Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by glens

  1. Have you tried lifting the ground between the turntable and its preamp?
  2. I don't want to take your test because it will just be a waste of your time and mine, what with my years of experience polishing my golden ears. Well, okay, I'll do it if for no other reason than to finally shut you up. WTF?? That test was flawed and fraught with problems! There's no way in hell I shouldn't be able to pick which one is "X", every time, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday! - I'm not in any way suggesting that different components can't or won't match up in better ways, mind you. And I'm not suggesting all electronics sound the same under every circumstance (and didn't get the impression the OP was saying that). Dean, fingernails on the chalkboard, while unpleasant, never bothered me nearly as much as a hard spot in a crayon skipping across the paper in a coloring book. EDIT: I've always welcomed tests. I may succumb to situational anxieties in other matters, but never testing. I'd like to think I could "beat the box", as it were, in an A/B/X audio test, and likely ***** if I couldn't. As much or better than the next guy.
  3. Though it was fun to hook up the dashboard center speaker that way back in the day. Center + to right + worked best for the driver. Other way 'round for passenger. Made for great ambiance with the right source, too. If you've got two speakers you can put side by side in the middle, alternatively (maybe better) in the corners behind you, wire them in series "-" together like that. There's going to be usually no bass in the output anyway.
  4. The biggest take-away of this thread has got to be the observation of folks' tendency to denigrate others for certain behavior, engaging in it themselves to do so. Many valid points have been raised from both sides, but there is a large lack of congruity (as a matter of fact). Not being entirely fair to everyone involved, the best way I can think of to describe this present argument is "straw man".
  5. Well, I've finally waded all through this steaming pile. I'd liked to have made pointed comments at several places along the way but have pretty much forgotten now what they were. Except perhaps that if anyone thinks plywood does not dimensionally and/or structurally change with moisture content, then they most certainly are not yet experienced enough. And that Forte III which was only dropped once; what, from shoulder height down a flight of stairs? I don't understand the level of animosity directed throughout toward the O.P. Nothing he'd said stands out in my memory as being very much out of line. IMO kudos are in order for the way he's handled himself in the face of so much antagonism. I hadn't been involved in hi-fi very long before realizing that what sounds good always changes somewhat from day to day. Atmospheric conditions, head congestion (at minute, almost imperceptible levels), &c. all come into play. But whenever I come across stuff like "rearranging the speaker cable necessitated hours (up to days) for them to achieve a restored sonic neutrality", I'm invariably glad I'm not gulping some beverage at the very moment. Sure, it can take time to discover liked, or disliked, characteristics of some kit that weren't apparent at the outset. But on any given day an audio A/B/X test is 100% valid in and of itself, and anyone who declares they're "fraught with problems" or some such doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Either you can blindly identify which of the two is which or you can't. It's as simple as that. Pertaining to the initial subject matter of this thread, as I recall things at any rate, I'd be more inclined to agree than disagree with what'd been said. Wasn't it something along the lines of "at the beginning of your journey you'd do well to look at things this way"? I'd not gotten the impression that following the offered advice would ensure anyone'd be immediately transported to their final destination. Yet somehow that's the notion I perceived was vehemently being argued against as the thread progresses. It's in that light particularly that I say I don't understand the antagonism. There must surely be something else going on that's not self-evident.
  6. First time I'd ever heard anybody else pronounce "anechoic". It's always sounded different when I've "said" it to myself while reading.
  7. Yeah, in that case it'd certainly be most expedient to use the AVP for final speaker-to-speaker alignment. Whenever I'm with the missus in a place displaying a multitude of televisions and I point out the stragglers as either doing more signal processing or having a slower CPU, she says "only you would notice something like that." I just chuckle... I'd started this post yesterday; just got back from enduring fair P.A. equipment being very poorly used by a mediocre small-town band, as a semi-designated driver no less. Can't say how badly I wanted to commandeer the equipment. What a way to ring in the new year!
  8. Like I'd said, there are two distinct delays to factor into the crossover. Chris since provided the ballpark math for the one; the other involves the speed of sound under particular atmospheric conditions versus the relative distances to the drivers. The two would "simply" be added or subtracted as needed for the final single value to be entered into the equipment. As you'd figured, the AVR delay is a completely separate (third) consideration, and it would be addressed last. I rather doubt any such implementations are concerned with whether or what crossovers are in play.
  9. I just read through my previous post and see that I forgot a mental image item. The end-view "twisting" is effected much the same as if the waveforms were being "screwed" along a screw thread that has the same thread pitch as the frequency. One direction along that screw "the zero axis you'd be looking down" makes the wave "recede" from you while the other direction "proceed" toward you. Thus, in the case of "90 degrees each way" (12 dB/octave), it does not exactly cause a complete cancellation. There's a half-a-wavelength time difference between the equal-but-opposite polarity values you're seeing from the end view. Maybe I should've just sat this one out?
