glens
-
Posts
2337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by glens
-
-
Thank God somebody else jumped on that, saving me in the process. I had not heard about a Star Trek script gaining such notoriety. I'm not saying I think it didn't happen. Only that I think ascribing any episode of that show very much influence on (widespread) current novel use of the language is reaching a little far. Always been a fan of the show.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, RadBlue said:
Get something from that site that was recorded in DSD and its just OMG
I thought no editing can go on within the DSD realm, that it's PCM until the final mix.
-
So you've either got to buy the transmitter for a couple hundred or design and build a pair of crossovers. If you can do the latter more cheaply than the former, time and material, then by all means go that route. Or buy the transmitter, or return (if you haven't touched tools to it) or sell the speaker you incorrectly bought. Simple.
-
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-skin-depth.aspx shows 461um for copper at 0.02 MHz, 448 for silver. That's 1.16 and 1.13 /64"
19 AWG (0.036") copper will be "fully" used by a 20 kHz signal, and only the equivalent of that out of larger gauges. Slightly less depth, evidently, for silver.
-
1
-
-
I forget the formula, but at DC the whole conductor gets used and at 60 Hz I believe it's down to ~1/2" skin depth. I oughta look it up to be sure but believe that at 20 kHz your plated wire is still moving a good many copper electrons.
-
No smaller than 14 AWG and no larger than 12. Stranded copper.
-
Should be. I don't know. I know the make Yamaha and that they've made some decent gear through the years, but that's all. No familiarity with anything any kind of current from them. I expect it'll be a fair value.
I looked up that NAD I referenced and saw $1300 prices, but they've evidently been discontinued and that could be a price indicating discount or jacked-up because they're highly desirable and drying up. I don't have a clue. I know I'd like to have their $3k model with the touch screen and those wonderful class D amps.
-
This is in Australia, too, so shipping and import duties to contend with. Tough choice, really.
-
I got that he was saying new undiscounted product is 22k and he can get the otherwise new demos for 7.5k.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Mark Thenewb said:
So what would you recommend me to get to power these speakers? I'm still lost here. I have people saying a lower model Yamaha would do just fine, while others are saying a higher model rated at 125 watts per channel is bare minimum.
It looks like the unit you've selected will prove to be a fair value. Apparently it'll make 90 Watts times 2 full-range cleanly. You may find it somewhat lacking when you want to fill your whole house with sound while you're showering, cleaning, whatever. Up to that point it ought to entirely satisfy you, for the money.
-
What's his name at AIX may still have his test up and running. He's taken some of his label's recordings at 96kHz/24bit (I believe), downcoverted a copy to 44.1/16, then upconverted it back again. You pick, by ear only, which is which and report back.
The frequency is slightly more than double that of the highest encodable program frequency. The bit depth is just the number of encodable volume steps. The higher rates and depths are beneficial for the processing required to achieve the end result. But once that final mix is made, good old CD-quality 44.1/16 is more than sufficient. That's what Mr. AIX says, and I believe him.
Last I saw, his test was going about as expected, with results hovering over the "basically guessed" middle area of the chart, as it were.
-
1
-
-
And to find out, compare the digital and analog feeds, then go with whatever's best if there's a clear winner even.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Coytee said:
To me, the capacitor, chokes and various parts.... are voodoo. I "get" what it does. What I don't get is having the same spec item (caps in this case) but one of those caps is generic, one is "esoteric" but again, same values.... what is different? Does one allow a cleaner bass (or trebel) signal to pass through? Is the signal more "pure".... in a side by side what is the end user going to experience to justify whatever his purchase is?
Better materials make for a better chance of better linear behavior throughout the usable spectrum over a greater length of time. But lesser parts would be preferred if there was more attention to detail in their assembly and you could only have one or the other. That's the way I see it.
I'm sure the caps in my Forte IIIs aren't the best-made available but they're working well enough at the moment. In fact, the only time I ever think about it is when reading posts here...
-
Really, for what you want, an $89 "smart" blu-ray player from Wally World ought to get the job done. Personally, I'd spend the time to rip everything to flac, copiously tag the files, and spend the money on something that'll grab the songs over wifi. Either something to feed your amplification or a newer amp with a DAC and a receiver.
-
1
-
-
It sounds good or not?
-
I thought an ignorant capacitor was going to have a question to ask of the forum... Where is it?
-
I couldn't get out of the "rich text" mode after pasting that in above. Kept wanting to add new formatted bullet points...
