anarchist

I am confused about this Adam and Eve thing. If a system is money based and the wealth produced is carrots, what do you have at the end of the day? Poop. Where is the wealth?

Not that I need them (given I have a restored/upgraded pair) but if I had the cash sitting around, I would jump on these myself. A few bucks and these would be killer given the NOS Treatment or OTS mods readily available. I love my Eico but nothing quite like a JM or NBS powering a set of Mark III's upgraded, or redesigned (VRD's). I remember a time when all anyone wanted (or needed) was a NBS and VRD's.

Survivor's series is doing Gen-X vs Millennials. The Millennials already needed saving and would have died if left to their own devices. In two weeks or so, the Millennials will be crying they are being oppressed and it isn't fair. Even the Millennials acknowledge they are deserving of the criticisms. Frankly, I have been somewhat impressed with the Millennials as I didn't think it possible they could survive an hour without a cell phone. Of course, listening to them actually have a conversation reminds you of why they need cell phones and all the grammar, speech, and text apps.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/09/the_explosive_history_of_lithium_ion_batteries.html

I remember that time quite well (early 2000's) and with great fondness, it was the time to be on the Klipsch forum and most of the good stuff was in 2-channel. The battles between Mark and Kelly were epic - insults flying everywhere couched in language that made you think. Craig learning to repair equipment from Mark and starting his hobby-based business that really got everyone into tube amps. We argued amps, topologies, repairs, tubes, tube manufacturers, and many threads were dedicated to just smacking Craig for his grammar and spelling - which improved over the course of time due to the Klipsch forum. Yes, on occasion those discussions also turned into a political, economical, or religious discussions, drew hundreds of responses, and were shutdown - most occurred outside of 2-channel but it was the personalities of 2-channel who frequently argued these topics as well. I was mostly silent. Ditto. There were several personalities that made you want to visit the forum everyday (regardless of topic) and most of them have been silenced. For me, the heyday of the forum has passed and those graphs tend to bear that out. But, hey, what do I know... I find Twitter and YouTube comments to be meaningless and bereft of any intelligence but there are millions of sheep following half-wits around offering up all manner of useless drivel.

I understand the sentiment, but Paul's babies have changed throughout history. Didn't Paul keep improving his speakers? So upgrades were still possible, yes? Didn't Klipsch release the Heresy III? The Cornwall III? So upgrades were still possible even then, yes? Now, I bought Klipsch after first hearing Klipschorns in 1980 or so. I own Klipschorns that have upgraded cross-overs - by Klipsch no less. As I said, Klipsch can take action, and you obviously decided on a solution, but I still haven't seen anyone define the problem. In any case, I don't peddle, so have at it. Now, personally, I would like to hear more about the Pro Line and understand what exactly I am listening to at the good theater I frequent. What's the difference between them and my Heresies, etc. Which speakers are being used to reproduce all the bass in that theater, etc.

You know, you make this too easy. I like that you can do research but it would be even better if you were able to digest the data. I stated that Harley-Davidson became the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world. That is a fact. The fact that Honda overtook them in 1959 means less than zero. You haven't refuted my point, you have substantiated it. Furthermore, Harley-Davidson is still the number 1 manufacturer of motorcycles in America as I stated. Now, you read some data but can't understand the point. So let me make it simple. It matters not that Honda sold however many motocross bikes, atvs, scooters, etc. Harley doesn't sell dirt bikes, atvs, etc. Even you should know that comparing apples to oranges is fallacious. They sell bikes over 650CC and they destroy Honda in that segment. Here a simple fact: In 2014, Harley-Davidson's share of the US Market was 35% while Honda's was 15%. Prior to that disappointing year, Harley-Davidson was around 50% while Honda was still at, you guessed it, 15%. Hey, you were right about one thing, it isn't even close. Pretty simple, Counselor. I know, facts suck when you are on the wrong end of them. Then again, maybe I am wrong to look at the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and other data that disagrees with your mistaken beliefs. Now, because I find you humorous and challenged, please provide evidence of me providing this list you assert I provided here: "That doesn't even cover all the manufacturer sites you claimed don't have vendor policies." My statement, which I thought was simple enough for anyone to comprehend was " I reviewed some of the other forums I frequent with regard to audio, cars, tools, etc. that are hosted by the respective manufacturer. There was no ToS in sight, various forums encouraging modifications, upgrades, and pointing to vendors for specific items." Hmm. My statement and your claim appear to be different. I understand some people like to manufacture or misconstrue someone's statements so that it is easy to refute them, but attributing claims to me that I didn't make and then proclaiming yourself victorious in your argument against my position is, well, just silly and less than I would expect from a high school debate team. But keep on, I find your floundering entertaining.