  10. Here's a very simple way of looking at things. I'm going to attempt this by merely describing images you'll have to create in your mind. Picture the side view of a sine wave on a graph. You've seen them a million times... It's at the frequency you'll be using for you're xover point. Now look down at it from the top. All you see is a straight line, the hills and dales are coming toward and going away from you. Now switch back to the side view where you started and step around so you're looking down the end of the graph as it's coming toward you. All you'll see is a vertical line extending equally above and below the axis of the graph, which you now see only as a point. If you run that sine wave through an inductor it will rotate that vertical line 45 degrees to the left, while a capacitor in series will rotate it instead to the right. One element each way like this represents a 6dB/octave filter, and you see from the end (where you're still "standing") that the waveforms are now 90 degrees out of phase with each other. Add another element to each "way" (a capacitor in parallel after the series inductor and a parallel inductor after the series capacitor), and you'll get a further rotation of 45 degrees each way at that frequency. What you'll be looking at is now a horizontal line with the two (what were originally the) "tops" at opposite ends from each other, thus completely out of phase with each other. If you combined the two signals they'd cancel each other out and collapse to just just the point in the middle (the graph axis you're now "looking down the barrel of"). (This is why you usually see the "+" and "-" of one of the two drivers swapped in a "conventional" 12dB/octave crossover. So that the drivers will be restored to being "in phase" at the crossover frequency. But more on this later.) For each added element (another 6 dB/octave), the "end view rotation" twists another 45 degrees in their respective directions. So at 24 dB/octave the waveforms have ended up back in phase again, but this twisting involves a time element, so the "tops" and "bottoms" (of the traditional "side view") are no longer the exact same "tops" and "bottoms" when they "line back up in phase"; they're instead, while in phase, out of time. I confess that I have little knowledge of how these different filters are synthesized in the digital domain. At first blush I would assume the filtering could be digitally performed without all the "analogesque" phase shenanigans. But perhaps that's what's required to effect the filtering... So, when you're adjusting delays in the filters, there are actually two items under consideration. One is the amount of time it takes the sound to travel from each driver and the other is the amount of time between the now-separated waveforms they're reproducing. Hope this does more good than harm to the discussion Please don't ask me any questions about actual implementation as I have zero experience in that respect. I could only offer opinion after perusing applicable equipment manuals and I'm not particularly inclined at this time. My wonderful wife just recently allowed the purchase of a pair of Forte IIIs. She doesn't even begin to understand the allure of all this, much less how I might could (already!) be contemplating bi-amped Jubilees (or 402MEHs) with all the attendant electronics, and my further involvement here would, well, let's just leave it at my lack of inclination...
  11. It's relatively simple to fetch bites from the link above...
  12. Pins might be a good idea in lieu of tinning. A judicious dab of grease of some appropriate type applied prior to swaging, of course... It all depends on how you're attaching things. I'm a fan of banana plugs, but terminal strips generally preclude those. I tin pretty much everything that calls for "bare (stranded) wire and screw (or spring-loaded)" terminations. Luckily I have enough properly-leaded solder on hand to last my lifetime. Lead keeps the joint from growing whiskers, and I ain't gonna be eating the stuff anyway. Going under a screw head? Either tin it and form a proper loop or crimp on a lug. Only way(s) to go that route in my book. If it's worth doing, it's worth overkill.
  13. Having a DAC with which you're already satisfied, I' d be inclined to opt for an optical transport of some kind which only provides digital output. There'd be no need, in my mind, to get a full-on "player" which merely duplicates something already downstream. Sounds like it would be needless expenditure at any rate.
  14. I forgot to mention that I'm thoroughly enjoying my new Forte III pair driven by that unit! Cory (Metropolis Lake Outfitters) did me a real solid in that regard.
  15. Hard to beat the utility of NAD C 338. https://nadelectronics.com/product/c-338-classic-digital-dac-amplifier/ I picked up a factory refurb from Crutchfield earlier this year. It meets all my needs except for maybe a couple percent of the time lacking the ability to modify tonal balance. As well, there are no means of inserting external signal processing equipment into the loop if you're considering doing that at all.
  16. It's now been a year and change. Still running the Fortes? Has your impression of them altered appreciably?
  17. On my stupid phone at lunch so unable to provide a direct link, but am sure there's a "pro" model that's all but the forte iii and has a rotatable horn(s) panel for horizontal positioning. Same horns/drivers I think, but is front-firing bass reflex. KI-362-SMA-II
  • Create New...