakers for every lifestyle, application and budget. The brand’s diverse product portfolio encompasses home theater, professional cinema, installed whole-house contracting, commercial, computer speakers, iPod docks and headphones. As the audio world continues to evolve to meet the listening preferences of consumers, Klipsch will look to the future with an eye for the past. Everything Klipsch does today and 100 years from now will reflect Paul’s no-compromise spirit and the brand’s commitment to delivering the world’s most powerful, detailed and emotional sound reproduction.

I had to look up a portion of these to make sure I got the band right for the time period (many songs have remake versions after those on my list) and verify they fall between 64 and 67; however, I remember listening to them from the radio, Mom's records, Dad's records, television, commercials, movies, etc. The following songs in the first group had always given me the impression of having somewhat of a 1950's "style" of "rock n roll" music and an "American Bandstand / Dick Clark" type of dancing. Mitch Ryder and The Detroit Wheels: Devil With A Blue Dress On and Good Golly Miss Molly Lovin' Spoonful: Do You Believe In Magic Searchers: Love Potion Number Nine ? and The Mysterians: 96 Tears Sam The Sham and The Pharaohs: Wooly Bully Beach Boys: Help Me, Rhonda Tom Jones: It's Not Unusual Four Tops: I Can't Help Myself Sugar Pie Honey Bunch Supremes: Stop! In The Name Of Love Gerry and The Pacemakers: Ferry Cross The Mersey Beach Boys: California Girls Petula Clark: Downtown James Brown and The Famous Flames: Papa's Got A Brand New Bag Lovin' Spoonful: Summer In The City Nancy Sinatra: These Boots Are Made For Walkin' Beach Boys: Barbara Ann Manfred Mann: Do Wah Diddy Diddy Martha and The Vandellas: Dancing In The Street Drifters: Under The Boardwalk Surfaris: Wipe Out Aretha Franklin: Respect Sam and Dave: Soul Man Association: Windy Easy Beats: Friday On My Mind Spencer Davis Group: Gimme Some Lovin' Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell: Ain't No Mountain High Enough Peter, Paul and Mary: I Dig Rock And Roll Music Jackie Wilson: Your Love Keeps Lifting Me Higher And Higher Roy Orbison: Oh, Pretty Woman Beach Boys: I Get Around Kingsmen: Louie Louie Louis Armstrong: Hello, Dolly! Shangri-Las: Leader Of The Pack Reflections: (Just Like) Romeo And Juliet Roger Williams: Born Free This group is representative of the type of "rock n roll" records that I had bought back in the day. Buffalo Springfield: For What It's Worth Bobby Gentry: Ode To Billie Joe Doors: Light My Fire Rolling Stones: I Can't Get No Satisfaction Byrds: Mr. Tambourine Man Troggs: Wild Thing Bob Dylan: Like A Rolling Stone Yardbirds For Your Love Animals: We Gotta Get Out Of This Place Standells: Dirty Water Box Tops: The Letter Jefferson Airplane: Somebody To Love Who: I Can See For Miles Kinks: You Really Got Me Animals: The House Of The Rising Sun Rolling Stones: Ruby Tuesday Turtles: Happy Together Mama's and The Papa's: Monday, Monday Simon and Garfunkel: The Sounds Of Silence Simon and Garfunkel: Homeward Bound This group that follows are my examples of songs for "slow dances" with either the "partner" you brought or maybe the "partner" you want to take home. Neil Diamond: Cherry, Cherry Dusty Springfield: You Don't Have To Say You Love Me Brenda Lee: Coming On Strong Frankie Valli: Can't Take My Eyes Off You Neil Diamond: Girl, You'll Be A Woman Soon Dusty Springfield: Wishin' And Hopin' Sonny and Cher: I Got You Babe Marvin Gaye: How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You) Procol Harum: A Whiter Shade Of Pale Temptations: My Girl Righteous Brothers: (You're My) Soul And Inspiration Frank Sinatra: Strangers In The Night Percy Sledge When A Man Loves A Woman Lou Rawls: Love Is A Hurtin' Thing Ray Conniff and The Singers: Somewhere My Love Four Tops: Reach Out I'll Be There Righteous Brothers: You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' Finally, the last group contains a selection of the obligatory Monkees and Beatles songs. Monkees: Last Train To Clarksville Monkees: I'm A Believer Beatles: Help! Beatles: Ticket To Ride Beatles: Eight Days A Week Beatles: We Can Work It Out Beatles: Paperback Writer Beatles: Yellow Submarine Beatles: A Hard Day's Night Beatles: Twist And Shout .

That's my take I though the LSI were suppose to be made with the HF and LF on the same terminal together. When words can't seem to accomplish the task at hand, I say we must revert to more pictures. When I come across the salvage guys with La Scala professional loudspeakers, I seem to find that the more permanent installations of La Scala professional loudspeakers that were pulled for remodeling or building demolition tended to be the "one piece" professional La Scala loudspeakers; while the guys that tour and play various clubs, seem to favor using the "two piece" split La Scala professional loudspeakers since they are easier to load and unload on multiple nights for a club touring schedule. One piece permanent installation La Scala professional loudspeakers with only one terminal block and a pair of terminals for the amplifier similar to the one piece home version; however, the professional version has a closed back where the home version does not. Woofer, midrange and tweeter all connected through a one-piece crossover network that does not need to be spit between two cabinet pieces. Two piece touring La Scala professional loudspeakers where the speaker terminal block has terminals for the amplifier connection and terminals to connect the high frequency top hat with the low frequency bass bin. .

