TBrennan

WPM---Your avatar is obscene.

I'd drive up I-75, 8 hours tops though crossing Ohio seems an eternity.

I'll probably go.

I use a SI to play my digital drums and piano through my 890Cs. Thing does OK, not bad at all.

Oldtimer-----Commercials have become such a big part of NFL football that every year we're now exposed to tedious discussions and "news" about the commercials shown during the so-called Superbowl. That this nonsense actually has appeal to people is amazing.

Did Cadillac show the new 08 CTS? Or a CTS convertible, there've been rumors of one.

" Actually the "point" of the TADs is the unbelievable performance of their nearly-lighter-than-air Be diaphragms... the extended [high end] range is a bonus." But the extended high end IS the performance gain with 2001s, that's the point of Be instead of aluminum or titanium. You're not using the very benefits the driver provides. Which is your business of course but you might want to give it a try as a 2-way. If that tractrix acts like a saladbowl the collapsing directivity combined with the 2001 should give you extended on axis response without a tweeter. No doubt with the JBL you can put more high frequency energy into the room which may be a good thing and may not. Regards

Why use a 2001 with a tweeter? The point of the TADs is the extended high frequency response of the Be diaphragms and their resulting excellence in a 2-way. There are drivers better suited to midrange use and with no danger of the high cost of Be diaphragm replacement, I'd sure be leery pushing a 2001 down low.

Ah yes, AudioXpress, forgot that. I buy a few back copies whenever I make a Parts Express run.

Regardless of the audibility of ringing I think the point was that some jasper thought that one material provided a better "launch" than another which seems ridiculous to me.

There are no good audio or HT magazines. Sound Practices was a great audio magazine but is gone, get back issues online. About 15 years ago Perfect Vision was a great magazine now it's just PR and puffery, total waste of money.

"the metal surface propegates the sound wave better." That's a cockamamie notion John, ignore it.

"and it's certainly no more boring than watching baseball or golf (THERE, I said it!)." Baseball is about the pitching Amy, if you sit there waiting for someone to hit a homer you will be bored. To enjoy the game you gotta get into the pitching. That said baseball just isn't for some people, especially today when people walk around with telephones stuck to their heads (and don't even feel like idiots).

"Well in order to play Rugby they would have to give up their girlie padding and helmuts.... " Rugby, like Irish and Australian football, is a contact sport with tackling. American football is a collision sport with tackling. Note the difference. American football couldn't be played as it is without the protective equipment. One thing about soccer (a sport I despise by the way) is that at least a lot of kids are playing it. On the other hand the only time I see kids playing soccer is in organized situations controlled by adults, I never see kids playing "sandlot" soccer the way I see kids playing American football and basketball. Maybe it's different in immigrant neighborhoods, when I was a kid there was small Greek neighborhood near ours and I'd see the Greeks playing soccer in Columbus Park. Sandlot baseball really seems to have gone down the tubes, adult involvement in the child's sport of baseball has evidently ruined the informal aspects of the game. I see very nice diamonds with backstops sitting unused during summer days, when I was a kid you had to get there REAL early to use such a diamond and be willing to fight to hold it. Most of the time we played in praries or played lineball in the alley. It would be best if ALL adult involvement in children's games was outlawed.

Kentucky? Who is your utiliy?

Justin---The difference in power between the receivers is very small and not enough to account for the differences you hear. Something else is at work, I don't know what but I'm fairly certain it's not amplifier power.

"so incidentally, you folks always bring up the "Tap dancing" anecdotes." Well it's a good story with a great cast of characters. Hollywood's Golden Age and all that, Thalberg was Shearer's brother in law you know. And MGM did have the best sound while Shearer was in charge. (MGM had the best picture too, Shearer was involved in the development of the "Camera 65" anomorphic 65mm process used for Ben-Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty) And it's a story that puts the problem in terms people can immediately understand; "double-tap, I get it".