So that amp (the lowest model # AVR at nadelectronics.com) will make 420 Watts total over all its channels, full-range, at 0.05% distortion. I'd bet that's pretty close to the nearly 90 degree upward "knee" in the distortion/power graph. I don't know, but if that includes driving an LFE channel and you've got a self-powered sub, seems you'd still have about 420 Watts total for however many channels to divvy up (the capacity of the power supply(s) has got to be the limiting factor). If you're only using 3.1 or 5.1 you'd easily have 100 full-range-simultaneously Watts available for the two main channels. With most any Klipsch gear that would be fairly formidable for most rooms.
I don't know how the NAD AVR stuff compares to that from Denon, et al, but I'd wager it's no slouch, and frankly would be where I'd look first anyway. I've had NAD gear running (when anything was) since about '80.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Mark Thenewb said:
I apparently need close to 150 watts per channel to drive these speakers adequately, is that true?
It's hard to say whether it's true. Seems the electronics manufacturers have several standards from which to choose when it comes to AVR ratings. I don't do AVRs, and the other day someone mentioned one (a budget model, I believe it was Yamaha) and out of curiosity I looked it up. I don't reckon it was more than 5 channels, and the rating of "100 Watts per channel" was with only two channels driven at a single frequency at 10% THD. How is one supposed to compare on paper that against something rated like:
AMPLIFIER
- Power output Stereo Mode
- 110W (8Ω within rated distortion)
- Full Disclosure Power (all channels driven simultaneously)
- 7 x 60W (0.05% THD, 20-20kHz)
- IHF Dynamic Power
- 8 Ohms
- 137W
- 4 Ohms
- 243W
- Total Harmonic Distortion at rated power
- <0.08%
- IM distortion at rated power
- <0.08%
-
1
-
Only replace it with a 20 if you know for certain all the wire downstream is 12AWG.
It's likely just a weak breaker. Swap it with another of the same rating on a different circuit or replace it with a new one. They tend to degrade in rating a little with each trip. After a while (many trips) they'll trip at lower loads.
-
I guessed that's how they did it. I may have seen reference to them before. Even if the crossover to the center is as low as 1.2 kHz (a guess), the outer drivers have got to be more than a wavelength apart (across the middle). And there's still all the real estate consumed...
-
My first notion is those speakers are humdingers. Now if there were 7 channels of DSP feeding the tweeter array some interesting things could be done. Perhaps a higher novelty factor than useful-or-at-least-preferred. But I'd bet you could really shape the pattern of whatever.
-
Mine's 30-some feet by 14-some feet. Speakers about 9' apart, 4' from the total block wall corner on/for the right. I sit on the sofa against the drywall partition wall across from them. I think the ceiling barely eclipses 7' in height, at the walls. They'd not only cheapened-out by omitting another course of block, but get this, the floor joists above (1/2" drywall on "my" side) are 2x10s on 16" center without any bridging whatsoever! Like freakin' trampolines. I can drop my phone on a plush-enough chair one side of the "picture window" on the ground-level floor and the glass rattles in the coffee table in front of the sofa against the middle wall across the room.
I've built my fare share, doing everything from the footers to the ridge cap, and even doing add-ons I've never seen so many wrong ways to save a buck in construction get used all at once. But momma wanted it and I love her dearly and could live in a cave, so it's what I got. At least it's a full brick veneer on the outside.
If your studs aren't affixed to the foundation walls between the floor and ceiling and it's only 1/2" wallboard, that could be as gnarly as the block walls themselves, only different.
My situation is why I picked up a pair of Forte IIIs, figuring better-controlled directivity would be beneficial. It's working pretty well...
-
Maybe nobody at Klipsch reads their forums and your confession will go unnoticed.
-
On 4/13/2020 at 8:43 AM, Don Richard said:
The reactance value is not simply added to resistance. It is a vector summation of the two values
I like what I'm reading in this thread. In regards to that quote, the impedance value is the length of that vector, the hypotenuse in a right triangle. So it's actually the square root of the sum of the squares, which isn't terribly difficult math, but is indeed more involved than simple addition.
I'm pretty confident that most amplifiers will be happier with a laying-down vector than with one upright.
Over a frequency sweep on a speaker system I'd bet that vector looks kinda like a VU meter needle.
-
1
-
Digital and Higher Bit Rates
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
Maybe better to say they're just different masters. One evidently taken earlier in the stream, that was the basis for the last step. I'd likely opt for that, too. But depending on the rationale used in the final step, it could well become the "better" one to have... never know unless you hear them both!