Bella

Ours is not a micro environment anymore. As a nation we are competing more and more on the world stage. We import a large percentage of our labor resources and that doesn't look like it is going to subside in the short future. More people competing for fewer, or even more jobs, pushes the compensation packages down. And again, not everyone can be King - we must have serfs. So only a select few are lucky enough to make it to the top where, because of the increase in world-wide markets becoming available, top end compensation packages are reflective of that. If you are looking for a villain in these so-called wage disparity issues, look to your government. They are the ones that opened the doors. If you are looking to them to fix it. Well, then you deserve what you get. Conversely, it was destined to be this way. The world would be leaving the U.S. behind if we didn't open our markets as they were doing.

I don't see the problem with a CEO making millions a year while entry level labor with no skills make a wage that isn't livable. The skills required to be a CEO are possessed by far fewer people than those possessed by burger flippers. That makes them extremely valuable assets. The minimum wage was never meant to be livable. Perhaps I could make a case that it was meant to be unbearable - so that those making it would strive for more experience/education so that they could make more. If a CEO is making an incredible amount of money it is because companies who pay these sums have done the math to determine the position brings more value than it consumes and, they have to compete in the marketplace to draw in the talent. You aren't making enough? Do you want to be that CEO and make all that money? What is stopping you, other than yourself? If you aren't making enough because you don't have the talent/skills/drive to improve your station in life, welcome to how things work. I think it is completely unfair to demand something you are not qualified to receive and cry to the government when it doesn't materialize. There is another facet to all this: not everyone can be on top.

What happens when the rate of new wealth creation goes down? Do newly hired young people take a pay cut from the previous years new hires? And then what if it goes up the next year? Do newly hired young people make more than the previous years new hires?

People can spend thousands on speakers but don't seem to want to buy a can of $4 furniture polish.

I assume this is the result of limited understanding/exposure to truly high end audio reproduction. I have this same sort of issue with car engines. We can't all be versed in all subjects.

And that should be the end of the thread right there.

I'm very satisfied with my Klipsch original crossovers. I envision a group of engineers using the stated goals of the project/speaker system and all of the other tools and information available to them. Including meetings and emails and collaborations. They are the ones that know what they want the system to sound like. I trust in that to the point that I have spent thousands upon thousands of my dollars buying their products and supporting their accomplishments. Any changes to that is just an attempt to obtain something other than what was originally meant and frankly, no one network designer in these forums is smarter or better equipped than the Klipsch engineers.

^ This +1 Room Calibration is not the end-all-be-all final say on the situation. I think you'd be disappointed with your results if you didn't do your own corrections to the auto-configuration even with the RC-64. If my RC-52 could keep up with my RF-3's when I had it, your RC-62 darn well can keep up with your RF-82's. Is this a statement on the shortcomings of the room correction software in his receiver?

Or experiment.

That is probably THE cleanest set of 1973 Heresy's in the world. You are free to market them anywhere and at any price you desire - they are your speakers. Personally, I would pay more than your asking if I was in the market and I am sure anyone who appreciates them would, also. Are you sure you want to sell them? They are most likely, as you stated, Museum quality.

I don't have photos. Sorry. But I can tell you the room they are in is fully carpeted. The 37s are 12 inches off the rear wall, 4 feet off the side walls, and 9 feet apart. I sit dead center 9 feet away - a perfect triangle. Ceiling is 8 feet. Subwoofer is kitty-cornered as it should be. Speakers are controlled by an Anthem mrx-710 using ARC room correction.

