Endo

I am considering my first venture into tubes. Limited budget (don't laugh). I've been reading to educate myself... but still need to post a question. Despite the fact the Miniwatt N3 does not realize the potential of more substantial designs--my impression is it gets a passing grade by most who have tried it--and for its intended purpose, it does pretty good. Of its limitations, the only one that gives me pause is its not having enough "oomph" to fully feed large, direct woofers. My question: If I ran 2 Miniwatt N3's as monoblocs on Cornwalls, could I expect better low-end performance; or would the "oomph" available to the drivers remain the same? Appreciate any thoughts from those more experienced. [As an aside: While this may be completely unrelated, the reduced heat dissipation, due to the switched power supply, is actually a benefit in my circumstance. How does a switched power supply affect the audio signal; or does it? Have Googled this with no success]

^yes, thank you. I wrote "amps" where it should have read "volts" I went back and changed it. Yikes, I need to get off the court and go back to the bleachers. I fear I have crapped all over this thread, without meaning to.

Ok, I went back and read the instructions. This, taken from DIYaudio.com: "Any scale 20V or lower should be OK. Meters with only 200V AC scale won't be accurate enough for this test. " My meter's lowest AC setting is 200V. My results are rubbish. I should be a spectator in this and not a participant. [Imagine: An NBA fan jumps out of his seat during play and, full of enthusiasm, runs down onto the court, only to embarrass himself]

Ok, with the helpful guidance of Alzinski, my second trial might yield more correct results: •120 Hz: 93.0 dB at 12', 2.2 volts •220 Hz: 91.5 dB at 12', 1.1 volts Amp = YAMAHA SS, 70W+70W @ 8 Ohms; one pair '83 Cornwalls, with B3 crossovers

Oooops! Glancing over at the amp--I can see EQ is not flat. I'm embarrassed to say I was not conscious of this during the test... so, I need to do this again. Thank you for spotting that. I suffer from frequency specific hearing loss, and I'm nearly always correcting for my ears... With others around, I flatten it back out. What I like might be unbearable to good ears.

Schu, thank you, so much, for posting this. Terrific. I read somewhere (maybe on this forum?)... A music lover uses his equipment to listen to music. An audiophile uses music to listen to his equipment. I'm guessing there are plenty who do equal parts of both. Thanks again, very enjoyable. (what was it, 1960's?)

Maynard, ran trial again with test tones: •120 Hz produced 96 dB at 12 feet, 2.8 volts •220 Hz produced 88 dB at 12 feet, 0.9 volts If these number look wrong--they may be. I could have done something wrong--and also, my multi-meter is a cheap one (though my sound level meter is not). Amp = YAMAHA SS, 70W+70W @ 8 Ohms; one pair '83 Cornwalls, with B3 crossovers Again, this is perhaps 5-10 dB louder than I normally listen.

To be fair, as people do work, they bring value to a market. For instance, over the course of his life, if a sheep farmer brings a total $1 million in wool to the market--then that market has grown in size by $1 million (the money base grows in direct proportion to the wealth produced). This is not inflation, but simply a growing economy. Inflation is not a growing economy; but, rather, is when a currency grows faster than the wealth it represents--then the currency becomes worth less and less, per unit of measure. So, as Adam and Eve become 6 million people--the ever increasing productivity would very naturally cause the money base to grow along with it. In a "hard currency" or "money" based system--the relationship is always 1 to 1. When the the system is no longer tied to the wealth being produced (Wool, lumber, carrots,... or high-efficiency, low distortion speakers) then potential for inflation exists (this is fiat currency). In this condition, if those responsible for the issue of our currency start to "print" money faster than the rate of "wealth" being produced... then the currency becomes diluted (worth less and less). Think of it this way: You are one of four people playing the board game Monopoly. Every player (including the Banker) starts the game with the same amount of "cash". However, for the purpose of this illustration, we allow the Banker to "print" as much money as he wants (Quantitative Easing, v4), whenever he wants (The Banker, and no one else). How does the game end?

^Thank you. I wrote the word "line" when its actually multiple conductors within a single sheath; that was sloppy language. Compliance with the HDMI standard calls for active electronics to have provision for an external power source; effectively isolating the digital audio from the power line. USB does not, correct? I'm thinking those two should not be in bed together.

I agree, the Lounge may not be the best venue for this topic (I confess to scratching an itch without conscious effort). I'll try to be more disciplined. On the other hand, constructive disagreement is a good thing; a kind of friction needed to move forward. Thanks for the 'conversation'.