I have a nice pair of Altec 1003B multi-cell horns (2 rows of 5 cells per row) with 288K drivers for my outdoor music system. In the chart that I have included, the “Horn Model Number” indicates the number of cells and the horn cutoff frequency. For example, the 1505B = a 15 cell horn (3 rows of 5 cells per row) with a cutoff frequency of 500 Hz. The “Sound Pressure Level” is interesting since Altec gave measurements at 30 feet and 100 feet with full rated power applied to each driver over a frequency response range of 600 Hz to 2,400 Hz (note column “b” indicates horn configurations with one driver, two drivers or even four drivers for certain horns). Full power rating for the drivers listed in the chart: 288 = 40 watts 290 = 100 watts 730 = 75 watts It looks like they are marked sold and given the number of rows and cells per row, the horn looks like the 1505B.

If you really have interest in a HH Scott, there is a HH Scott 222c for sale on the forum that has been restored up to original specifications and it appears that he has some room in his price to negotiate (I assume since he states reasonable offers). I have bought items from the seller in the past and the transactions have been executed hassle free. I pulled the first post and a couple of pictures from the link below. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/162713-fs-hh-scott-222c-refurbed-by-nos-valves-75000/

I'm glad everyone like the sausages. It helped that I could cook them low and slow on Rodney's wood burning smoker. If you're ever in Austin, you have to make the trip over to Lockhart and try Smitty's brisket. It's even better than their sausage. I just love those pictures of the smokers that Smitty's Market and Kreuz Market use. I was in Austin, TX for a couple of days back in the late 1990's and people were telling me to visit the Iron Works BBQ and Salt Lick BBQ. I'm curious if you have tried the following and have an order of preference? Smitty's Market Kreuz Market Black's BBQ Iron Works Salt Lick .

PM sent

“These things we do, that others may live” Memorial Day is certainly upon us, and for many, I suspect the long weekend and the large gatherings with family and friends, signify the start of summer. I know that I enjoy the local parade, hitting the local rib burn-offs; and also enjoy firing up the large grill and smokers for the festivities. However, Memorial Day is also a time when each of us will most likely hear stories about the heroic citizens who have lost their lives in military conflicts. We should never forget this aspect of Memorial Day. I would like to encourage everyone to take the time and listen, REALLY LISTEN, to these incredible stories. When taking the time to really listen, we have a rare opportunity to hear many stories that are actually more about the fine attributes of courage, compassion and overall selflessness embodied in these individuals. If an individual doesn’t have access to military veterans, one great way to gain access would be active participation in some type of volunteer work to help support a local military charity. I’m sure there are other great ways. One of my more recent learning opportunities involved the US Air Force’s elite 83rd Expeditionary Rescue Squadron during "Operation Enduring Freedom" for missions in Afghanistan. For those that may not be familiar with para-rescue operations, here is a nice historical overview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Pararescue The members of the 83rd are highly trained individuals that are prepared to conduct life-saving medical evacuation missions. In the typical day in the life of a person that is part of the Expeditionary Rescue Squadron, that tends to mean parachuting out of planes in order to reach downed pilots that may be located on the edges of cliffs where helicopters cannot land. In addition, a typical day in the life of the expeditionary rescue squadron may tend to mean opening a crashed armored vehicle with a set of the hydraulic “jaws of life” in valiant efforts to save the lives of the combat soldiers trapped inside. Said another way, the key, and core aspects for each member of the expeditionary rescue squadron’s job is to SAVE and PROTECT. Save and protect, as a job description; can a job description get any simpler than that? I suspect that we may not be able to write a job description any simpler; and from another perspective, we may not be able to write a job description that is any NOBLER. Think about it, in order to save and protect, these soldiers are putting their own respective lives on the line to save the life of another soldier wounded in the ongoing environment of combat. Now, I suspect that it should start to make sense for anyone reading this post why I started this post with the quote at the top; considering that the motto of an expeditionary rescue squadron member is: “These things we do, that others may live.” Think about it, each and every day, without any fanfare, more than a million Americans from every branch of the armed forces go about their duty quietly so that we may live freely. Of course, for some of us, it is all too real that not all of them make it home. Please keep in mind as you really listen to those stories that Memorial Day is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of all the men and women who laid down their lives for our country. Please pause for a moment this Monday to remember all who died protecting this great nation as they are the guardians of our liberty and freedom. I know that I will; and I also know that I am proud of all veterans for their willingness to serve our country. Here is a link to an overview of the 83d Expeditionary Rescue Squadron emblem. http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=12852&CategoryId=7779&grp=1&menu=Uniformed%20Services Description/Blazon On a disc Celeste, above a landscape Azure, parted by a sun streak Or, and a shoreline of the first, a duck looking to dexter Gris, detailed of the second, eyed Argent, beak and tail stripe of the third, on its head three rotor blades of the second, its dexter wing shading its eyes, all within a narrow Red border. Attached below the disc, a White scroll edged with a narrow Red border and inscribed "83D EXP RESCUE SQUADRON" in Red letters. Symbolism Ultramarine blue and Air Force yellow are the Air Force colors. Blue represents the sky, the primary theater of Air Force operations. Yellow refers to the sun and the excellence required of Air Force personnel. The emblem portrays the mission of a rescue squadron assigned helicopters and amphibious craft. The landscape indicates both mountainous and level terrain and water. The life raft, piloted by a caricatured duck intently scanning the horizon, indicates search; the rotor blades, worn as a head piece by the duck, indicate helicopter capability; and the yellow stripe on the duck's tail is a recognized air rescue aircraft marking. .