Strabo

Yes Dean that is true. If you scratch the surface of a new penny you'll see that it's not made out of copper at all. It's merely copper plated. They switched over a l while ago. I forget when the change took place. Mark I don't remember exactly if it was 1982 or 1983 but pennies made before that time were all copper. I've been filling a jar with 1981 and older pennies.

Uh-Oh .....Your in trouble here, already .... [] What dd I do? Don't worry. Stick around and get to know the different posters here. We all hear things differently and as Duke pointed out, there are a lot of people on this board that don't hear the differences in many things. No big deal. Like reading a stereo magazine, you have to figure out who has the same musical and tonal tastes as you and give more weight to their opinions. For example, I believe a few like the modified Jolida CD player. I've never heard it, but the reviews on Audiogon and the Asylum say that the mod removes the midrange magic bringing it back to an ordinary SS sound. Detailed, fast, but missing the PRAT. That might be what you want, I'm guessing not. Just like a steak, everyone likes their music seasoned slightly different. Some like it burnt and topped with catchup. Some like it cooked over gas, others charcoal. I prefer charcoal lit in a chimney, no lighter fluid taste. Add couple drops of Worcestershire before cooking, seared, medium, then served with no condiments. Sometimes I'll mix it up by aging and/or tenderizing. Mmmm, that's livin'. The point is, welcome and stick around. Over time you will get to know where each poster is coming from and which ones have similar sonic tastes.

I tend to agree with Larry, it really depends on what you are trying to achieve with the single change. If you are looking for a total change in sound, go for speakers. If you like the current sound but want smoother sound, better imaging, and details, look at your cd player. Going up the line into heritage will reveal more about your front end and I'm not sure you will like it with your current cdp.

Squeezing the trigger and watching them shatter in mid air. [H]

That sounds like a can of worms for any forum. I'm not touching it. If you are trying to test the difference in sound between the DAC and output sections of your player versus pre/pro then by all means, hook up some RCA cables and try it. I prefer the sound from my player over my pre/pro but I keep both connections hooked up for the certain times when bass management becomes an issue (ie, if I want to annoy someone with the subwoofer [] or some deep bass from organ music that the mains just can't do).

Using a digital output would bypass the output amplifier section of the cdp, in essence ignoring what you paid for. This would defeat the purpose of the analog output.

As for the speakers, the bigger ones are Wilson Grand Slamms. Only $75k [8-)] http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/wilson_grand_slamm_review.htm The smaller set are Wilson Watt Puppy 6es's (watt Mas said). (At least that's what the article calls them). After the Grand Slamm's these seem cheap at $20k. http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/wilson_watt_puppy6.htm

LOL, you've never met my co-workers. []

So, did you buy that model? I have to know. []

I'm about ready for another upgrade. Currently using a Denon-3910 for CD and SACD and willing to drop hi-rez playback for better redbook performance. Budget is under $1k, new or used. It must sound warmer, as or more resovling, and musical. Looking for a sound closer to the Shure V15VxMR type playback. My initial thoughts are either a used Benchmark or Bel Canto DAC with a cheaper transport, a Rega Apollo, or an Ah or similar tubed player. What are the pros / cons of a DAC vs a similarly priced player? If you are familiar with any of these players, would they work for me (ie warmer, musical, and resolving)? I might be able to audition a Rega or Bel in home but probably not the rest. Your thoughts?

What I was trying to do was get the lowest frequency diffusion out of a QRD without it protruding three feet into the room. Given lower frequencies equals longer wavelengths I asked, only myself apparenty, what if it was wide instead of deeper? I was trying to make the wells wide enough to affect the lower frequencies. Somehow you understood this to mean I was trying to make it infinitely small. Apparently I didn't explain myself very well. The question was, what if I built a QRD that was 20-some feet wide, six inches deep, and only 13 wells? Not eight sections of 3' square 13 well diffusers. Go big or go home. [] Would something like that work, and if so, how? The answer seems to be that there is a relationship between the depth and width that needs to be followed. I can't change the width and expect it to work the way I want.

That is the answer I expected. It only took 12 posts to get it. [Y] I think I get it. If you widen the wells enough to deal with the longer waves, it still will have little to no effect if the depth of the well is too shallow to be hit by the wave. The diffusor needs to protrude into the room to be hit by the wave.