I think you got a good buy, they are awesome speakers. What will you power them with? Finally a review from someone that own Khorns and Palladiums. Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Just curious, which Palladiums do you own? Am I to understand that this forum, above all other forums, has no direct comparisons of these two systems? That's rather interesting. I have the 37's. The dealer had 38's to demo, but not the 39's. The 38's presented a larger soundstage (of course) and I could easily be persuaded into believing that the 39's surpass the stage of the Khorns. Both of those models were too much for my intended needs so I settled on the 37's. Mind you, I have two different amps so it may account for some of the sound differences I described. And of course everyone has different tastes when it come to music. But...when I first got them I did an A/B comparison on the same amp and from memory, I would say my description above is accurate. I would add that the Palladium's seemed to have more dimensions and depth. They are the closest I have come to the sound you get when you have on a quality headphone. You know that sound right? Well the Palladium reminds me of it. The detail; the richness; the smoothness and the depth. I do hear things from them that I do not hear on the Khorns-at least not as clearly. The only areas the Khorns exceed the Palladium's is the low end and the very large soundstage. Everywhere else they do not - even against the lowly 37's. But again, that's just my opinion.

Khorns are now $12,000. He got an exceedingly good deal.

Brand new B-stock Khorns for $7k, especially with the minor damage the pictures show, is acceptable. The main thing is that you are happy, and if you have proper corners and room size you will be happy. What anybody on this site says really doesn't matter. You mentioned 'P-series.' I assume you are referring to the Palladiums. Of which I have. It's my main reason for responding to your post - to give you an opinion of the Khorns v. Palladiums. My 2 channel room is on the large size and the Khorns do a wonderful job of filling the space. My Palladiums are for home theater and are in a smaller area. When cooking or entertaining the Khorns are pulling music duty. But when I want to relax by myself I will usually turn to the Palladiums, kick back in the recliner and lose myself in the music. They do not have the soundstage of the Khorns, and I don't require it in this smaller room, but they provide more detail and clarity, and are much smoother, IMO. Put the matching sub with them and they are better than Khorns. You cannot go wrong with either system.

That is a horrible picture for a father to paint in front of his child. Certainly one that will stay etched in your mind forever. I'm sorry for that. But since your brought up drinking, did you know that 2.5 million people die from alcohol-related deaths each year world wide? Far more than guns in the U.S. or even world wide; almost 7,000 every day. And millions more suffer from the effects? A terrible drug to be sure! Yet, it is legal here in America for anyone over a certain age. No license required to purchase, no locks on any bottles and readily available at every corner market, and not constitutionally protected. I'm willing to make a case that guns, while dangerous, serve multiple purposes and is a useful tool. Alcohol however, classified as a drug, serves only one purpose: to alter the state of our minds. And in the process can kill - a definite downside. So, why aren't we up in arms over alcohol? Perhaps because this isn't the narrative in our media or government? i.e., we are being told what to focus on? What would be the nation's response to the MSM running this headline incessantly everyday?: "Today in America alone, 750 people died from alcoholism, and another 7,000 people in the world passed away from this dreaded drug." And then the president was visiting AA facilities? Are we so easily manipulated?

Depending on who you're referring to, there was a ban. 2 aggressors spanning multiple threads but only 1 ban? It is a rhetorical question. I'm just working out in my head the machinitions so that I have an understanding of how the TOS is applied.

And yet, for all of their thoughts on paper, which I do not discount lightly, they wrote the Declaration of Independence which includes this famous passage:But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." And signed by a number of the founders. I'm interested in hearing thoughts on how they could support such a passage, fight a war against the nation that inspired the passage (with muskets), Write and pass an Amendment supporting "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." only to have future generations hold that perhaps they never meant to "put in place [the 2nd amendment] to protect individuals from the tyranny of state or local government." There are books and law review articles on this issue. Read the majority opinion in Heller and the dissent is you are sincerely interested. After that look read up on Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Madison and GW were not too sympathetic towards armed uprisings against their new govt. It is pretty clear in Heller that there is an individual right of self-defense. You just don't get machine guns, even if they have tanks and bombers. If they have a warrant you may not have a right to self-defense. How come no one crys out for the 4th Amendment? I have a very busy schedule these days and my downtime (all 1/2 hour or so) is usually spent unwinding. As much as I'd like to (and did like to), I just cannot muster the energy. Therefore, I'm more interested in the thoughts of people who I can interact and share opinion and questions. Still not sure this is the place to do it in light of the some comments on another thread - surprised actually that the offender wasn't banned (as I see a post from him/her this morning), but I digress. And, I don't think Thomas or Scalia or any of the Supremes would take my calls. Easier to pop in and out of here between meetings or whatever when I have a moment. I just realized my comment could be construed that I am lazy and I want to be spoon-fed answers. This isn't the case. I don't want answers so much as I am looking for a healthy exchange. I'm no there to change opinions nor do I seek to change opinions.

