glens
-
Posts
2337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by glens
-
-
Just thinking out loud, either set of speakers will eat up greater floor space than the other for different reasons. The Chorii have rear-firing drones so need to be away from the wall some bit while the Cornwalls can go right up to the wall but have a larger footprint?
-
Set the meter to read Ohms.
What's the value across the speaker input terminals? (I don't recall whether that model has separate inputs for high and low frequencies, if it does, provide values for both individually)
Isolate each driver from the crossover, one at a time, checking the resistance between driver's terminals (through disconnected leads is fine) and check again the resistance at the (appropriate) input terminals, then reconnect the lead and proceed to the next one. Report the values you got for everything at each step.
-
The manual show to hold the volume "+" and mute "x" buttons together for 10 seconds to perform a factory reset. Have you tried this?
It used to be that a failed firmware update would "brick" most things as far as end users are concerned. More recently it's fairly common for updates to have a failsafe method (I'm speaking in general terms, I don't know what Klipsch is doing in this regard with their products). A factory reset may return you to the condition you were in just before you tried the update, at which point you can just try the update again.
Obviously this is mere speculation on my part. Just trying to be helpful if at all possible.
-
It probably doesn't matter so long as you're reasonable with the volume knob.
There's not going to be the same amount of power going to the high and low terminals since the power being used by each is what counts. Sure, the capability will be present both places, but that's a different matter.
Your breaker panel in your house is rated at 200 Amps (probably) but the presence of the capability of thousands of Amps on the wires it's getting fed from doesn't trip your 200 Amp main breaker, nor the 20 Amp breaker your "stereo" is fed through, right? Any breaker you have only trips when the load behind it exceeds its capability.
If an amplifier channel is producing what would be 100 Watts with a full range load but there's only 15 Watts worth of content at and above 1.2 kHz (if that were the crossover freq., say), then 15 Watts is all that will be dissipated through those wires.
I wouldn't worry about it. You'll only be gaining a couple dB of headroom doing what you want to do, but it'll be cleaner near the top of what you can do.
--
Edit: (aside from minor cleanup due to having posted on my phone while enjoying a tobacco treat)
The speaker's internal crossover will limit what available power can be seen by the H.F. driver. I just refreshed my memory by perusing the thread again. I also looked up the Denon unit to see what's what with it. From the manual (p. 48):
You can use the bi-amp connection for front speakers. Bi-amp connection is a method to connect separate amplifiers to the tweeter terminal and woofer terminal of a speaker that supports bi-amplification. This connection enables back EMF (power returned without being output) from the woofer to flow into the tweeter without affecting the sound quality, producing a higher sound quality.
What? Sounds like a poor translation or something. Back EMF from the woofer would be the result of the woofer's motion causing it to act as a generator, right? [Must be what "power returned without being output" means. I mean, how can something return if it'd never gone forth in the first place?] But what does the notion of enabling this back EMF to flow into the tweeter (by bi-amping) mean, anyway? And I'm puzzled how something not affecting the sound quality produces a higher quality; not affecting means not affecting.
Probably it should say something like "By bi-amping, back EMF from the woofer is prevented from influencing the signal going to the tweeter." But even then I believe it'd be a specious statement, The crossover to the tweeter would filter anything like that out anyway.
Using two separate full-range amplifier channels per speaker, using that speaker's internal crossover network, will undoubtedly provide for a beneficial increase in sound quality, even if only very minutely so. And if you've got the amplifier channels available to do so (along with the extra wire) it's really a no-brainer. At worst it can't hurt a thing.
-
Well, then, it sounds like it's time to get surgical.
Got an ohmmeter?
-
Was it the right channel on the tube amp that failed?
First determine whether it's the speaker or the amp. Check your wiring/connections for shorts and swap the speaker wires left/right on the amp to see if it's still the same speaker quiet. Then report back.
I'd recommend just a brief (momentary) test, just in case the speaker's causing problems the electronics don't like.
-
everybody funny, now you (all) funny too
-
5 hours ago, Tizman said:
I would argue that one is not better than the other.
As would I.