I don't. Many consumers don't want something from the used market. They walk into Best Buy, buy something, and are done. People who come here are generally enthusiasts who aren't satisfied with off the shelf products, want something more, and/or are looking for more value. If they buy used Klipsch, they are converts and Klipsch gains a new advocate - that doesn't hurt Klipsch, it benefits Klipsch. Those people selling that old stuff buy new stuff. if Klipsch maintained parts for all those speakers or had a limited supply of 'universal' upgrades, Klipsch would benefit more in terms of sales. The vendors here supplying cross-overs, amps, or whatever else keep Klipsch speakers out of the trash bin and generate additional Klipsch advocates. It is a win-win all around. That is the Harley-Davidson lesson - again. Now dtel's wife said something in a later post about siccing Roy on the snake-oil salesmen. In my mind, that is those guys selling cable bridges, magic magnets, speaker wire that has been treated with coke and then deep frozen and such. I am all for watching Roy publicly ridicule and destroy such folks whether they are forum members or not, but he will probably violate the 'no-insult' limits (and I will cheer him on.)

If you are a lawyer, you know you should be more careful with your words. 1) Harley-Davidson did become the worlds largest motorcycle manufacturer - doing exactly what I said. 2) Harley-Davidson currently owns 55% of the US market with dozens of other competitors owning the other 45%. Claiming I made up facts is simply lazy and a losing argument; particularly when the facts (and history) are evident and available. 3) I never claimed there wasn't a problem; YOU brought up there was a problem using your cliche to besmirch anyone with a different perspective. I simply asked what is the problem since you had yet to state one. You obviously disagree with my opinions, but have yet to articulate a coherent argument against Harley-Davidson's approach, argue there is a problem you can't define, and resort to specious claims regarding the validity of my statements. 4) You state there is "clearly a problem" but then admit the problem may be identifying a problem. 5) You then specify you are going to educate yourself to see where there might be a problem after insisting there is a problem. A squirrel in search of a nut will eventually find one. Your whole approach reminds me of something some dude once said, "if there were no problems at all... [some] would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss."

Cliches are rather simple. There first needs to be a problem before you can create a solution. I haven't seen the definition of a problem yet. I have seen someone take umbrage over semantics. I have seen that some propose actions that are certain to alienate the community, and, in fact, already have. And to what purpose? As I said, Klipsch, or in this case Roy, is free to have an opinion on what he wants the forum to be and can take whatever actions he deems necessary. The Klipsch community itself will decide whether it was a good idea or not. My participation here is largely based on the relationships I have established with people over the last 15 years. During that time I acquired many Klipsch speakers, repaired some speakers, purchased parts for speakers, documented amp upgrades and builds I had performed, and observed as others got deeper in this hobby and purchased Jubilee's and more. Often, I came to discuss non-audio issues and frequently found myself reading threads on new Klipsch offerings or new offerings by other members that enhanced the Klipsch experience. Really, looking back at all that has happened on this forum, and how much money has been spent... sorry, I forgot, whats the problem Klipsch is trying to solve? As far as Harley Davidson, facts are facts. HD is the leading motorcycle manufacturer in the US market owning a 55% share of the US market and a loyal fanbase that companies pay dearly to acquire. They have taken exactly the opposite approach to the one being proposed here. As an aside, I don't see these concerns on the PCA forums or the Polk Audio forums. Have to run. My wife thinks it is ridiculous I spend so much time on a speaker forum and obsess over audio stuff. Quick PS: I read above somewhere that Roy is now in charge of the Pro Audio line. When I spoke to Roy last is was all about the Jubilee. In any case, went to a movie tonight at the local theater. Very disappointing audio wise and I don't what garbage is there (my home theater blows it away.) Largely, we have shunned this theater for the last year because we discovered a theater 30 miles or so away that has just incredible audio. After the second movie there, I had to look and was thrilled when I saw they were Klipsch Pro speakers - about the size of a Heresy. 6 of them would be nice in my home theater. I don't know what subs they are using but the sound is just freaking awesome. Well done, Roy, well done.