Would you say that laws against private gun ownership over the last 20 years have increased or decreased? Does the fact that they increase cause you to fear they are promoting gun rights? How many gun safety courses are sponsored by federal government, to promote gun ownership? Does the NRA receive any funds from the federal government? Would you deny there are powerful legislators at the federal level who wouldn't do exactly as you describe given the proper circumstances? The signs that the federal government isn't fond of, and would like nothing more than to remove all the guns from the nation, are everywhere! Some evidently, just refuse to see them. First, they'd shut down the arms makers, then the gun shops, then grab all the records, and then announce a time for you to turn them in, and when you didn't, you could expect the ATF or surrogates to blow your doors open. Astounding, you act as if gun owners would stand for this without firing a shot. You don't consider actions like this on behalf of the federal government would invite the possibility of enormous death? Gun confiscation isn't just a walk in the park, especially in a nation with as many as there are in America. Where were all the ardent rights protectors when the Patriot Act was passed? Where were all these Constitutionalist Defenders when the rights to privacy were shredded in the phone tapping revelations? Whenever the US government wants to change the rules, they simply change the rules, and the citizenry complies silently. Calling and writing their legislators, perhaps. Could it be possible that it just wasn't being reported by the MSM? They don't always report what you should know or want to know, but they'll always report what they want you to know. How much takes place behind closed doors on behalf of your federal government that you have no clue of? I would wager a heck of a lot. So just because you aren't hearing the screams, doesn't mean the screaming isn't happening. But I would submit that should the federal government do what you said they would do above everyone in the country would hear those screams. And that is exactly the reason they don't just come and do it, because they know they have to do it over the course of time.

Far and away the most notorious mass murderer in America is our own government. They simply do it somewhere else. It is the same government that is working feverishly to disarm its own citizens.

And yet, for all of their thoughts on paper, which I do not discount lightly, they wrote the Declaration of Independence which includes this famous passage: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." And signed by a number of the founders. I'm interested in hearing thoughts on how they could support such a passage, fight a war against the nation that inspired the passage (with muskets), Write and pass an Amendment supporting "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." only to have future generations hold that perhaps they never meant to "put in place [the 2nd amendment] to protect individuals from the tyranny of state or local government."

Thank you. My post was simply an observation that perhaps, had defendant appeared, there may have been a different outcome in Miller. I like the case and find it rather interesting on different levels, purely for selfish reasons I suppose. You've made yourself very clear that it doesn't carry much weight. I appreciate your thoughts.

Forgive me for laboring here but I am trying to understand your position and these two statements seem to be at odds.

in a sense, the government is a criminal. Everything they give one person was taken from another. I don't even think they wear masks anymore. An argument could be made that this is what compassionate societies do to help the less fortunate. Yet still others would argue the exact point you just made.

Is that analysis current, or from 1950? Because I wouldn't be surprised of far different results from those two time periods. Hmm. Then the 1950 data I ask about should prove the elitist system in full bloom, correct? After all, the country at that time was almost 200 years old and if it was designed to benefit the elite, it should have been well established by then? Or are you saying we are just now reaching the intended design? I would respectfully disagree with your whole premise in that the American system WAS the best ever designed. That doesn't mean we didn't have some faults, but we worked to fix them. The problem is, in my opinion, it is currently being ravaged from all angles. I suspect the results of that ravaging are shown in the analysis you speak of, and that the results from 1950 would stand head and shoulders above practically every other country now or historically. To summarize, we are no longer the country we were meant to be and have past our pinnacle - our slide has commenced and your data is reflecting those results.

This post was a mistake. I regret it and would delete it save that it has been quoted. It is not relevant to the discussion. Too much wine is the excuse I will use.