glens

Just had a humorous thought while reading your reply (before your "big guy" statement, but that may be relative, too). Ear height, when I first think of it, is nearly 6', but a 6" riser might make "ear high" for some, and that wouldn't diminish bass nearly as much Stop by your local hardware store and pick up a package of those plastic sliders for moving furniture. You'll be able to leave the spikes in place and merely rock the speakers gently to remove the sliders once you've got them located just right.

This whole thing depends on what is meant bi "bi-amping" in the first post. Running two amps full-range per side through the separated high-level crossover, or low-level crossover before the amps? So in effect more of a tool for extreme volumes? I don’t really understand the concept. I think he was saying that it (low-level crossover / bi-amp?) was initially employed to effectively achieve higher amplification than was otherwise (readily) unavailable. The other factors mentioned are much more valuable nowadays. Being able to digitally filter, equalize, and time-align produces very great benefits in quality of sound. Somewhat expensive, yes, but especially if you've got a woofer several feet into the corner, a midrange at the corner, and a tweeter a foot or more closer yet, well, you've already spent a fair share of money; might as well take things to the next level and get all the drivers producing sound from the same effective distance along with proper phase relationships. Especially in that case the sound will be much more coherent through the crossover areas. To that end it would be less of a value proposition for a Heresy, say, but it would still provide better control over the sound being produced. As to the original post, he may well be contemplating running all amps full-range through the speaker's crossovers. We don't know yet what the plan is.

Off the floor to get the tweeters at ear level while standing? Effectively both diminishing bass and augmenting the highs. If you think they sound okay like that I don't know why you wouldn't like them better when set up better. I watched/listened-to "youthman"'s youtube video comparing the RF-7 II to the Forte III and it cemented my desire for the Forte III. The RF-7 definitely had "punchier" bass but it also had too-bright highs with a depression in the midrange, at least the way he recorded them playing. The RF-7s he was using spec a tad louder for the same input but without knowing whether he (especially accurately!) adjusted levels for the comparison, it's hard to say really whether the RFs had more prominent bass/highs than the Fortes or merely a more-depressed midrange. Been there done that on picking something that sounded a little more spectacular than something else, only to come to regret it long-term. Let us know what you think about the comparison in your place. All four cabinets are only ~70 lb. each. Shouldn't really be too much trouble to move them around the house if you're physically capable; especially if you've got a capable helper available.

What do you plan to "feed" it? If a turntable, you'll need something with a phono input, not all "modern" equipment has that. If you stream digital content and don't already have a device with which to capture and provide it either via digital or analog outputs to whatever you're contemplating now, then I suggest making sure whatever you get has that capability built in. For that wi-fi is certainly more convenient than hard-wired. DNLA capability is definitely desirable, too. I'm a fan of NAD gear and use/recommend their C338, but it doesn't have tone controls, pre-amp outputs, or any "tape loops" which all have use to many folks. It does have a phono input, very capable wireless (ac), DLNA, as well as Google Chromecast audio built in. A solid 50 watts/channel. I guess they're going for ~$650 new. I got mine "factory refurb" for less.

I fetched a copy of the user's manual and it appears there are no pre-outs on that unit. There are two tape loops available and an "accessory send/receive" with jumpers that allow you to insert a signal processor (or whatever) "prior to the tone controls." However in the service manual block diagram, it shows the tone controls functioning within the amplifier feedback loop and the "accessory" jumper appears between the input selection and mode switch, followed in order by loudness, balance, and volume. The only outputs available after the volume control in the flow of things are the speakers and headphone jack. Why not just run the Heresy's full-range and start with the lowest setting (50 Hz) on the sub using the high-level inputs? I'd bet you won't be too far off.

Clipping is when the gain at the peak or trough of a waveform reaches the supply voltage. Happens all the same tubes or sand. There's more to it but in a nutshell the two "handle" it differently in that a transformer won't pass DC thru to the load but sand will.

You can encode gigabytes worth of wave files to flac and back again, multiple times over, and end up with exactly same strings of ones and zeros as at the start. Even if two or three bits got somehow flipped in all that activity, each occurrence would be such a fleeting event upon playback that if even noticed it couldn't possibly be anything anyone could say altered the character of the overall sound. It's just impossible. Now if the computer hardware in general was vastly underspec'd for the simple task of simultaneously performing all its assigned duties including the "real time" D to A conversion, like if maybe using a 386-25MHz system with insufficient memory and memory speed or something (though I'd be surprised if even that wouldn't suffice to decode flac on the fly, if one could be found) then that still wouldn't be the fault of the hardware; rather that of the implementor. Just sayin'...

If singing is made easier in the shower then it's safe to guess it would be more difficult there?

Not quite apples to apples on that vid. The Fortes were placed in front of the Cornwalls and if memory serves, the Fortes were also on ~3-inch risers. Triple the hit on the lows (on risers, away from the wall, and something behind to dynamically soak up energy) plus a boost to the non-lows (on risers) and no toe-in or relative mic height indication (which would be useful to those of us who are thus familiar) for the Fortes in comparison.