A final thought. One would have to be delusional to think there is going to be a great influx of young (or old) females joining this forum and sticking around: (1) They generally don't care about audio to that degree, (2) they generally don't care to open up speakers and 'tinker' with them, and (3) they want to turn it on and enjoy it not talk about it endlessly. For Pete's sake, go to the vacuum cleaner forum and you will find it is 95% males (talking about modding their vacuums by the way). Don't ask. One would have to be delusional to think there is going to be a great influx of young males joining this forum and sticking around: (1) They listen to digital audio so they generally can't tell the difference between a $10K speaker and a boom box in their trunk, (2) they don't have the necessary levels of disposable income, and (3) they have been raised in a commodity based society where everything is disposable. Many don't have the attention span to appreciate listening to a set of high-end speakers. If Klipsch wants to appeal to these consumers, you may as well eliminate your engineering team, sign a few OEM deals with the Chinese and target the $199 system buyer and/or rely on those kids' parents to buy the system after lots of whining from their kid living in the basement. You don't need a Klipsch forum, you need a Twitter account and some no-talent celebrities with lots of followers to mention your products. I can get you started. "Sitting at the pool listening to my new Klipsch outdoor speakers" - include obligatory bikini shot. "Partied in Malibu and listened to Kanye on some killer Klipsch speakers." - include obligatory drunk dancing shot.

Um, I think I covered this under my analogy to HD which apparently has not been understood by several here. I mean, for Pete's sake, Harley-Davidson allowed - encouraged - modders to take their products, by parts from them, modify the bikes and then resell them in dealerships. They not only sold more parts, they gained a greater following and actually improved and integrated some of those mods into their own products. Here there is an uproar if someone says they upgraded their Klipsch speakers from 1979 with a new cross-over - as if there hasn't ever been a technological improvement. Regarding the graphs - I looked and saw that forum membership and interest waned when Amy left and picked up when Craig and Dean started arguing with each other again. The data may speak to you differently. Lastly, I don't think I have ever read a Klipsch product sucked on this forum. Some complaints about headphones maybe. But more often that not, it is someone taking a great speaker and employing a cost no object approach to improving something with it - even if only in their head.

Interestingly enough, I reviewed some of the other forums I frequent with regard to audio, cars, tools, etc. that are hosted by the respective manufacturer. There was no ToS in sight, various forums encouraging modifications, upgrades, and pointing to vendors for specific items. In short, they are taking the exact opposite approach some on here are proposing Klipsch should take. It is Klipsch's forum, they may do as they please, however, this forum was built - not by Klipsch and its contributions - but by an almost cult following of Klipsch loyalists that Klipsch appears eager to provoke. I find it interesting that Klipsch ignores the lessons of Harley Davidson; there were those that advocated Harley put a stop to all those 'vendors', 'upgraders', and 'tinkerers.' If HD had listened, well, they would just be a footnote in the history books. Instead, the Davidson's saw the short-sightedness of that approach and instead embraced those 'upgraders' and 'resellers' making HD the largest motorcycle company in the world with a rabidly loyal following. Some on here might do well to watch Discovery's mini-series on HD.

I agree. I love mine. I keep thinking about selling it and then think about missing it.

Some of these lyrics really make you question the listener's grasp on reality.

Your life's been wasted You'll die forsaken You act like the world's on your shoulders but it's not there so you fake it Do you embrace it How do you take it I'll never feel the way that you feel I'd rather f****** break it Burn mf****r burn mf****er burn You try but you can't reach me Burn mf****r burn mf****r burn There is nothing you can't teach me In hell mf****r burn mf****r burn I swear you're out to get me Burn mf****r burn mf****r burn I'd live but you won't let me Burn mf****r burn mf****r burn Burn mf****r burn mf****r burn Burn mf****r burn mf****r burn

Dupe.

No, no, no. Not "Dave's" definition. Oxford dictionary. Dave Incorrect. Oxford provides a general definition for autonomous; you misinterpret that as well. If you understood the definition, you would know that your assertion about autonomous cars is faulty. Given we are discussing a particular topic, words have a specific and not general meaning, you simply choose to ignore said definitions. In any case, Gilbert better put some legalese around that bet lest you claim fully autonomous cars have existed for decades - and according to your understanding of the definition they have.

But, to my knowledge, existing systems are already good in all 50 for the reasons you state. There are no laws because there have been no degrees of autonomy. There are laws. Several states have already passed laws regulating autonomous cars and the Federal government issued an advisory back in 2013. "Self-driving vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated safety capability that it should be authorized for use by members of the public for general driving purposes."

You better be careful with that bet and define "fully autonomous." Under Dave's definition, "fully autonomous" cars are already on the road.

