Ski Bum

Except for all of empirical science. You clearly seek meaning rather than understanding, so you're better off with the gurus.

What? Objective reality is somehow separate from time? Is that in Jo's idealistic universe, or this one?

That's the rub. Cannot be objective by definition. Dave What else would you suggest as an epistemic framework for discovering objective reality? Back to Hume, he basically said the same thing as some posters here, only in much more words. As a logical exercise, solipsism is fairly unassailable, but for practical purposes, we have the choice to either gaze at our navels or accept that there is a real reality outside ourselves. The science of his day was so far removed from the big cosmological and quantum reality questions, but still pertains as he (along with Locke and several others) laid the framework for what we now recognize as the scientific method. It's a rather nifty method to examine that reality.

That's where peer review comes in. Things such as referred pain or sensations from phantom limbs are explained in a reducible manner, no need to use them as justification for solipsism.

Prove that and you'll have a primary place in history. Dave It's not necessary to prove what is self-evident. Hume tackled this one four hundred years ago.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the sky is falling; eat right, stay fit, die anyway; suicide is the only answer, woe is everything! Hey look, some of those Benjamin Graham style "old man" stocks are too tempting to pass up. I've added some recently. The health sector funds have been hit pretty hard, but they will likely be hurt less and recover faster than other segments, so they're hitting sale prices too. Keeping plenty of dry powder, too. Happy investing, folks.

Yes, you can break them (via a clipping amp, or even too much clean power; all it takes is too much power for too long a time frame, whatever the cause may be, and poof, your speakers are toast). If you use your head and turn it down immediately if you hear any signs of audible distress your speakers should be safe. Audibly clipping amps tend to sound much more strident and harsh. Woofs can also be driven past their mechanical limits resulting in audible pop, clunk, or similar sound during demanding bass material. If you're experiencing either of these phenomena, turn it down immediately.

Pro: 22 watts of SE goodness, you'll probably never want for more. Con: price. Getting them on the used market by chance? Also, tube cost could add up (I have no idea how much 845 tubes go for). Entering the tube realm with DeHavalind 845's? That's a bold entry. Got corners? Or room for Jubilees? Might as well start at the top of the line and work your way down.

Are you using subs? If so, consider an AVR for the superior bass management capability. I like the slim line Marantz AVRs for such duty. They have front L and R pre-outs in the unlikely case you need to add a more powerful amp. If you won't be using a sub and have no plans to do so, go straight for one of those cool neo-retro networking, dac equipped Yamaha receivers.

Scrappy, it's simply the inverse square law as it pertains to acoustics, and yes, it is ~6db/m loss in anechoic conditions. Within an enclosed space the losses are typically 3-4 db/m.

Nice looking room! That punch you desire comes from lots of dynamic range in the power band (from their lower limits up to 400 hz or so). I agree w/ GBP's frank assessment. Without changing up gear, try applying some boost to the bass (whatever eq or tone controls the Yamaha has to offer...if it has the equivalent of Audyssey's dynamicEQ, try that). If you're at the speaker's punch and dynamics limits now, out of necessity you will have to listen at slightly lower overall volume, but with the eq it may sound more punchy, with a more natural sounding tonal balance. Fletcher Munson thing. Also, using dual (or more) subs is more about achieving smooth bass response throughout the room, not necessarily greater output (although you'll get a bit more of that too). Multi subs are a great thing, and probably the most cost effective upgrade available to you. Just think, that Yamaha with deceptive specs would be plenty powerful for Heritage speakers. You'll get there, eventually. It's inevitable.

Interesting, but I think he came to the wrong conclusions from his 'full-range' single driver experiments. In my own experience and opinion, that approach is a stronger argument for going fully active than it is for feeding raw drivers full range signals. Cone breakup is not realistic sounding, more like "peaky" or "strident" to my ears. As for PRaT, I prefer those Blue Note releases from the mid 60's to early 70's, that ultra jammin' groovy soul-jazz has some serious PRaT.

Serious storms, or opportunities. Depends on how you look at it. (Why so myopic, josteph?)

How "old school" do you need? I'm thinking of stuff that's appeared right here recently, although it's fairly recent gear.

Wait a minute, I didn't even realize Rock and Roll was on trial here. I thought you were upset at culturally conservative baby boomers apparent hypocrisy at liking the genre of Beelzebub himself. Which is it?

Of course. And to keep it in the spirit of the thread, S/D/R&R is nothing new. Some anthropologists say that culture was birthed when some apes ingested psychedelic plants. Next thing you know they're bangin out a rhythm and dancing around.

Still lacking. You need a fully horn loaded rig. (Ok, I need a fully horn loaded rig, too.) Yeah, my current dog is a rather daft German Short Hair/Border Collie hybrid. Boy dog, and typically so (uncontrollable spaz, can't hunt, is the epitome of anti-herder as he scatters the flock of whatever is in his sights). He's a very good natured dog, not a bad bone in his body, but man, what a stubborn little ****!

There is a female shepherd pup in my immediate future, I can't wait. Hopefully she has straight teeth. So sad your beautifully refurbished Chorus had to go. Without some horn subs, you're current configuration is severely lacking!

I'm pretty sure the Marantz is the next gen version of the 6009 that I have some familiarity with. It's easy to spend other's money, I suppose, and at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I do subscribe to the tenet that when it comes to ss power, too much is just enough (no clipping allowed). But it makes sense to determine just how much "too much" is before spending hundreds (up to a thousand or more?) on amps.

I would add that the more powerful external amp may make sense down the road when you expand to more channels, the key word being "may". Again, assess your actual needs before spending. Having sensitive speakers is like cheating (by virtue of getting a huge head start) in the power race. Few folks using speakers as sensitive as RF-7's use more power than a decent AVR can deliver (particularly if subs are involved), and your Marantz is pretty decent.

Hmm. I would suggest that an assessment be taken for power use before pulling the trigger on any purchase. But let's look at your options. The Emo will have 3db more power @ 8 ohms, and ~5db more @ 4 ohms. RF-7 are 4 ohms where it counts. That's a decent increase. The question is, do you need it? Unused power simply goes unused. (That's one of the benefits of using RF-7's: you simply don't need herculean amplification to drive them to fairly copious output levels.)