I was merely musing when I came up with this post. I left it sit for some time and looked at it again. I can't decide whether to post it or not so I will, but with this note that you can feel free to not even read it if you're pressed for time. ----- Well, I had a few browser windows open, each with several tabs, was going through them to "clean house" a bit, and found one open to https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/air-gaps/. Might as well add this to the BS list as well. He's got flac files sounding different from wav even though after reconstruction they're numerically identical. This is what he says, not my take on what he says. Evidently it's because the reconstructed (but identical!) bits have become polluted during the course of reconstruction. Bits are bits. They're either a one or a zero. A "distorted" "1" is still distinctly different from a "0", whether or not that "0" is "distorted" and so long as the combinations are maintained in order the information they represent can be perfectly recovered. Now in this case the word "distorted" is mine. He actually uses the term "pollute." But we're used to hearing changes-from-original being called distortion. So he's got polluted and jittery 1s and 0s feeding a DAC and wants to clean that up for us. Isolation between the digital crunching section, with all it's noisy digital manipulation, from the digital to analog conversion section will surely take care of this. Not. Firstly, it doesn't matter if there's jitter heading toward the DAC. Everything is re-timed when it hits there anyway. (Do you suppose that the packets of data traversing the Internet, be they text, images, or audio, always arrive in perfect order and perfectly timed? Absolutely no guarantees and missed packets get re-requested, re-transmitted, and re-ordered-when received all the time!) And it must have slipped his mind that the DAC itself involves digital manipulation with all it's noise and pollution, so perfect isolation between digital and analog sections can not be achieved. Isolating the noisier from the more-critical section's power supplies and grounds is just plain old good design. But maybe some of his fancy power cords and/or power regenerators will magically fix all the pollution that's left!

While this web page doesn't provide discrete answers to all of the questions thus far, I found it rather sufficient to cover the majority. In short, it turns out that alnico magnet assemblies can very well indeed be improved through the use of shorting rings.

I don't have any reason to doubt it's an accurate (factual) statement. I just fail to see the pertinence. Like I said earlier, a central pole piece is undoubtedly as good a conductor of electricity as a central alnico magnet.

Yeah, that's better. Plus it gives you more room to use for yourself. I saw it mentioned somewhere recently that there are basically two kinds of speakers. Those that create the illusion that "you are there" and those that do "they are here" (the musicians). I don't know if I entirely agree but it is an interesting observation. It sounds like you're liking the "they are here" aspect.

Thing of it is, the chromecast is merely a renderer. It requires a control point of some kind (like Hi-Fi cast) which points it to data from a server of some kind (be it in your home or out on the 'net). It will not perform the task of being its own control point. I use "Hi-Fi Cast" as a control point to stream my flac files using any one of several media server programs on my laptop. Works perfectly with the built-in ChromeCast in my NAD amplifier. In Hi-Fi Cast select the Chromecast as renderer and whatever you're using to serve the flac files as the Media Server. The ChromeCast won't go out and pick up files just sitting on a hard drive somewhere, they have to be "served." You'll have to fire up a media server program with which to feed the chromecast. If you're using Linux I can help you with that, anything else and I've got no opinion or experience.

Well, I'm a Klipsch neophyte; and I've noticed it's more typical these days to round over port ends so things would be much quieter when there's actually "airflow." I don't know but suspect that a woofer wouldn't become as "unloaded" below system tuning with a drone as it does with a port.

It's not (usually) a typical occurrence, but if for any reason the port gets overloaded it's definitely something that gets one's attention. Think along the lines of "below tuned frequency information at high levels." A drone may clack in such a situation but I think it less likely to happen, at least not as readily.

There's some translation issue going on with your request. I don't understand what you'd said nor what you're asking, and I'm thinking it's not just me... By "sound was closed" do you mean the mid and/or high frequency driver(s) are silent?

I guess I am missing something here. I see this term used but I can't say I have ever noticed anything like this with speakers I have had. You've never heard a port make self-generated noise while performing its task?

And, that ferrite speakers have performance advantages over alnico (ref. the "JBL" pdf I linked earlier). "Don't need" and "don't (wouldn't) benefit from" are perhaps separate issues. For now I'll stick with the notion I'd suggested earlier where the magnetic flux is modulated more so in an exterior-ferrite-magnet-with-interior-pole-piece because the interior piece in that case is merely a magnetic flux carrier instead of a producer. But in retrospect... the magnetic flux of an exterior magnet (I'd bet either ferrite or alnico if it were so used) is temporarily modified (without use of shorting rings) whereas the magnetic flux of an interior alnico can be permanently (without later outside intervention) modified! I believe either that engineer was mistaken or that you misunderstood what he'd said in respect to "electrical continuity" of the magnetic structure.

I submit that a passive radiator has mass that exceeds that of the air in a typical listening room, much less that in a tube inside the cabinet... at least they don't "chuff." And perhaps better said flabbier and bloateder, as there are many that feel a ported box itself is indeed both.

Great, thanks.

Here it seems we're saying much the same thing from different angles. Why is it that I get the feeling you're disagreeing with me in this respect? I very well understand transformers. I've made quite a fair amount of money field testing such equipment. You've claimed that an internal hunk of alnico somehow performs the same function as a shorting ring but you've either not tried to explain that or have failed to adequately communicate your thoughts to me. Is this pigeon chess?

Electrical continuity in the assembly is immaterial. Shorting rings, when used, are inside the voice coil, correct? Same as the pole piece, where (aside from the presence of any [electrically insulative?] adhesives in either type) there would be no benefit towards completing any electrical circuit across said outer ferrite magnet anyway. My understanding of the shorting rings is that they basically kill off the magnetic flux being generated within (inside of) the voice coil, in the areas they perform no useful (motive) function - areas outside the voice coil gap proper.

Yeah I understood the effect to be greater as power levels rise. You lose me there. There is no ferrite anywhere inside the voice coil in my admittedly dated experience. The ferrite is outside the coil with the magnetic circuit being completed to the inside of the coil gap through a central hunk of material which in all likelihood conducts electricity even better than would AlNiCo.

It appears as though, all told, the speaker connectors occupy considerably more volume than the board itself. How can it possibly be any good?