Ok, this is all very interesting. We're just talking here, right? No need to leave friendly discourse? The terms "Money" and "Currency" are not interchangeable; and often confused. Money has both intrinsic and inherent value; whereas currency has only intrinsic value (In a Venn diagram, money is the subset). This distinction is important: Due to its inherent value, "money" cannot be inflated. Currency, on the other hand, can be inflated; and fiat currency--especially so. Immediately following the Revolutionary War--the economy of the United States was reeling from inflation, bordering on hyper (47%). The single, greatest contributing factor was the nearly worthless "Continental" currency which had been printed to exhaustion when the government was penniless and up-to-their eyeballs in war debt. As the framers of our Constitution set about their work (still reeling), Article One, Section Ten was worded so as to reduce future inflationary risk of our new nation to zero. Obviously, we do not observe this clause; and have not for a long time. So, my point is: Treating something as if it were a commodity, may give it de facto status; but, to describe fiat currency as a commodity is both inaccurate and misleading. The more important discussion may be: When inflation occurs, who are the winners and who are the losers? [As an aside: If the currency base of the U.S. Dollar is "X", at a time when the DOW is at 1,000; and the the currency base quadruples to 4X, wouldn't the DOW have to reach 4,000 simply to maintain par? In other words, if the currency base goes up 400% and the DOW 180%, then hasn't the DOW lost over 50% of its value?]

While it doesn't begin to explain all that is going on, the correlation I mention exists. The rise of stronger currencies resulting from the collapse of a weaker one is a matter of history. Anyone under the impression the U.S. Dollar is "stronger than it was" doesn't know which shell the pea is under. My apologies for the schoolmarmish tone earlier; but, let's not reduce ourselves to trading insults. My first foray into The Lounge. Exhilarating.

I don't know if these really exist? You see pictures of these things on Amazon: they've got an HDMI plug on one end, and RCAs on the other. I got curious and ordered one myself... not knowing. It did nothing. It seems HDMI-out is looking for a "handshake" of sorts, from HDMI on the receiving end--before it works. That's why the extractor works: It takes care of the HDMI handshake before it outputs to analogue. The only thing I could see those simple adapters for is to send an analogue (RCA) output upstream to an HDMI receiving end. I don't have that setup.

^ yes, me too... (by the way, goes without saying, but those are beautiful cabinets) EDIT: Ok, this is all good fun, and all... but if I became aware of anyone with the intent to place a physical object in the excursion path of one of my Klipsch drivers (read: obstruction of justice) I would have to invoke the Castle Doctrine.

I use the same HDMI Audio Extractor as CECAA850. Also, got it from Monoprice. I'm happy with it. Before I bought this HDMI audio "extractor"... I had been using a Dell laptop (via USB) as a dedicated, digital music server (variety of formats, incl. FLAC)... and had been shopping around for a USB dac, when I happened onto another thread (on this forum) where people were describing the benefits of this extractor. I ordered one, and... it works. Many others on this forum know far more than I ever will, so please, I invite correction if I've got this wrong... But, USB (from an engineering standpoint) was never intended to carry high-fidelity audio, correct? To my point, USB carries not only the two channels on one line (compromise); it also carries the POWER on this same line! (Is anyone else squirming and fidgeting--just a little bit--at the thought of inviting a power supply to share conductors with your audio signal? Anyone? See: JITTER). This "sharing" of the infrastructure was done as an efficient compromise--to do what was in the best interest of ALL the interests of this general-purpose, do-all, peripheral interface connection. And it does so, with aplomb. The USB is a great connection; the best, for what it does. However, almost overnight, USB became the ubiquitous replacement (and improvement) over all existing predecessors (anybody remember 14 pin?) for personal computer connections to peripherals. Just like the Microsoft Windows Operating System, it found itself with the largest user base, despite the fact it was not the most stable, powerful and reliable of operating systems. With its omnipresent, new status--manufacturers used it for everything... regardless of suitability. It was cheap, easy and nobody complained. 3rd party hardware quickly followed, to de-crappify the USB signal. Anyway, why crap on your audio signal if you can avoid it? As I understand it, HDMI, in its origins, is inherently more suited for high-fidelity audio than is USB; and this is NOT a criticism of USB. USB is unsurpassed at its intended purpose. Its just not the best interface for every imaginable connection; including high-fidelity audio.

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.

microwave energy (cell towers, mobile devices). Or, is it just me? We're all swimming in it.

Hmmm. Thank you for setting that straight. My brain is still playing catch-up.

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... "

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]

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.

^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.

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.

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.

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]