glens

If you need a ground conductor because you've got three-prong power cords and no ground conductor in the wall, that's one thing. The way a GFCI works is on the exact same principle as when you're using an inductive ammeter ("amp clamp") you want only one leg passing through the coil or the wire magnetic fields cancel each other out. For the GFCI both conductors pass through a coil and any imbalance in current between them because energy is leaking to ground directly somewhere somehow instead of all returning through the "common" wire causes a reading which then causes the circuit interruption. Granted it would be nice to know you've got equipment troubles that way, but the whole idea is to provide protection for people (why GFCI is required within outstretched arms reach of a faucet, where you could become a replacement of the common leg for returning current to ground). In and of itself the device is not meant to be an overcurrent protection, though the two functions can be combined within (expensive) panel breakers.

Yep. Manufactured. And for what it's worth, they are not (never were) as "silver"-colored as most. A more yellow-to-gold tint to them. Definitely not archival quality...

Here are a couple of "properly-stored" discs. A waste of time trying to get usable data off them. (They're both European, I believe French, not to be slurring those fine folks - I've got a smattering of French DNA myself.) In the second one you can see the TOC area (they read from inner-to-outer) is particularly heinous.

I'm not Chris, do you want to know what I think? That's 5 minutes I'll never get back! A lot of assertions casually made, some of which would have extended the video many-fold were I present when he made it because I'd taken him to task.

Thank you.

https://linux.die.net/man/1/sox is the sox "man page" (a manual). Read until you get to the mention of "audacity" (which may also perform the function - I don't know off hand but expect it does), then "search/find in page" for deemph for some good info. If audacity will apply deemphasis and you're not so "hacking" inclined (sox is a command-line tool - which is better for batching than graphical utilities), it is surely (and freely) available for your computing platform of choice. With either software you should be able to play the file, however you direct its modification, directly to the sound card without creating a new file or modifying the original stored copy (you'll merely be reading the file and piping all modifications directly to the sound system). Of course you can write to storage anything as well if you wish.

Depending how the flac files were obtained (ripped from CD on a PC?) they may well have high-frequency emphasis that wasn't removed at the time, with no "flagged/tagged" way of knowing now whether it should have been. There may be other software which also does, but I know for sure "sox" has an option to apply redbook deemphasis to whatever it's handling. Perhaps you can find a packaged version for whatever system you're running and experiment with some of the suspect files. The software is free open-source stuff. (Which means that at the least you can peruse the code/documentation to see what constitutes proper deemphasis and duplicate another way, perhaps.) The other two sources you mentioned are most likely right in terms of emphasis, so with them you're left with: If by "source" you mean record labels (or whatever they're called now), that's always been an issue on every format in my experience. If your audio equipment matches what they listened with to "master" the recordings (possible) and you can match their settings and room treatments (quite unlikely), then you'll be hearing what they thought sounded good. Otherwise, the more neutral and accurate your system is, the more you'll be hearing the inverse of how far from neutral and accurate their system was. That's to say that if, for example, theirs was bass-shy it'll be bloated for you, and if theirs was soft or hot in the treble it'll be bright or dull for you, etc. Wouldn't it have been (or be) nice to have standards in this regard? Well, we can flac-encode crap sources, too. All flac does is ensure the original content will be decoded bit-perfectly to whatever it was that was flac'd.

From a different angle so far explored, what is the source of your "classical" music? And how are you "playing" them if CDs? Also, if CDs, what are their vintage? I ask because fairly early on, classical CDs (more so than other types) could contain pre-emphasis of the highs, rather like Dolby B. There are two ways to indicate the presence of pre-emphasis: in the disc's Table Of Contents, and in a track's sub-channel. When I ripped all my CDs to flac for "serving" the music from my computer I found several which indicated pre-emphasis in their TOCs, and several which didn't yet did in sub-channels. I understand that most if not all dedicated "CD players" get things right and apply the necessary de-emphasis, while computer-based "players" often (typically?) don't. Hence my questions to you: a lack of de-emphasis when called for makes the music sound bright, or lacking in bass.

Do we??

Yep. Rip them to flac sooner than later. I've got some from the late '80s that have deteriorated beyond usability.

Canon fire ought to have info below the cutoff on a khorn if it's recorded well, but do you really want to subject your structure to much of that?

I'm guessing it's a copyrited work and Klipsch won't provide the file, if there even is one. Likely printed from a plate anyway.

As far as the wires to feed them it depends what length they need to be for minimum size. If they're 25' or less then #14 stranded copper. You can get a 50' spool of "speaker wire" at Home Depot for cheap-enough. Probably a bit more expensive at a corner hardware store but if it's handier to you likely worth the savings in travel. You definitely don't need anything exotic.

Where are you crossing at?

