• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About hsosdrummer

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran
  1. I didn't personally witness this, but here's a photo of an SR-71 J58 engine under full afterburner test. (The afterburner gets kinda hot...) P.S. Those F22 engine tests must've been f-ing LOUD!
  2. I lived under the landing pattern for Burbank Airport back in the early-mid 1980s, when Lockheed was building assemblies for F117s (Stealth Fighters) at its factory there. (Looooong since torn down after Lockheed packed up and moved to Georgia in the early 90s.) Around once a month (always at night) a C5 would fly directly over my condo on its way into the airport — you could tell it wasn't a commercial airliner because those four TF39s sounded nothing like the JT-8Ds that powered the 727s, DC-9s and MD-80s that usually flew into Burbank. When I heard those engines, I'd get in my car and make the 20-minute trip to the airport, parking at a side street just off the north (takeoff) end of the runway. There was a chain-link fence that provided a view of the entire runway from my left to my right. I could look down towards the Lockheed hangars, where the C5 (sometimes it was painted MATS white/gray, other times it was camo) was parked with its nose cargo opening elevated, and would watch as very large items (the size of a small school bus) covered by tarps (and surrounded by armed guards) were wheeled up the cargo ramp into the C5 — on nights when the runway was wet it totally looked like a scene from a spy movie. After a while the C5's nose would slowly lower, its engines would spool-up a bit and it would slowly (very slowly — from that distance it seemed no faster than a walk, but of course it was) make its way down the taxiway towards us (there were always several people at this vantage point — a C5 flying an approach directly over a valley with a population of over 1 million people makes for a poorly-kept secret indeed). It was only as the plane drew directly across from us did you get the full impression of just how BIG that thing was; it looked like a building was moving under its own power. The C5 would then turn towards us from the taxiway onto the runway and would wait there (just a few hundred yards away) while the pilots ran through their checklist or waited for takeoff clearance. Then they would spool-up the engines and HOLY SH*T, you never heard anything like that in your life!!! You were being shaken from the inside out as it roared past us, and in a surprisingly short distance it would be off the ground. We would watch it fly south gaining altitude until it made a graceful U-turn towards the north, heading (I assume) to either Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale (for final assembly) or all the way to Groom Lake in Nevada. We'd always wait until it was completely out of sight (and sound) before we went back to our regularly-scheduled lives. (One time one of the camo C5s never stopped after turning onto the runway and made a rolling takeoff. That was exciting!) Believe it or not, those C5 takeoffs (I probably saw a half-dozen over the years) were not the loudest aircraft takeoffs I've ever heard. That honor belongs to a B-52H that I managed to see take off directly over my head after an airshow at Van Nuys Airport. At the show I spoke with the pilots, who told me what time they were leaving the next morning, so I called-in late to work, parked my car and walked along the fence until I was directly under the takeoff path at the south end of the runway. Sure enough, the B-52 started its takeoff roll at exactly the time the pilot told me it would (SAC crews are meticulous about time) and flew directly over my head, no more than two or three hundred feet up. It was probably the loudest sustained sound I've ever heard in my life. Awesome, indeed.
  3. I used to live under the takeoff pattern a few miles from an ANG base that flew C130s. LOVED that Allison turboprop sound! The ANG unit disbanded around 1990 and I really missed hearing that rumble several times a day...
  4. You don't mention if the floor is carpeted or not. If it isn't, you need to put some area rugs in there. Reflections off of wood or tile floors can play havoc with an audio system. As for acoustic absorber panels, they will effectively absorb frequencies with wavelengths up to 2x their thickness — half the wave gets absorbed on its way in, the other half gets absorbed on its way out after reflecting off the wall. For example, a 2-in thick panel will absorb up to 4-in wavelengths (roughly 3kHz and higher). A 4-in thick panel will absorb down to about 1.5kHz. These relatively thin panels will do very little for frequencies near and below 1kHz (roughly a 1-ft wavelength, requiring a 6-in thick panel for absorption). Except at the areas of first reflection — all of which should receive absorption or diffusion (see below) — don't place absorbers directly across from one another. This can overly dampen a listening space, making it sound unnaturally dull. (I know this isn't your current problem, but overdoing absorption can simply trade one acoustics problem for another.) If you use absorbers on the bare walls above 8 ft, I recommend staggering them so that the wall space directly opposite of each absorber contains no absorption. This will help the room sound like a more natural listening environment. In my opinion your best bet for dealing with surface reflections in a large room is to diffuse them, rather than absorb them. Using the mirror trick described earlier in this thread, find the areas of first reflections and place bookcases or other irregularly-shaped furniture items there. This will randomize the reflections, reducing their amplitude before they reach the listening position. Another advantage to diffusion is that it generally works down to lower frequencies than absorption, since diffusers that are effective down to or below 1kHz are generally less expensive and more décor-friendly than absorbers that are equally effective down that low. If your room has serious problems below 100Hz, the only real cure is taking accurate measurements and using narrow-Q parametric EQ to reduce the large response peaks. If you measure large valleys in bass response DON'T attempt to use EQ to increase their output. You'll drive your amp(s) into clipping and will likely damage the speakers without having much real impact on the response. Placing your speakers in the room corners will minimize the number and intensity of bass response valleys, which can't be fixed with EQ, and will maximize the number and intensity of bass response peaks, which can be fixed with EQ. BTW, this type of sophisticated EQ to fix the bass is only available digitally. If you want to stay all-analog you're SOL and will have to use speaker placement, listening location placement and/or brute-force bass trapping (very large and very expensive) to fix bass response problems.