Shawn---I don't know where Hilliard did his experiments, I'm sure he did an AES paper. Hilliard published an article in Audio magazine back in the 70s that covered the subject but I only remember the main points. And Altec honchos Badmaieff and Davis talk of it too in "How to Build Speaker Enclosures". (Note that Badmaieff and Davis, though Altec engineers, said of the Klipschhorn "For it's size this type of horn has greater dynamic range and lower distortion at maximun spl than any other type". High praise indeed.) "It is possible to have both." Are you using a digital crossover?

It's a controversey. This entire thing goes back to the Eleanor Powell "double tap" incident at MGM studios in the early 1930s. When monitoring playback of Powell tapdancing an echo was noticed on the taps. John Hilliard, subsequently the greatest of all horn designers, was a young sound engineer at MGM and traced the problem to the 8 foot difference in the path lengths of the horns in the 2-way Western Electric monitor speaker. Hilliard did experiments that showed that the effect was time and frequency dependent and that a delay of less than 3 milleseconds (about 3 feet) was inaudible using crossvers between 350 to 800hz. A result of this incident and WE's refusal to market their improved Fletcher loudspeaker was the decision of MGM sound honcho Douglas Shearer for MGM to design their own improved system which would among other things minmize time delay. Hilliard was put in charge of the project which then developed the famous Shearer Horn. An entire galaxy of talent worked on this system including Hilliard, James Lansing, Bob Stephens and even RCA's Harry Olson. Note that though the folded basshorn of the Shearer cut time delay compared to the WE snail horns it didn't eliminate it totally but Hilliard's later Altec Voice of the Theatre did. So it seems that even though Hilliard thought some delay was inaudible the existence of any at all still nagged at him. Which brings us back to the present day. Is the time offset of the big Ks a problem? Theoretically the distance falls under the distance Hilliard thinks was undetectable. Might it still be a problem? Perhaps. But keep in mind that all loudspeaker designs make compromises, given a choice, as PWK was with his design, between lower distortion and time delay which would you choose? I'd take the lower distortion of the horn system. Photo of Shearer Horn from Lansing Heritage site

'Ear wire?' Sounds like a lot of ear wax to me... THAT is NOT an argument. In any event I've decided not to rap Klipsch products on this forum save to say that I prefer some to others. Mind that I've owned two sets of LaScalas, Cornwalls and Heresys so my opinions aren't uninformed. Anybody that wants to come over to AA and argue is welcome. Don't expect head-nodding.

"Do the JBL 2226 Speakers have a lot of punch? Can you feel them?" Yes to both questions. I used to use 4 of them in my hi-fi. Lots of my pals used them too. Listen to Michael too though. If he thinks that Eminence will work it probably will, maybe better. Eminence makes some good sounding stuff that's cheaper than JBL. Not as cool though. ;-)

Better than LaScalas, that's for damned sure. IMO

Oh don't worry Michael, the 2226 can take it. I've hammered the living Hell out of 'em and know many others that have too. I've had them so loud you could plotz. Once they run into compression and stop putting out they can still accept much more power, they wick heat away pretty well.

Son, you need to do a little homework. As has been said you can't just stick a woofer in a box and expect it to work well. If you've a certain box size then you need to find a woofer that will work well in that volume, note that the venting would probably have to change too. And you have to decide just what "working well" means to you, there are tradeoffs, for instance for a given box volume the more efficient speaker won't go as low as the less efficient. Choices. There are many free enclosure modeling programs available online, you need to get busy. The JBL 2226 works very well in 8 cubic foot box, will get you down around 40hz, that's pretty good for an efficient woofer. Handles gobs of power too, 600 watts. Costs about $330.

Freddy----Go over to the Lansing Heritage site, there's a recent thread about a fella making small Smith horns for tweeter use and much discussion. Over here I doubt there's more than a half-dozen guys even know what a Smith is though if the word gets out several will tape-worm this site to set up businesses selling them.