Zero tolerance. No .02, no .04, no .08. Zero. You can't have a drink and get in a car. No mixed messages. No encouraging people to drive to a bar and return home afterwards in their car. Mandatory treatments, jail time, forfeiture of your automobile. That's if I believed drunk driving was the problem. Oh, that. Around here, that would do nothing. People with no license even, get drunk and drive. The jails are already packed to the rafters with killers, so no room for drunks. I think it would be much more effective to just lock them out of driving. What's the gripe against that? Paying $130 grand a year to keep 100,000 drunks in jail is my idea of a very bad idea. Put a $29 lockout on cars. Done. Amazingly enough, the countries with such approaches don't have 100K drunks in jail. The lockout doesn't work and isn't $29. You need to change the culture. What do those people with no license drive? Jails aren't packed to the rafters with killers, they are packed with misdemeanor crimes to keep the dollars flowing to those corporations that own private facilities. The drunk driving laws we have today aren't to solve the drunk driving issue, they are meant to keep the flow of money into the court system. Change the culture, no DUI's except for special cases, and that flow of money is diminished. Hence, no solution. I always love when a member of MADD gets arrested for DUI because she had a glass of wine or two at lunch. She gets angry and swears and proclaims she isn't like them - she isn't a drunk driver. She then learns about the law and realizes most of the others she has condemned weren't drunk drivers either.

Zero tolerance. No .02, no .04, no .08. Zero. You can't have a drink and get in a car. No mixed messages. No encouraging people to drive to a bar and return home afterwards in their car. Mandatory treatments, jail time, forfeiture of your automobile. That's if I believed drunk driving was the problem.

Please provide the "Dave" definition because as I already posted repeatedly, your definition doesn't correspond to ANYONE's definition. My 76 Fiat Spider was fully autonomous if we go with your definition. PS: All this discussion on drunk drivers is rather pointless. People texting cause more accidents but haven't become pariahs yet. We can virtually eliminate drunk driving without a single mandated assisted device, but we don't want to do so - the economy would suffer.

And I said you were incorrect. There was human intervention during the trip (in fact, the human took over when they hit the section of highway that had lane detours.) There is NO complexity involved in staying between the painted lines once on a highway. Pretty freaking simple. Your definition of autonomous is nebulous at best and doesn't correspond to Websters or the 'experts' you make passing reference to without quoting. Given your definition, cars were autonomous back when they got cruise control. I provided you with the established definitions for the levels of autonomy. Autonomous corresponds to level 4. End of story. I provided you with quotes from the manufacturers which are intended to educate you to the realities. I provided you with reports from the insurance industry that say while the risk from a human is reduced, the risk from the technology increases and their rates will reflect that increased risk. Here is more clarification for you although I doubt it will make any impact on you. In any case, I am done. Levels of autonomy: Characteristics Assistive (lowest): Driver assistance system can perform certain driving tasks autonomously, human driver is always needed. Managed (medium): Car drives fully autonomously but relies on regularly updated external knowledge (and possibly services) provided remotely Independent (high): Car operates fully autonomously and matches human driving ability even in unknown terrain without external communication. Volvo is at Assistive. In 2020, it will be at assistive.

I consolidated to make my point clear. That car was not totally autonomous - it wasn't even close, it was standard assistive technology. The driver had to steer the car onto the highway, the driver brought the car to speed and set the cruise control, the drive led the vehicle off the road, the driver was necessary to avoid an accident. The car provided basic functionality: it could stay between painted lines and it could decrease/increase speed from its set limit. It could not avoid an accident, it could not drive to a destination, it could not respond to an emergency situation. It was a level 2 automated vehicle - it was not fully autonomous, it was not a self-driving car. Level 3 is what Volvo plans to have on the road in 2020. You keep claiming level 4 is around the corner; it is not. Level 4 (autonomous or self-driving) won't happen prior to 2030 because we don't have the technology to do it today. This doesn't work unless you actually read the posts and the reference material and can speak to the topic with some actual knowledge. We currently have no way to deliver Level 4 (full autonomy) - it remains the stuff of science fiction. Stating the experts (who point out the technology is a far way out) are simply lying to the public is not an argument. With regards to the Wright Brothers, we put a man on the moon in the 60's. That didn't usher routine trips to the Moon and certainly didn't open us to put a man on Mars. Hell, we can't even put one back on the moon in the near future. Autonomous has a definition, it isn't whatever you want it to be. NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels: No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls – brake, steering, throttle, and motive power – at all times. Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone. Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering. Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation. Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.