If I understand this, the depth of the well is the only thing that affects the low frequencies? By widening the wells we see a decrease in the affected high frequencies. This makes me think that theoretically you can build these to be narrow bandwidth and according to that web tool, you can. We are just pretending here. I have no desire to build a single frequency diffuser. Using 60 cm by 4.99 cm deep gives us a well of 8.57 cm by 4.99 cm and a calculated frequency response of 2.445khz - 2.447khz. Is this not true either? If it is, I don't understand why you couldn't continue to widen the wells to 25 cm each well times seven wells (175 cm total) and have a frequency response of 2.4khx - 840hz, or 840hz - 2.4khz. [:^)]

Short answer = no Why? [6]

Thanks for the response. The web tool seems to be set up so that the depth of the well affects the low frequencies and the width of the well sets the high frequencies. It assumes that the depth is the longer distance which in turn affects the longer (lower) frequencies. Using the web tool, if I want this to work down to 400hz it would need to be 12 inches (30.5 cm) deep. That's probably not going to happen in my room. That's where I thought, what if I transposed the dimensions (which mixed up the FR readings on the web tool)? What if I have a 12 foot wall and covered it with one big shallow diffuser that was only 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) deep for the 3khz dimension and 12 feet (365.5 cm) long with seven wells that are 20 1/2 inches (52.14 cm) wide? Would it still be effective at diffusing a 400hz wave? Logic tells me it should (the dimensions match), instinct (years of being wrong married) tells me it wouldn't. [*-)] Btw, did you happen to recognize the panels used in the photo above?

Bumping this back up with another question. I was playing with the quadratic diffuser tool on this site, http://www.mhsoft.nl/diffusor.asp#calcul Was experimenting with different depths to get to a lower effective frequency when I decided to transpose the measurements. How effective would a QRD diffuser be if it was built to be 12 feet long and 1 1/2 inches deep using only seven wells? The calculations show a frequency range of 402hz - 3Khz. Would that be more or less efficient at 400hz than a 3' X 1' 13 well diffusor that has a range of 400hz - 2.9Khz?

IMO, the large and small room acoustics thread should be required reading for any audiophile. It explains the usefulness of ITD which as the graphs show there is almost no ITD in this room. In a nutshell, this room was deadened with little or no diffusion. The proof is in the graphs before and after showing the huge reduction in sound level with no attention given to the spikes. If I understand diffusion correctly, diffusion should smooth out the peaks and valleys of the sound pressure over time. What we see is in the graph is attenuated (quieter) peaks and valleys. They are the same magnitude, but at a lower level. I think the point is that if I was paying someone to "fix" a room, I'd expect them to do more than build me a padded cell. I'd expect them to be experts at actually fixing the problem. What I see is that they are experts at selling absorbtion which hides the problems instead of fixing them.

I finally had a chance to scan the image. I doubt they would be effective very low because of their lack of depth. I doubt they are random, but are they effective? Wondering if I could live with them on a wall or more. Anyone recognize them?

On page 17 of the July, 2007 issue of Stereophile there is a picture (top right of the page) of some equipment but I noticed one of the walls in the room has what looks like diffusive panels assembled together into a pattern. Does anyone recognize the diffusive panel and know who makes it? They look like they are used in a listening room in the "Industry Update" section of the magazine and I did not see any discription of the room, just the equipment from the picture. I'd like to look into them and maybe discuss them here if we could figure out where they came from.

What Max said, except, if you swap the speaker cables and the problem does not move then it is probably something with a speaker or the room.

See this thread for details about the mastering. It sounds like it was recorded on analog tape then run through a ADC for mastering for both the CD and the LP. I didn't notice any mention of what bit rate the LP was cut from but if it's 24/192 or 32 float it should still sound better than the CD. Also see Steve Hoffman's comment in this thread about the LP being "Mastered from Bob Ludwig's mastering." Given Wilco's history of analog releases I wonder if there will be a subsequent LP release.

I've been holding off on this release (money issues), waiting for opinions because I can't get them all. Since my Wilco collection so far is on vinyl I'd like to go the vinyl route, but if they are the same I may save my pennies and get the CD only. Since they are both digitally mastered, how does the vinyl compare? Or should I hold off even longer in case they release an analog only version later? [*-)]

Another option that would put you around $2.2k would be to skip the RCM for now and upgrade to a better TT. But you will still want an record cleaning machine later. A VPI Scout $1,650, Add a cart for $350, Interconnects, < $100, Cleaning Solution $20 - $50, Disc Dr Cleaning Pads $42, A small level if you don't already have one $0 - $20, Shure Stylus Force Guage $25

For $2k: Step up to the MMF-7 (w/cart), $1,200, Interconnects, $5 - $200, Cleaning Solution $20 - $50, Disc Dr Cleaning Pads $42, VPI 16.5 RCM $500 (necessary if you plan to buy used vinyl), A small level if you don't already have one (the bubble level in the MMF's is junk) $0 - $20, Shure Stylus Force Guage $25

Sorry to sidetrack this, could someone point me to the thread where you discussed the actual results of the Furman? I remember reading that you picked one up from ebay. Is it in the same thread?