glens

Reference this recent photo in the General forum ("Heresy troubleshooting"): I'm calling that woofer magnet "alnico."

Can't say by the photo whether the top two are but the square magnet is definitely mud.

Very thorough (absent connection breaking/re-making) and logical examination. Both mids, one more than other show symptoms. 40-year-old equipment transported. If it's a crossover component(s), yet to be determined, it's unlikely that between caps and coils it's the coils.

Depends a bit, I guess, on both the speaker and the amp. I say it often (even earlier in this thread?), I find a NAD class D amp plays extremely well with Forte III. Many hours every day.

See the attached PDF. I tried to look at several of their review measurements to see if there was a characteristic trend - sort of is but also relatively inconclusive. See if the plot in this review helps any. Also, there's this thread and the followup (which ended unended). forte_III-hifi_news_review.pdf

4311s vs. Forte IIIs. Hmm... I'd like to hear that comparison. I've always been fond of those JBLs, very much so, but I haven't heard a pair in decades. I'm now running some current Fortes and consider them the best money I've ever spent on speakers.

Signal going to a driver which is bandwidth-limited at its upper end (woofer, squawker) goes through an inductor (coil) which causes a delay in the current waveform of 45 degrees. If that waveform took 1 second to make a complete cycle, after the inductor it would start 1/8 second late, then end also 1/8 second late.

Yep, 5 years is likely beyond WD's warranty on the drives anyway. Let me look that unit up and see if anything comes to mind that's worth sharing. When directing the CCA to play tracks off the NAS the only data passing through the phone should be information about the tracks, not the tracks themselves. The tracks themselves should go straight from the NAS to the CCA (unless maybe you're trying for gapless playback which might require buffering through the phone).

Any UPNP/DLNA control-point software that runs on your iphone should do that, and a web search for "iphone dlna control point" returns many references. Just out of curiosity, what NAS & firmware level are you using? The only benefit to upscaling is that it allows a gentler antialiasing filter to be employed, which is more likely an improvement to "feel good about" than to "hear a difference (actual improvement) with". Beyond that there can be downsides, at a minimum either more storage requirements and/or higher network traffic and/or (needlessly) more processing at the DAC (if it doesn't already do it on its own, that is), depending where/when/how it's done. That's true, so long as you're able to run a network cable to where the audio equipment is located. Depending on how you set up both the router and the Bluesound node (or whatever else you may choose), as well as the NAS, there can still be occasional network hiccups while DHCP leases are renewed, for example.

Agreed!

I'm thinking that if the speaker wire stays at room temperature while one is throwing everything they want at the speakers, the lamp cord, if that's what it is, is big enough for the task at hand. A $30 Chinese-made IR temperature gun can be used to determine that, and many other tasks around the house.

Further notions. You're not even using the DAC in the CCA which is running a Linux kernel along with some of the GNU stuff. Some other systems may be as good at what's going on in the CCA but I'd venture to say there's nothing better. The BlueOS is a more complete GNU/Linux system. Some of the hiccups you're experiencing with the CCA may not have anything to do with your internal wi-fi setup, rather interruptions with your external network service. This would not be a factor with the Bluesound setup. Finally, you may find a better control app for the CCA than what you're using now.

You'd pick up up to a few dB of overhead with the amp change, so in that respect it might not feel cost-effective. I can attest to the quality and value of NAD's current products as I'm using a C338. But I can't draw a comparison to what you've got now. The wi-fi issues you're having would likely follow along to any new equipment unless your CCA just happens to be positioned in a particularly "cold" spot. The CCA is "state of the art" enough in that respect. Just about any current DAC is going to be more than suitable vs. 13-year-old tech, though it's unlikely to be very much better either way. The streamed files don't have inherent jitter. They're just series of bits. Modern DACs are being run with internal clocks many times faster than the highest sampling rates you've got in your files, so even fairly frequent base clock hiccups just don't get thru to the audio. The networking is being handled by the OS that's overseeing the DAC. Network packets get dropped or mangled all the time. The OS merely requests replacement packets and sticks them back into the stream in the proper order before the DAC ever sees the data. The Bluesound node would probably be the best consideration in terms of value. One thing I dislike about CCA is the constant connectivity to google.com that's required for/during use.

