glens

I, too, am amazed by what you're doing. Utterly. But amazement can be either in a good or bad way... I guess I'm a bit curious about the 57.125 inch deal. What's its significance? Did you miss my discussion of that a few pages back? Evidently so, as your quoted statement now constitutes a second indication, the first being your silence regarding my query when I'd brought it up. I wasn't the one that made the remark you're referring to, but I'll go on the record as saying it's not so much that "there is no difference" rather "there's no difference beyond the point of sufficiently-sized wire." I've got a couple pieces of cable left over from a job. It is nearly 2" in outside diameter, single 1" conductor. It wouldn't be suitable for use in audio wiring because it's got a bend radius in feet not fractions of an inch. Anyway, I doubt even you'd be able to blindly pick it out versus 16-ga. in a well-made comparison using your equipment. I know you didn't miss me touching on that since you remarked on my remark. What makes that capacitor so much "faster" than any other more-reasonable-for-loudspeaker-crossover device? Is there something magical about it? What exactly is it about 'Mil Spec' that's so special? Also, I'm curious how closely you matched the individual lengths of wire in each bundle. This thread has all the early earmarks of being able to hit 100+ pages!

Is lead an even better diaphragm material than titanium or beryllium?

I can add to those by saying that around where I live the tree is practically a weed! Those prices; were there B-stock of those speakers? Or perhaps he thought he'd make a killing but instead they ain't moving and wants to make room? His prices on the "regular" CW look to be "normal", so who can say what's going on. That doesn't make it seem as though there's an imminent CW IV (or Chorus to replace CW?).

I'm just trying to be somewhat respectful of my elder... I'm in agreement with you.

Better slew rate (like some caps?)?

I'm thinking the ethernet "out" is merely a network port to provide a network connection for nearby equipment so you don't have to run an additional cable from your router/switch to replace the one you'd used for the amp. As far as the USB port, it's only an input to the amp, I'd bet. I searched the 'net a bit for "klipsch stream client software" and "dts play-fi client software" to no avail. DTS evidently isn't willing to let their system be used in that way. It appears the only way you'll be able to digItize records onto your computer from the amp is via its analog (volume-controlled) outputs. Bluetooth to the computer may be possible, but the quality will be inferior. EDIT: I was working on this on my phone when you added your thought on the ethernet port, which is what I'd said differently.

So says a Duck Duck Go search result excerpt pointing to Klipsch's website.. Whether/how you can configure your computer to be a "Klipsch Stream Wireless" client seems to be the pertinent question.

I don't know but would suspect the network connection on the amp is for digestion only. I remember looking at the not-much-of-a manual but don't recall mention of "feeding" other sources like that with the amp.

Neither, in my case. I decided I liked the ideas Klipsch Heritage embody. I knew from first-hand experience in my youth that they didn't sound the best (to me then). But I've come to the realization that what sounds good is what you're used to or what you want to sound good. I absolutely love the Forte III. I bought them without audition. More so now I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

I may never change any aspects of my equipment yet it always sounds somewhat different day-to-day. I'm talking the same sort of differences one often hears described by maybe going from 14-ga. speaker wire to 10-ga., or mechanically isolating their pre-amp, ad nauseum. So my practical experience, off and on over the course of 4 decades, tells me that in all likelihood such changes that wrought an improvement one day would yield another improvement when undone a few days later. Except for the very real enjoyment derived by those with a tinkering bent, it's otherwise mostly a waste of time and money in my opinion. And I'm one who generally enjoys (albeit moreso in days gone by) tinkering, so it's not a viewpoint expressed by a complete naysayer.

True, moving things will "bed in" to varying degrees, and/or become more compliant. In terms of loudspeakers (& phono carts) I'm of the opinion that acclimatization of the listener is as large, if not larger, a part of it.

Why, are you needing the sound to improve?

Don't get any on my account. I believe I'm satisfied.

Are you sure that's not just an artifact of dividing ~39" by an unfortunate integer with the source and/or mic?

Cap values vs. frequencies are entirely dependent on the impedance of the load following the cap. You can't say "x cap for y frequency" for every possible scenario. It just don't work that way. I never intended to imply you'd paralleled two caps of the same value with opposing "polarity" but it was specifically brought up by someone else. Chew a bit more on what I wrote and address it in as much detail as you can. I'm just trying to get a grasp on what you know vs. what you surmise.

Are we now talking about light sabers, or what were those tools the Ghostbusters had? Seriously, cap bypass caps are a good thing in DC supply connections, but that's different than crossovers, as one example.

All that I said in my last post assumes the phase is changed the same by any of the several caps at all frequencies (I'm thinking it is). If however, that's not the case, then that's a whole 'nother can of worms as their outputs are summed.

So you're saying you do all this only "by ear"? Or do you verify anything with any kind of measurements, and if so, what? I'm looking at the bundle of parallel caps and can't help but think there has to be detriment. First, as we all understand, when you wire caps in parallel the resultant total capacitance is the sum of the individual values. In a crossover, a cap is sized to locate the knee within the spectrum. If a single cap of that value is employed then the desired frequency-filtering effect is obtained. This is where I get to "thinking out loud" (without consulting pertinent documentation in the matter, yet) and will be simply using "ballpark" figures as I discuss the matter. For high-pass, if a cap value of C corners at F Hz, and it's desired to split C into two separate caps of equal value (i.e. to alternate their polarities in parallel as mentioned earlier), wouldn't there then be two parallel circuits each with C/2, thus each cornering at F*2, each carrying half the power, with their outputs summed to the driver? At frequencies well below or well above that of the desired corner it obviously shouldn't matter, but wouldn't the corner frequency then be different than intended? I mean, if you visualize a response graph of C/2 at half the voltage added to another of the same, wouldn't the corner stay in the same horizontal location with the level merely rising vertically? Would it match a response graph of a single C/1? What if you combined the several response graphs of a single overall circuit with one of each C/2 (F*2), C/3 (F*3), and C/6 (F*6)? The "total C" would then be "1" but I can't help but think the summed response graph would be vastly different than a slope upward to the right, to the desired corner frequency, and level to the right from there. Assuming each of the three caps had the same ESR, wouldn't the resultant graph actually stair-step (sloped steps?) upward to the right with the lowest (and left-most) corner at twice the desired frequency, finally levelling off once the uppermost knee is reached?

Well, that's where I thought this'd be going. More power to ya, brother! 1200 volts at 1500 amps is 1.8 megawatts...

Ya think?

What are the golf balls sitting on bricks for, and by the dot on the support tube I'm assuming you've indexed the tubes for sound quality?

Not right now, at least. I'm tempted but am sleepy. For now I'll just go with "Uh; okay."

I'm using a NAD C338 (50W class D) to drive mine. Not even looking for anything higher-fi.

That text is talking about use inside an amplifier where induced noise might be problematic.

Lovin' mine. Best money I've spent on speakers ever. For my situation having their centerlines cross just ahead of where I usually sit works best, but I've got a wall right behind me. I've not noticed any great dependency on exact positioning for them otherwise. Simply play around with it over time. Eventually you'll say "good enough." If you've been playing them a few good days now they're likely "broke in" enough.