Yeah, highs to the middle, but my concern would be with the horn dispersion patterns which are largely the shape of the horns if I understand correctly. If true, you should not expect as uniform a soundfield as what you presently have or could have with them. Would they fit upright but inverted atop the shelves?

We may have covered this ground before, but I always wire rooms (except kitchens/baths) with 12-3 so there is a switched leg also available in every outlet box for handy-dandy reconfiguration at will. It's only a few extra bucks at the outset, but immeasurably cheaper down the road.

Have your electrician install enough outlets right where you need them, with a wall switch handily inside the door to the room? You shouldn't need GFCI, but surge protection wouldn't hurt.

Rather common method for a lazy person running signal wires in a slab-floor home, or finished basement. Maybe they did it while they had the tile up to go carpet, and maybe they went to carpet so they could do it. You wouldn't have to take up the tile to go carpet, so it seems like a remodel, but if they were doing that, why didn't they go thru the attic or ceiling with the wires? Is it a basement or main floor (ground level)? Is the wall they disappear into in the second pic an outside wall with maybe a box mounted there, and if so, what does the box look like? I wouldn't have suspected doorbell; phone or speakers would be first guesses for me. Obviously you're not going to need them if it was speaker wire (or perhaps intercom), and most likely unnecessary to you for phone. I've done floor covering professionally and have "laid rug" over wires like that when found under what was being replaced (wasn't getting paid to do it correctly). You could rent a concrete saw and cut some shallow channels for the wires (either a lot of dust and/or water to contend with) or you could put down thin underlayment with the necessary runway gaps if moisture won't be a problem. Either way more expense/effort for something you don't need, if you don't. What are the wires for? :^)

Okay, so KPT is left unsettled. How about KI or KDA (are there more)?

And/or no idea how to adequately document what it is they've implemented. I've got a Harley with a factory HK radio/CD player that was used for several model years - a mature product. When encoding mp3s to disc for it, if I want to have the channels emit from the proper sides I must swap them while encoding. Radio and CD ("proper") work correctly so it's not a wiring snafu, rather a firmware issue. They've moved on to different head units now but the latest firmware for that generation, available for download from H-D.com today, is still buggy that way. Maybe the fault is mine for never telling them... On a bike it's rather immaterial, but unless you're standing behind them, John Entwistle should be on the left.

I'm using the little sister. I paid ~$500 for a refurb from Crutchfield. If I had to pay full price I'd probably get the C368 with the BlueOS module. But it certainly meets my needs. The downside is no tone controls (though I have ever rarely used them, so not so "down" as the "side" could be) and no tape loops or pre-out power-in. The upside is it's got 3 antennae, 1 each bluetooth in (only my son ever uses that - not AptX so medium quality sound), 2.5 GHz wifi, and 5 GHz wifi, with a very usable DLNA implementation. The built-in Google Chromecast Audio works well, so long as you're connected to the Internet, 'cause Google's intrusive that way, which is why I mostly never use it. It seems I've seen something negative about the BlueOS implementation for the C368/388. I forget what it was. More of an inconvenience than a show-stopper is all I recall. I've been a fan of NAD since the late 1970s. Not that I think it's the best available, but it's likely the best bang for the buck available. I also like Yamaha gear in general, but a company that spreads itself out as much as they do (power sports, electronics, and musical instruments, at least - all arguably good) just kind of rubs me the wrong way. Overall, NAD is the first place I look.

After getting great-looking charts in the article Moray linked-to the author goes on to say: "After a month of twiddlng around, how did it sound? Well - not as good as it looked. The balance wasn't right; it was too bass-heavy. In terms of coloration and image quality, the speaker was much better, and the "PA sound" coloration was gone. "The balance problem could be partly alleviated by putting the speakers farther into the room, audiophile-style, but the Chorus, like the Cornwall, is a physically imposing speaker, and looks odd sitting in the middle of the room. This experience shows that it's easy to get led down the garden path - the measurements above are some of the best I've seen, but trust me, the modified Chorus was a long way from being one of the best. I undid all the mods and returned them to stock condition, and the bright, fresh Klipsch sound was back." Very interesting.

Well in the mean time, if you've got the time, you ought to give it a whirl. At least you can PEQ the individual drivers, apply crossovers, and get the relative delays set, all close enough for a starting polishing point later if you don't get it right-enough (but I bet you do). You can certainly get it better than how you're running them now, right?

That blue trace in the last graph Chris posted is just such an animal. And if I understand correctly, that's with a single amp driving full-range through a passive crossover. I want me some.

Back when he mentioned the crossover I did some research and I could've swore the response graphs crossed below 1k. Must've been something else, but whatever it was had the "mid" adjusting pad. No, I've still got the PDF of the manual. Here's a couple screenshots. I just never got to the specs. Thank you.