The information coming from the port has characteristics that allow for coming from either the front or the back equally well so long as there's sufficient surrounding space. If replacement cabinets would be sitting in the same location as shown I believe port location would be a total non-issue. As to your question about horns, I'm assuming that you're suggesting a rear-firing port would make the front-firing horn sound even more front-firing than if the port was front-firing too. If that's the gist of your question, I'm confident in saying it's also a non-issue. One thing horns can do better than direct-radiating drivers is controlling sound output pattern so it won't "splash around" so much, and you may find that control to be favorable in your setup. But you may not... If there's any way you can audition alternative speakers in your room without first making a long-term commitment, I highly recommend that's what you do.

What, you're not an exceptional "typist"? Those first few (long-ish) posts were submitted mere minutes apart! I follow you precisely, by the way. Good stuff.

Ah, but you see, the shims of which I "spoke" can be cut down to ~25mm squares, as you'll surely need different thickness at each corner. But if you're intent on raising the boxes you can use the butcher-blocks and tear off matchbook covers to fill the gaps as needed at the corners to achieve plumb enclosures. Better yet, break out the precision level, determine the various differences required, and have your cabinetmaker fashion substitute bases (which simply screw onto the cabinet bottoms).

I would not do anything which significantly causes an open gap between the cabinet and floor. My first instinct would be to insert acutely-wedged shims as needed. Here in the ex-colony tapered shim stock is readily available at building-supply stores. It's typically available in ~14" lengths going from ~1/16" to ~1/4" thick by ~1-1/2" wide, usually cedar, sometimes pine. You slide them over each other (reversed) until the desired thickness is achieved. A short length can then be cut from the pair, with nothing more than a fresh-bladed utility knife. Seeing that you'll be shimming the fronts of the cabinets you'd then have to "deal with" their visibility, hahaha. Alternatively you could pry out the metal feet and in those locations drill and press in threaded inserts for use with (low-profile) adjustable feet, saving the metal domes for covering your handiwork should the need arise.

The document says (emphasis mine): "I tested five different types of twin lead cables: 18 and 24 gauge "zip" cord and three specialty cables, "Monster" Lucas cable, and Fulton wire (gold). I bought two samples of each of 18 and 24 gauge wire off reels at a local Radio Shack and a hardware store. All the cables tested were 10 feet in length."

There's not much depth to be had in the report, actually. Definitely fetch the PDF version linked on the page to get the full monty. The Fulton cable evaluated (as typical of them all) was 10' in length, so was likely robbed of its special magic. It was obvious he was non-plussed in general. In the conclusion he states: "Who am I to dispute the feelings of audiophiles who, evaluating any cable in the context of program source, amplifier, speaker, and listening room, decide they can hear the difference?" Evidently he'd wasted too much time trying in the past so merely gave up? I know that's about where I'm at...

[ Yours, a very happy bunny, ] Amen, brother!

Notice how on that second link if you enter .0001 MHz the skin effect depth is more than 1/4"?

I'm sticking with 12 up and 12 down on the mid looking at that PDF, Dean. Assuming the tap numbers actually mean anything on the auto, coming off at 4 out of 5 ain't going to be much voltage drop. Obviously they had something in mind and they do this for a living, but seems a lower tap would do the same thing as a series resistor with a higher tap (or a different value resistor allowing elimination of the autoformer). That's if there are actually multiple taps available for use on that unit, don't know... The only autoformers I've had much experience with changed pretty-high voltages to mediumly-high voltages for use in manufacturing.

Jeff, I've given up trying to convince you of anything. When someone states they disregard facts, favoring instead utter impossibilities, it becomes rather like trying to hand-feed a wild animal. No matter the good intent it's just futile. My post just above was entirely in jest. Information in a wire doesn't travel at the speed which light does in a vacuum and there are just too many approximations to be made to be able to concretely arrive at any solution which would be generally applicable to arriving at an ideal lead length based upon that. I'm not saying your friend and mentor wasn't able to optimize that particular system, but I am saying that that solution isn't going to have the same effect on any other system which doesn't exactly match it in every respect. It would be the same as saying "I turned the pot to 9:00 to load match my CB antenna (using a 2 terrahertz oscilloscope) so that means 9:00 is the best position for every such pot." What's more, well forget it. It's already been said many times by many people and you just don't care. RWF's lab work doesn't apply to your setup either.

How'd you end up with a single Forte III?

Haha! I was referring to his photos