glens

I understand that, but not that the AA was ever a "constant impedance" design. To be made into one surely requires a change in reactive component values to match the new impedance constant. Right? When I said what I said I was assuming the reactive components were going to remain unchanged.

I paid my 99 cents for Hi-Fi Cast and don't regret it in the least. Fantastic app! I'm able to feed my NAD C338 via its Chromecast with gap-less, replay-gained music with it through either phone. Highly recommended.

Seeing how some English-speaking folks in the southern hemisphere drive on the wrong side of the road (not on the right), I have to ask: how are your clocks oriented where you're at?

Well, it's not exactly nonsense. Wikipedia what went on 100 years ago with the "Spanish flu". I don't think there were even trans-Atlantic flights then. Folks traversing the world on a whim has got this bug some wide-spread traction.

Unless they only produce to order (don't know) there ought to be some out in the pipeline anyway.

Anything current ought to be able to digest FLAC. Outside of Apple's exclusive sphere it's the gold standard.

Okay. Yeah, that was the article I remember having seen some time ago. I'd forgotten, however, that it was the creation of a Specialty Speaker Wire Manufacturer... It's disingenous, flat out. If that statement in red (my emphasis) were true, it will have already happened in the output transistor leads and wire connecting them to the output terminals on the back of the amplifier (or the equivalent tube circuitry). Assume for the moment even one new spurious frequency has been thusly created. Will it be made worse by a single 12' run of wire (is it a new new frequency produced per unit length or just the one-time creation because it's a single conductor)? How could a dual 12' run of wire remove it? Or does the dual run merely prevent further production of the anomaly? What about the leads connecting the phono cartridge to the pre-amp, and all the leads/traces interconnecting processing/amplification stages? Surely there must be nothing left of the original signal anyway by the time it even gets to the speaker wires! There's more intermodulation produced than original signal by now, right? Hogwash. "But here are some confusing statements and pretty graphs to back them up. Buy our wire, and all these problems will not be presented to your speakers" (which would be a true statement other than the implication the non-presentation is a result of their wires).

The "which is it" is that, indeed, the exact same electrical signal (full-range voltage, which is the potential) is present in all of the wiring. Due to the varying impedance of the crossover elements, more, or less, of the present voltage will produce current. Plug some numbers into the Ohm's Law equations. At any point between the amp and crossovers in any of the wiring at any frequency, the V will be the same (with reasonable runs of reasonable wire, that is). Determine what the terminal impedance is at some frequency and you'll be able to find the current flowing through the wire at that frequency. Remember, the presence of full-range current within a conductor is not a "bad" or "undesirable" thing in and of itself. It's not a form of distortion and it will in no way confuse the wire or the speakers, nor degrade the sound quality. The usual caveat applies: sufficient wire size for the application. I'll look over that link in a minute and get back if there's anything more I feel needs saying. If memory serves, all these recent posts should have it covered.

Well, pretty much what DirtyErnie just said is what I've been saying, and the article is wrong in the mental image it's depicting. The bollards and water traps do not exist anywhere but in the crossover components. As I'd said, the same potential at all frequencies is present at all points in all the wires at all times (assuming they're not grossly undersized, of course). As I'd also said, but not as succinctly as did Ernie, the current at different frequencies will be different because of the crossover elements at the far end of the wires. In a graph showing the current flow as in that un-referenced article, sure, it appears as though there's less signal modulation in each of the separate wires. But if the current is measured on the 4-inch leads inside the amplifier, it will show all the modulation which is always going to be there, and it's not a detriment. It's not distortion. That un-referenced article was either mis-informed or dis-honest in declaring the "removal" of the "modulation" a benefit of bi-wiring. He'd get exactly the same graphs of current flow taken either side of the crossovers. The only benefit to bi-wiring is the net effective increase in conductor capacity, if such results from the exercise. If you bi-wired using wire with "X" capacity, or mono-wired using wire with "2X" capacity, you'd have exactly the same end result. At audio frequencies the differential effectiveness of typical wire over typical lengths, due to frequency (skin effect), is totally a non-issue, in case you're wondering.

https://2d73e25b29782b6d6766-9c8af5cbfef16739445bc76457060528.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/HERESY_NAMING_130607_635120786482620000.pdf

Even during / after repeated comparison both ways? Just curious as to the extent of your acquired experience in reaching that determination. Not calling you out on it.

Haha! I can't remember why I didn't refute that when it was posted! As I'd said, the potential energy at all frequencies ends up at both (separate, and separately fed) crossover input terminals. The impedance is so high for the unused portion (either way) that the energy merely goes unused for all intent and purposes. So it does effectively "just go away." As to the "common-wire IM," well, what about the internal wiring in the amplifier? I've seen probably the same "look at the IM" graphs you've seen, and I merely shrugged my shoulders at the author's inability to understand why they appear that way (hopefully he wasn't merely being dishonest). If there's IM being generated in a common wire (or transistor lead), it's already been introduced within the amplifier and no amount of separate external wire will make it go away!

The Heresy has been ported previously, just not in the "home" lineup.

Be sure to take copious notes!

Stock driver, Forte III horn looks best.

Your sketch is correct, and and it'll likely work well enough for you.

I'm thinking the numbers are dB reduction levels, so bigger is higher reduction. And that the impedance seen by the crossover will become higher, so a parallel resistor would be correct. But the resistor will also consume signal, dropping the output of the driver yet more. So you'll end up at more than -3 dB output. ("upwards" of -6?) Might be better to leave the tap alone and use a combination of series and parallel resistors after the transformer such that the impedance stays nominally the same. Or use just a series resistor upstream of the crossover, but then you'll have to move the tweeter crossover stuff ahead of that unless you want to maintain the mid-to-high relationship.

The notion of using such a device in such a way had never crossed my mind before stumbling upon this (my first audio-related) forum whenever-it-was ago. Upon encountering it the first time, my immediate thought was wondering just how well-calibrated such a meter might possibly be at various specific frequencies and whether, because of that, it's actually suitable. Certainly not one that cost less than (and is actually worth) several hundred dollars, I'd guess. Do they come with documentation indicating their inherent frequency response characteristics?

I'm thinkin' a mold is made and that a second-party version would be problematic for the entity in its possession. I concur. It appears as though you just might could cancel your order for whatever it is you're waiting for before it's all said and done!

Will last longer than one who calls boneheads "simpletons"!

Try "Hey You" on Pink Floyd's "The Wall" for similar scintillation.

If the one you have didn't work (it might), isn't there one usually molded into the flipside of the rubber platter mat?

There's a market for them? I've got a type IV, but it's 40 years old. I think they sold both it and the type III concurrently for a while, but the type II is surely older than mine. I haven't used it in over 30 years and wouldn't have expected to be able to even give it away!

That's because hypex.com isn't correct. Their registered domain is hypex.nl

The only problem with that is the greater chance that you'll be then responsible for introducing it wherever it is you retreat to. I feel everyone ought to hunker down right where they are. Quit travelling.