The aspect I find most humorous about this whole topic (expanding it to include more of the "audiophool" kind of stuff - 'test/measurement results be damned, I know what I know') has got to be stuff like 1-gauge cables perched on glass insulators perched on elastomer whatevers and/or how altering the lay of leads makes them require time to "come around".
If'n y'ant to use whatever equipment, more power to ya! Just please (not you specifically - I'm speaking in general terms) step back for a moment and consider what you sound like when you want to say the stuff you're considering saying.
Me? I don't buy that the earth is flat. I buy that we went to the moon. I don't buy that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone (if at all). I buy that one person can get as much enjoyment out of hearing a piece they like on a $25 mono table radio as another does on a 25.6-channel multi-million-dollar system in a perfectly-constructed-and-equipped habitat.
-
Instead of saying "all amps sound the same" (as coined only by the skeptics, BTW) it'd be better to say "all modern linear amps operating linearly (will) sound the same (under the same conditions)." Call the first phrase A and the second B. What's largely been going on is one person says "B" and folks jump in arguing "A" is just not true. Well, that's obvious: A ain't B!
-
1
-
-
Yes, that's what I was referring to earlier, about cycling through speakers to find one that "works best" with some favored less-than-linear amp.
Pre-amps (should) only sound the same, too. If +/- "zero" on tone controls (as one example) are really +0.5 at the detent, well, there'd be a tell-tale "signature" available in an otherwise meticulous A/B check.
-
10 minutes ago, Tizman said:
Clark makes amps that sound different sound the same for his challenge. The amps don’t sound the same before he does this. Because Clark needs to modify amps in order to make them sound the same for his challenge, amps don’t all sound the same. Am I missing something?
I'd say "Yes, you are."
What he's proving is that they DON'T sound different. If you've got tone controls that don't quite go flat at "flat" that's not the amplifier sounding different, it's the pre-amp. If you've got freq. response that varies disproportionately with impedance, that's non-linearity.
-
1 hour ago, robert_kc said:
Thanks for the explanation.
I have no insight into the "Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge" other than what ODS123 provided:
Do we interpret the highlighted text above to mean that there were two different conditions that might have caused Clark to insert an equalizer into the audio chain of one amp, in an attempt to make the amps sound similar?
- If frequency tailoring circuits cannot be completely bypassed, OR
- If the amp's "input and output loading" affects frequency response.
On one hand, this seems to me to be pointless speculation. OTOH, ODS123 cited the "Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge" as strong evidence that all modern "linear" amps sound the same. I'm wondering if this assertion needs to be clarified to say something like "all modern amps that are linear for resistive loads, and are linear when connected to a wide range of loudspeakers"? If so, what's the difference between this statement and "In the real world, all modern amps don't sound the same?"
What I got out of the stipulations was that if one unit had an aspect which would cause different response with different speakers based on the speakers' impedance (like with a tube amp with high output impedance might), then the other unit was fitted with an appropriate output series resistor and the gain changed as necessary to match speaker output levels between them. And if one unit had tone controls which couldn't be disabled while the other unit didn't even have tone controls, then the equivalent response curve was imparted to the other unit. It could go either way which unit was so affected, by the test-taker's choice. That's fair. The test was about the sound of the amplification, so any other aspects which could cause discernment would have to be leveled between the units or the test wouldn't even be valid.
Say you've got a tube amp topology you "like the idea of" and this is what you want to go with. But say also that it happens to cause an uneven frequency response based on uneven speaker impedance(s), and, naturally, you disparage the use of tone controls &c. So, as a hobbyist, you find yourself moving from speaker to speaker until you find one with the "proper" "synergy" with your amp. You could achieve the same thing by also using the speakers you 'like the idea of", regardless their impedance qualities, with proper equalization to get the tonal colorations which "connect you with the music" just the way you like. Because this is really all you were doing by switching from speaker to speaker - finding one with an impedance curve which imparted the boosts/cuts where you wanted them - (usually) regardless how "flat" the final response actually was (without the use of nasty tone controls!).
You'd do well to spend a few minutes reading through the author of the test's remarks from some (car?) audio forum, compiled here. If nothing else, search for "yea guys" in the page.
-
Doesn't matter how it's implemented, it's still only 2 samples being compared. It's not about how it makes you feel or whether it engages you (so much); how does one sound compared to the other, and which one is X?
