• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good
  1. Is there any truth to the idea that notes below the human threshold of ~20 hz, or so, may not be heard but may be felt? --in a way that still adds to the experience? I wonder if frequencies above the human spectrum might somehow "augment" the audible range (even though we don't process them in our inner ear)?,.. Maybe that's super silly--or is it? Just curious. All of this is completely amazing, anyway. I still am bewildered to think dragging a sharp rock through a vinyl groove carries all that information.
  2. microwave energy (cell towers, mobile devices). Or, is it just me? We're all swimming in it.
  3. Hmmm. Thank you for setting that straight. My brain is still playing catch-up.
  4. No, I don't. Must have been sleeping through that particular lecture. Seriously, though--would not a 1 inch thick, solid core copper still only "carry" electrons on its outer surface? Have I got this wrong? (Gotta love this place) EDIT: "Kord Ultra Flex 10 Gauge... Each conductor is composed of 462 strands of the finest copper for superb audio accuracy... "
  5. Please, correct me in my error... but, isn't current carried on the surface of the conductor--and not the core? In other words, a 10 gauge "strand" (aka lampcord) has greater surface area than a 10 gauge solid (aka ROMEX). All else being equal, those tiny strands represent a much greater surface area than the equivalent "solid" wire? "Braided" wire seems another animal--unto itself--neither strand nor solid. I don't know how "braided" compares... but, I would think it closer to strand than to wire? As a point of reference: Due to its high degree of microporosity, just one gram of activated carbon has a surface area in excess of 3,000 m2 (32,000 sq ft),[2]
  6. This event is a direct function of the fall of the U.S. Dollar (and our losing "reserve-currency" status). Between 2008 and 2012 the Federal Reserve inflates the U.S. Dollar more than 600% [Flashback 2008: 'Quantitative Easing 1', QE2, QE3, and the finalé, QE4 (aka QE 'infinity': no ceiling... )]. Anyone remember? After that... who knows; find the stats, if you can... The largest movement of wealth in the history of civilization. I invite rebuttal (resistance is futile). As the world's reserve currency is destroyed, people of wealth look for shelter... That's what is happening now with bitcoin. Bear in mind: "Inflation" is not defined as an increase in prices (no, this would be a _symptom_ of inflation). Inflation, rather, is simply increasing the currency base of a fiat system. Pure and simple. That isn't me, that is Alan Greenspan talking. Via the process of "printing" money, those who control the issue of our currency do not need to tax, they can merely "print"... and by so doing--siphon "value" from the currency base. For those interested, I invite you to do the math.
  7. ^Thank you, for the clarification. My point was, my CW's sound "better" at lower volume than any other speaker I've ever owned. I don't have the vocabulary (or knowledge) to parry with engineers. But, if anyone dare question the value of high-efficiency Klipsch designs during a time of cheap power, I will defend. I will defend.
  8. I'm new here; new to high-efficiency speaker designs. If I'm wrong in my statements, please correct me. When I purchased my first-pair of "high-efficiency" speakers, it was for the purpose of listening to music at lower volume levels. [ high-efficiency translates to bass extension, clarity and detail at lower volume levels, correct? ] Previously, my 'best' speakers were full-range, single-driver Fostex, rear-loaded, quarter-wave horns... I thought these were good; I thought these were "efficient": I had no idea... I've never experienced LS, or Khorns... ; but, my recently purchased Cornwalls have me questioning everything I thought I knew up to this point. To re-iterate: Why anybody would want very high efficiency speakers?... How about: Clarity and detail at lower volume. In other words, you can "hear" more, with less (engineers call this "efficiency"). Hearing "more-with-less". That's why someone might want high-efficiency speakers.
  9. If you really want to improve your sound, why not stand in the backyard and burn $100 bills while your 'system' plays inside the house? I find this offensive; and strangely... entertaining.
  10. I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. The word KITSCH comes to mind. [An aside: I'm laughing right now. I can't help myself. Anybody that would take the time and expense to do this needs help]
  11. Maynard, my numbers may be of limited use--as the display on my digital multimeter will not register less than one-tenth of a volt (eg. 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, etc... ). A few days ago, when I first tried the test--I thought the meter was incapable of the lower measurements; because after many minutes I couldn't get it to read anything other than '00.0'. I tried it again today and turned the volume up beyond normal listening levels... To my surprise, the meter began bouncing between 0.0 and 0.1, sometimes 0.2, with infrequent peaks to 0.3-0.4. Without touching the volume control, and with an EXTECH sound level meter--from my listening chair, 14 feet from the speakers--the music levels hovered in the 72-80 dB range, with peaks to 84-85 [This is louder than my normal, maximum levels by about 5 dB, but necessary to get readings for this "trial"]. So, with the numbers I'm seeing--that translates to... ? •Amp = YAMAHA SS, 70W+70W @ 8 Ohms •One pair '83 Cornwalls, with B3 crossovers Addendum: I had my meter set to low range AC; but I'm thinking I still did something wrong... those numbers can't be right?
  12. Been reading through the available history... My initial confusion was in thinking CW drivers (all models) were configured "straight", like the current production. Seeing the older, previously optional driver configurations--it all makes sense. path to document: https://2d73e25b29782b6d6766-9c8af5cbfef16739445bc76457060528.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/Spec_600901_Cornwall_635120773557920000.pdf
  13. ^Thank you for clarifying that.
  14. OK. I'm pretty dense. I had to read through this thread again to begin to understand what others were saying... I can finally see, in the third photo, that the motorboard configuration is asymetrical--and does not follow a single axis as I had imagined. One can just make out the three openings behind the screen (the two horns are turned on-end, high and to the right). Now I see why the arrows are helpful. I've since read through the Heritage 'Codes' posted by : Groomlakearea51 , and I see the "Horizontal" CW was discontinued in 1974. Interesting. (Thank you, Groomlakearea51; that must have taken some time to put together! A great resource.) This is all of interest to me as my tiny house does not present a lot of placement options for my CWs. Mine have the drivers arranged in a straight line. If I can lay them on their sides--then I might try that. Anything I do is going to be less than ideal due to my space limitations.