glens

I gotta say that for a loudspeaker crossover it's totally immaterial.

The cabin fever'll be breakin' soon...

I'd say the terminals on the back of the cabinet go straight to the woofer. The condenser hooks one end to the one woofer terminal, other end to the tweeter. The other tweeter wire would just double up with the other wire from the back on the other woofer terminal. Am puzzled how that remaining cone-shaped piece behind the tweeter is fastened to the cabinet. It rather appears the base of the cone would've been attached to the center of the woofer.

As far as construction between the two materials it's not a night/day difference. I wouldn't rely on only screws with either and wouldn't run a screw into an edge with either, either.

Not able to share comparative experience, but am an extremely satisfied and elated owner of the IIIs. Perfect balance top to bottom. Can't imagine an earlier iteration in any configuration surpassing them.

I have always run 12-3 to every (non-kitchen) outlet box with a switched leg available, in every house or room addition I've built. It's just so convenient later and is well worth the couple hundred extra. Non-switched, half-switched, all-switched; what's your pleasure, at a whim...

I'm sure they could be shoved off just about any bench with relative ease. Probably wouldn't even come close to terminal velocity.

Better yet, fashion life-size facsimiles out of cardboard and place them around.

You can only be wrong when you disagree with someone.

Sounds like a blast for those within travel distance!

While I can't authoritatively say that you can omit the transformers, I highly suspect you may, and it shouldn't hurt a damn thing to give it a whirl.

What's the transformer for, maybe just impedance matching for some old system and not really part of the speaker (thus not necessary)? Didn't that flyer say they were 16 ohms? Surely any amplifier would be able to handle that.

Oh, you reckon that big old capacitor showing in the one (and/or it's counterpart) is still acting anything like it's supposed to?

A bluetooth receiver with a DAC feeding a power amplifier feeding the speaker. I'd think self-contained units that do all that are fairly available for fairly cheap. Probably don't want to feed too much to them speakers anyway, and I doubt they'd sound any better through a $10k amp than through a $100 unit. Might even be able to find a receiver with a tube output amp if it might do something for them. Though you can't expect too much audio quality through bluetooth, it just might be suitable for them, depending on the quality of their voices. Have you hooked them up together yet?

Dude, looking at those pictures; you sealed the tops to the walls, and window fillers, with calk (or some modern equivalent)? Way to go!

It's more a bass issue than anything. Just want to ensure the polarity of the rear system matches that of the front. You want the systems to be adding bass to each other, not subtracting it. Easy to determine which way it needs to be, and should be an early equipment checkout item. Just try it all wired normally, then swap the + and - wires on one pair of speakers and try it again. You'll know right off which way is better. Hopefully it's the second way so you won't have to fuss with the wires again. I bet it will sound great.

That can become a vicious cycle!

Let's be clear(er) on this. Your statement holds true for symmetrical filter orders between the two drivers. But what's really causing the results you supplied is that for each order in the low-pass filter, there is a 45° delay and for each order in the high-pass there's a 45° advance. This amounts to 90° total separation per order only when both have the same number of orders. It would be all the same if there where a first-order on one plus a third-order on the other, or a second-order each. But a first-order on one and a second-order on the other, for example would not yield a multiple-of-90° separation. Naturally (rather ideally) one is going to fine-tune things with a REW spectrogram analysis, but to get into the ballpark using just math it helps to know a little more in depth what the factors are.

not buy it.. Ideally as well let each entity in the chain all the way back to the performer know why you weren't buying it.

Is this taking into consideration the fact that one of the drivers is getting phase-delay at the crossover point and the other is getting phase-advance, per order, each?

Not intended to be instructional to Chris, rather to flesh out what he'd said in the event it wasn't clear to whoever reads it later why he said what he'd said. This is pertinent because the speed of sound in air depends on the density of the air the sound is traveling through. More humid air is more dense than less humid air, and at lower elevation the air is more dense than at higher elevation. And the following math, to be more accurate, requires knowing the speed of sound in the air you have at the moment in your location. 13584 being the speed of sound in air in typical Houston as 1132 feet/second, times 12 to get 13584 inches/second. The "crossover frequency" bit there is a tad confusing. You can determine the wavelength (in inches with this formula) of any frequency desired by placing that frequency as the denominator. In this case it's obvious the frequency of interest was that of the crossover point in question, but if you were interested in the length of a fully-formed 40 Hz wave, just divide 13584 inches-per-second by 40 cycles-per-second = ~340 inches-per-cycle. Or that of 4.5 kHz: 13584 / 4500 = 3.02 inches. The first being 1/(13584 ÷ 12) seconds, and the second being 1/(13584 ÷ 1) seconds. It's just "one divided by 13584-divided-by-distance-in-inches". Stuff like this makes for perfect use of your calculator's "1/x" button if it has one.

I've only got CD audio, no higher bitrate discs. I investigated some of the several graphical interface options that came with my Ubuntu installation. I'm less a fan of graphical interfaces for some tasks, and entering "corrected" information for the track tags proved too tedious "graphically". I wanted to do the tags (and album/file naming and hierarchy) in a particular and consistent way so opted to use the command line bash script "abcde". I integrated it into a script of my own which at the appropriate time offers me a text file containing the tag information for the entire disc, open in my favored editor "vi" which allows utter simplicity in doing global search/replace, etc. I also opted for an encoding library which detects pre-emphasis (Red Book) in the sub-channels and applies de-emphasis automatically. When used it can be inconsistent, sometimes indicated in the disc's TOC and sometimes not. Most all dedicated players get it right but most all computer-based rippers don't. My rock discs were pretty easily done but my early music discs, many of which are obscure thus required complete data entry as opposed to simpler modification only, proved very time-consuming. All-in over several hundred each type took me a month or two, but was WELL worth the effort. One thing I "disc"overed is that CDs are not necessarily an "archive quality" medium. Several proved to succumb to reflective surface rot and a few to "dishing" or "cupping" in such a way that made complete (sometimes any) ripping (or even playing in a dedicated player) impossible. I'm serving the flac files via (primarily) "minidlna" running on my laptop via various control points (primarily "hifi cast" on android) to my NAD C338 driving a Forte III pair, which system performs double duty for music and TV. I've always been more of a closet audiophile, just making the best of things on a more realistic budget, as well as going for years at times with nothing. But I may have to "come out", sell a Harley, and equip myself with a pair of Jubilees while I still can afford and appreciate it.

You could further delay the end of the project by setting the screws in bored holes, then glue in some wood plugs atop them. "Make it impossible to disassemble" is another motto.

Go to Joe's website and buy a copy or two of his albums. They're mixed well. She calls Janis Joplin to mind in certain respects.

"Glued and screwed" is my motto.