  5. Love the nighttime skyline photo! Nice work on the amp.
  6. In my experience with KHorns, the room is almost everything (remember, you're sitting inside of the bass horn). I had my KHorns in 5 different rooms over an 8-year period and can sum up my experience this way: Everything else being equal... They sound better in rooms with a rectangular floor plan than they do in rooms with floor plans that approach being square. In rectangular rooms they sound best when placed along the long wall. The larger the room the better they sound. The further apart they are (within reason) the better they sound. The more solid the corners the better they sound. Natural corners work best, followed by purpose-built artificial corners (I did this once, adding a half-height section of wall to form a corner, and that turned out to be the best-sounding room I ever had my KHorns in), followed by corners fashioned using large & heavy furniture (typically a bookcase) as one of the sides. In one room with a corner fashioned using a bookcase my KHorns sounded great; in another they didn't (although mostly for other reasons). Avoid rooms with dimensions that are integer multiples of each other. I spent 16 years living in a house with a living room that measured 16 ft wide by 16 feet deep by 8 feet high, and the KHorns just wouldn't work in it. Their corner placement created far too many standing waves at too many different frequencies that were exaggerated by the room's dimensions, and they sounded terrible at any practical listening position (huge frequency-response swings, lack of bass impact, poor stereo imaging, the list goes on...). I finally replaced the KHorns with a pair of Cornwalls (placed away from the corners), which worked far, far better in that room. When used in a "good" room, the experience of listening to 2-channel music through Klipschorns can't be matched by any other speakers I've ever heard (NOTE: I've NOT heard Jubilees). But in a "not so good" room they can be frustratingly disappointing, and can be bettered by any number of less expensive and less demanding speakers, no doubt including your LaScalas — with or without a subwoofer. I'm not saying that your room would be a "not so good" room for KHorns; I'm only saying that in my experience, the more things that are right about it (large size, rectangular floor plan, non integer-multiple dimensions, long-wall placement in natural corners) the better the chances are that KHorns will sound even better in it than your LaScalas do. P.S. For the past 20 or so years I've listened to music exclusively in multi-channel modes through my Klipsch THX home theater system (KT-LCRs and KT-DSs with a JBL 4641 subwoofer), and I'll never go back to plain old stereo, even if my old KHorn system would work in my current (cornerless) living room. FYI, my KHorn system was 3-channel L/C/R with a Cornwall center and a derived mono network built from plans published in one of the "Dope From Hopes", and was a huge improvement over 2-channel stereo.
  7. As a former model builder I heartily agree! Excellent diorama. And he clearly did a ton of research.
  8. I gotta get me one of those and go into the used car business...
  9. I'm thinking not suicide, but autoerotic asphyxiation gone wrong, like Michael Hutchins of INXS. Guy's on the road, married, away from his wife, doesn't want to fool around with groupies, but has seen/done it all and wants a little extra kick in his "solo activities". One mistake and it's "That's All, Folks". (Been there, but too afraid to done that...) Regardless, it still sucks.
  10. OK, I'll try that too. Thanks!
  11. Mmmm... gotta try the sugar the next time I do corn on the cob. P.S. No salt on watermelon. I eat it outside so I can spit the seeds indiscriminately.
  12. You mean 64s — all 63 coupes were split-windows.
  13. When you're 65 years old like I am, you don't have enough time left on Earth to spend it screwing-around with fixing stuff that doesn't work right when you buy it, so I buy NEW, period. New cars, new drums/cymbals/gongs, and new audio equipment, although I rarely buy audio gear — occasionally for my studio, but the only non-studio audio gear I've purchased in the last 21 years was a JBL 4641 subwoofer for my home theater back in 2014. (New, of course.) And when I buy a new car I ALWAYS get the longest extended warranty I can. Every time I've purchased a new car since 1983 I also bought the extended warranty, and with EVERY car I've had to use it and it more than paid for itself. Hope that's not the case with my 2-month old 2017 Chevy Volt, but it's covered bumper-to-bumper for 100,000 miles. (Did I mention that I HATE screwing-around with fixing stuff?) Of course, if I win the lottery I'm buying the cherry-ist 1963 Chevy Corvette split-window that I can find. (I know a very good mechanic and I'll pay HIM to screw-around with fixing it...)
  14. Have you noticed a difference in the bass with the Heresy's up that high? (Or are you using them with a sub?)
  15. Based on my 40+ years in the audio industry, here's my opinion of the hierarchy of the importance of audio system components (listed in order of most influence on the system's audible performance to least influence): 1) Loudspeakers. The ONLY components in the system that actually produce sound. The speakers contribute the overwhelming majority of influence on the sound of any audio reproduction system. You can swap amps or preamps forever and you'll never change the system's sound anywhere near as much as you will by changing the speakers. 2) Listening-room acoustics. Non-believers: Compare $10k spent on improving your room acoustics vs. $10k spent on that new preamp you've been lusting after and get back to me about which made the bigger improvement in how your system sounded. Be honest now; listen with your ears and brain, not with your heart (and wallet). 3) Signal source device if you still get your music by dragging a rock through a groove in a piece of plastic. If you get your music by decoding it from a robust set of numbers, this moves down to #6. 4) High-level amplification device. When connected to an actual loudspeaker, this becomes part of a two-way circuit that exhibits its own unique performance characteristics (as heard through the loudspeaker), so it's important to select a device that plays nice with the particular speaker. 5) Low-level amplification device(s). This matters a little more for rock-draggers and it matters a little less for number-crunchers. 6) Signal source device if you get your music by decoding it from a robust set of numbers. If you get it by dragging a rock through a groove in a piece of plastic, this moves up to #3. 7) (For number-crunchers only) DACs and other devices that deal exclusively with numbers — no analog circuitry. Once you eliminate jitter, they really all sound the same. If it contains analog circuitry, it belongs up in #6.