glens

Walnut's okay, I guess. Around here in Indiana it's about like a weed tree. Doesn't burn quite as well as some of the other hardwoods also plentifully available, but will still heat the house in a pinch. I like those horns, by the way. How'd you know they were inside that hunk of wood?

Gapless playback of my FLAC files works just fine through the Chromecast inside my amp. I don't know if it's the control point software on my phone or what, but while it's enabled (gapless) there's steady, continuous wifi traffic to/from the phone (actually a Verizon Moto I bought at Wal-mart for $40 and never activated - to ever be used as a nice little tablet). I know that you can point the Chromecast to an Internet radio stream and then completely power down the tablet without loss of the feed until such time as it's explicitly stopped or replaced with other program content. Haven't tried that under DLNA (and don't normally do it anyway - was just a test when things were new). I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun with it - it sure is handy.

I have one built into my integrated amp (NAD C338). It works perfectly fine decoding FLAC files served up wirelessly from my Linux-running laptop which is always on anyway. I've got an external drive containing all my ripped CDs velcroed to the top of the laptop. I'm sure it would work just as well if I plugged the drive into my router which has basically the same server software running inside. (I've modified the software I'm running on the laptop by altering how it handles album art in the source code and recompiling it.) However, I almost completely use the standard DLNA system also in the NAD (and my guess also in the Chromecast dongle), evidently giving up the ability for gapless playback in the process. The thing I don't like about Chromecast proper is the fact that it keeps a channel open to Google. Until relatively recently I've used Google as a search engine ever since it was at google.stanford.edu (and they had raid array housings made of Legos) but I feel they're pretty much the new Microsoft nowadays (is MS even still in business? I haven't heard mention of them in several years it seems - and haven't used it personally since Windows 3.11 was current - been using Linux instead). I don't know what information is "phoned home" and don't care. Just to be sure, I just now disconnected the Internet feed from my router for a test. The DLNA system works just fine like that but Chromecast won't do jack unless it's got a channel open to Google. Maybe it's just trying to keep me safe, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I can keep myself safe just fine, thank you. Yeah, $15 is cheap enough if you've not got the capability otherwise. If you're only going to use it to provide a digital feed it'll cause no sonic limitations. Its DAC is probably indistinguishable double blind ABX from whatever else you've got on hand (unless that's sub-par). Wikipedia says just now that Chromecast Audio sales officially discontinued a week ago. I wonder what they'll replace it with...

Okay. Staying with veneers in use is a valid goal. I was unaware they'd used red oak. That invariably has to have the pores filled for finish work. Not to say it can't look good but it's a lot of trouble. And the pores are still visible, just not surface voids when filled. Agree on the northern growth. Shorter seasons...

I assumed moving-coil-to-preamp wasn't the consideration at hand. High level sub(woofer) interconnects? That's hardly even "audio" frequency!

Might have a look at wikipedia, I'm sure they'd have suitable information available. For audio frequencies, the Chinese-made stuff in blister packs at Walmart is entirely sufficient.

Yep. Red oak is better suited to pallets and trailer beds platforms. Definitely not furniture grade material. Anything "white" is better for what you're doing, though those varieties will vary, too. Have you tried cherry or apple?

Okay. I've dealt with Cory. I don't do Facebook.

To add, the Fortes are one inch wider than Heresy, same depth, maybe less since they don't lean back. I hadn't heard Klipsch home speakers for ~40 years and don't even remember how I came to investigate the Forte. They are exactly what I anticipated (horns, high efficiency, more-controlled directivity) and sound phenomenal. Top to bottom. I've had them now for a little over a month, thereabouts.

Definitely Forte III as they don't take up all that much more floor space than Heresy. Contact Cory (Metropolislakeoutfitters) for a killer deal on "B" stock that you'll likely not be able to see why they are. That's what I did. Just do it. You don't need to hear them first (I didn't).

That link doesn't do anything for non-facebook-members. What's it supposed to show?

Looks like they need a fair amount of stiffening...

Crossing over my feet.

It appears as though if you want a new Oppo player you'd better hurry. Their website no longer shows them and says "Farewell."

Like they've said, it's likely that when powering all channels at once, the amp(s) won't quite make spec. The power ratings of speakers don't indicate what they require but rather the upper limits of what they're capable of using. My guess is that the Klipsch is more efficient (plays louder) than your other speakers and you'll have to balance it down in volume to match. You'll be okay.

A couple days ago I wound up at http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html via perusal of the audacity manual. I wanted to post a thread about it here but first did a search of the forum which brought me to this thread, so I'm bumping it so that others can hopefully enjoy it as much as I did. I have not yet watched the video linked to in the last original post to this thread. I would, however highly encourage everyone to watch https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml right off the bat. Usually instead of watching a video in a web page page I'll fetch it and watch it in an external player with which I can speed it up, but this one is worth the full amount of time it takes at 1x speed. In regard to that comment, I believe it's fair to say the author wasn't equating them in any way other than in drawing a comparison (similarity) between the way our "equipment" processes data both within and without its limitations (or something to that effect). I recall he addressed it in some fashion in an addendum or footnote. At any rate, I thought the subject very interesting, the presentation quite informative, and overall that it's directly pertinent to some other recent discussion on the forum which I've noted. Oh, one must-follow link in the page is http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm which is a recounting of an A/B/X test performed back in '84, also currently pertinent elsewhere here!

I figure the "problem" with the Forte IIIs b-stock you sent me must be with the audio end of things 'cause I can't find any finishing faults whatsoever. Thanks again.

Say what you will about their cabinet construction practices otherwise, but it sure seems they're good at wrapping the boxes.

You've got a video source (cable box?) running thru Aux1 and it works, it sounds like you're saying. By all means if your CD player has RCA outputs, route them to Aux1 for a trial. Process of elimination...

I saw your post before it'd been replied to and understood perfectly both what had happened and what you were looking for. I didn't respond because I wanted to smartassedly say that if you'd used a plastic tote sitting level instead of an akimbo cardboard box your problem would likely be usably symmetrical. Try cutting some heavier plastic placemats with appropriate arcs, redampen the cone, and sandwich it between the plastic compressing them together with some of those little rare earth magnets 'til it dries. Got nothing to lose at this point.

Sorry, Cathedral Guitar, "all lamps sound the same" when not enunciated distinctly sounds exactly like a fun ongoing thread elsewhere. I couldn't resist...

Truth be told, some tube lamps sound different than both others and solid state. Except when you're testing them blind, when they truly do all sound exactly the same.

That's because all lamps sound the same!

Haha! Assuming you're looking at the peak-to-peak for AC vs. RMS. A funny thing about what you actually said, though, is that you've gone the wrong way with "multiply the VDC rating by .7" Should say either divide by .7 or multiply by 1.4. All in fun, and all!

Yeah, it sorta got out into the weeds a bit, I think mostly because of the introduction/confusion of active bi-amping being brought in by other posters answering questions that weren't asked. It seems the OP's sole concern is with sending too much power to the tweeter circuit, but I tried just above to allay his fears about it. There just won't be appreciable power capability in that spectrum even being sent. Also, while the amplifier channels would typically be somewhat de-rated by using multiples of them full-range at once (power supply limitations and all), in this case I don't think so much that that would happen since total power draw wouldn't be much different than if only one channel each side were in use. One thing I'm not too sure of would be how the clipping behavior would change, or more precisely, whether it would change. If the amplifying unit internally lowered supply voltage to accommodate multiple driven channels (to avoid overloading the supply) then clipping would occur sooner, which would be bad (at least not good). I don't recall seeing anything mentioned about that in the manual one way or the other.