If your audio memory can't last more than a moment you've got no business taking the test or you'll merely skew the results, "fraughting" the test with problems.
-
Or a gum wrapper of the proper thickness?
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Ryan0348 said:
DacMagic 100... Cheap rca cables but decent speaker wire I got from work it’s twisted double shelded 16gauge oxygen free low voltage signal wire. ... do I need a external clock for streaming to help with better stereo/image or does the DacMagic have a good enough one.
That DAC doesn't do USB 3 (like I think you mentioned later).
The clock in the DAC wins no matter what else you might do beforehand. So don't waste any money there.
Audio wire don't care about oxygen and your cheap RCA interconnects will be just fine.
I believe you also later mentioned some other wires & products which probably wouldn't hurt but certainly wouldn't help. Save your money and time.
Visit https://techsupport.cambridgeaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/200930882-Audiophile-s-guide-to-bit-perfect-USB-audio and use the method which comes as close as merely passing on the data as you can manage. You don't want the computer doing any "audio" things, just hand over the raw data to your DAC. No resampling or ANYTHING if at all possible.
-
1
-
-
The veneer-both-sides treatment doesn't hurt helps the MDF stability, I'm sure.
I feel a lot of demands are being made under a diversionary guise. It'd be better to offer contrary evidence and seek refutation, to be fair.
-
1 hour ago, Tizman said:
I sold a bunch of my amps a few months ago. Of the three buyers that demoed the amps on my La Scala’s, one has bought a pair of Heresy III, and another other is presently shopping for La Scalas. Just one 30 minute listening session on an all horn Klipsch speaker is all it took.
That's only because you sold them amps that only sound good on horns.
Had they demo'd them on regular speakers you'd not made sales.
-
2 hours ago, dwilawyer said:
What's that thing called in computer programing where you do a run and it starts a continuous loop?
Entering a loop.
-
Maybe check for electrical continuity between the terminals and frame?
-
5 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:
How about "no soldering required"?
Well, that'd be a rock-solid demarcation.
-
1
-
-
What? Cabin fever? The season's only just begun in the Northern Hemisphere!
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:
24 bit/192 Khz. are a waste of time and money, even it they are done on Blue Ray standard media. Talk to Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX about that. I did.
13 hours ago, robert_kc said:Another topic that is hotly debated.
...
The assertion that people can’t hear the difference between CD and hi-res in a double-blind test is like the assertion that people can’t hear the difference in amps in a double-blind test. We’ll be here for another 50 pages debating it …
If a modern recording is recorded and mastered at 24bit/192kHz, why would you buy a consumer deliverable that has been down-sampled into 30+ year-old storage technology (i.e., 16bit/44.1kHz Redbook CD), vs. buying the recording in its native format (e.g., Pure Audio Blu-ray disc or 24/192 FLAC download)? Similarly, if the recording was captured in hi-res DSD – why not buy the SACD or DSD download, vs. transcoding it and down-sampling it into 16bit/44.1kHz PCM (i.e. CD)?
It's not my intention to speak for Claude, but I think I understand what he was saying and that you did not.
In spending some time going through a bit of forum history, trying to get the lay of the land, so to speak, I believe I'd seen him say at one point that anything over 24/96 is a waste. That's not meant to be a quote, merely a remembrance on my part.
As a result of your reply to him (it wasn't google but for the sake of simplicity...) I "googled" "Dr. Mark Waldrep" and stumbled upon a couple interesting links. Evidently last summer he'd conducted an informal test for which he created files from some of his native hi-res work. By down-sampling to redbook he offered for comparison the result to the original. Well, here's a couple of links. They're fairly short reads. First, the initial "challenge", then some initial results, and finally, part 2 of the results with a classic correspondence which ensued.
At any rate, I guess this is in part what Claude had in mind. A fair bit different, perhaps, from what you'd rebutted?
-
Trying to work this forum. Disregard.
-
2
-
-
All three are functional and not been mucked with internally? PM me his contact info.
Good Witch or Dead Witch?
in Technical/Restorations
Posted
While replacement of that part is pretty much a forgone conclusion at this point, I'm curious if it's even bad. Does it exhibit continuity?