Strabo

Did you explain the benifits? Think of the time and money you are saving. A good lawn mower will cost you more than these 30's.And that extra family time of not having to mow a couple times a week is priceless.

It's a countdown timer to estimate the next time the upgrade bug bites. []As you can see, the time has run out for the current owner.

Bits is bits in the digital era but these were originally on analog tape and the early cds were most likely a dump of the tape through a AD converter with very minimal if any tweaking. In other words, unfutzed with, or as close as you will get to the sound of the original recording warts and all.I'd rather have the un "fixed" version because you can't undo the fixing once it's put in there, but that's just me. I haven't heard them all and maybe there are better but I have heard a couple of the remasters vs the unremastered and I preferred the latter.

I reloaded it as an attachment instead of a link to another website. Does it work now? It is a pic of an early Japanese pressing probably early 80's. You can see the manufacter info on the bottom of the disc. I generally shy away from record club stuff because you never know what you will get. They will sometimes remaster things on their own and who knows what source the tapes came from. (Note, not so much an issue anymore as it was back then.) Europe on the spine should be the same matering as the early W. German pressings (see example below) even though it was actually pressed in the US. No UPC's would put it in the mid 80's at the latest. I'm currently spinning a Zep IV early US press with UPC, probably late 80's. [] Attached a sample W. German press. As a neurotic collector I'd rather have the painted version even if it sounds the same. [:$]

IMO, the answer to the original question is without a doubt, the early pressings. Avoid it if it says remasted by Jimmy Page on the back. Again, IMO, the remasters were mixed with the play back too loud which made them bass shy at normal levels.

Your kidding right? How much do you want for the early 80's LZ cd's? I might take them off your hands. If they say Europe on the spines or they were manufactured in W. Germany I'll take them all. Edit, or if they are made in Japan like the picture below. Red, teal, or greay works.

I used four of these on some Forte II's and it really helped tighten up the bass. In hindsight, three would be much easier to set up. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=240-725

Don't sweat it. I had Forte II's and a KSW-150 for 10 years before I figured it out. The specs show the FII's going down to 32hz, and the KSW-150 to 31hz and this didn't make sense because in my system the FII's didn't come close to producing the bass the 150 did. That is, until I found a better amp. Tried a couple receivers before going entry level separates and that still didn't do it. You need a good amp. By that I mean a clean amp with real power. 200 watts of rcvr power is nothing compared to 150 clean watts of Bryston/Mac/McCormick (insert brand here). Even a 60 watt tube amp will show most HT rcvrs to the curb. Once they were driven by a good amp I found out that they really do go down to 32hz, and I sold the KSW-150 because it didn't go any lower than the Fortes.

That is one piece of it. Boomy can also mean having an uneven response where one note/frequency overpowers the rest. For example, rooms resonate which creates a boost in the 35-40 hz range that could be as much as 10dbs. This would cause what is known as one note bass. Some speakers also do this because of cabinet resonances. Poorly implemented ports can also do this. So boomy can also mean too much bass.

"I then opened my SACD drawer and selected several dual layer disks for a quick comparison of Marantz playing the CD layer Vs Pioneer playing the SACD layer. At best the differences were too marginal to spot but in most cases the CD layer played better in the Marrantz than the SACD layer did on the Pioneer. This was not the case when comparing CD layer on the Pioneer to SACD on the same unit - although even here the differences were very marginal with only the slightest of nods towards SACD." I don't know anything about the two players but maybe the point is the Marantz plays CDs better than the Pioneer plays CDs or SACDs. Might need more testing. [] I've heard this before at a Hi-Fi shop where their Bel Canto DAC played CD much better than my SACD player (a cheap Sony at the time) playing the SACD layer of the same disc.

I went with 4-8 hours a week which is closer to 8. I wish it was more but that is about all the time I get in the sweet spot. The system is powered up about 20 hours a week but I don't consider background music to be listening to music. Listening to music is doing something. Reading a book with music on in the background is reading.

I'll be done after I get a better set of speakers, amp, pre, source, wiring, and room. [] Am I happy the way it is, a little.

I've seen reports of the Living Stereo discs available at Costco recently.At $7.99 in a B&M store it's a no brainer. I need to check out my local Costco.

DVD-A is lossless PCM encoding at higher bitrates than redbook CD (which is also lossless btw).DD and DTS are lossy PCM encodings, meaning they may lose sound info through the encoding process in order to compress the data to fit onto the disc (think hi-def MP3). A DVD-A played through a digital connection is either DD or DTS, not true DVD-A, unless as previously mentioned, through a proprietary manufacturer connection. So yes, you were probably listening to a DTS track and not the DVD-A layer.

For the record, you have to use the analog cables to hear hi-res DVD-A or SACD (either format). The exception to the rule is if you are using a player and a receiver or pre from the same manufacturer. Only then will you get a proprietary digital connection. For example, a Denon player into a Denon receiver will allow for digital transfers. But even in this case you may be getting a high bit count PCM transfer which means the SACD info was translated into PCM then into analog (an extra and unnecessary step IMO).

Lets try to upload another graph. It worked. This is the right speaker with a 10 point moving average.

It looks like average level jumps about 4 or 5db (eye-balling the graph)from 5k - 8k.I added a 10 point moving average to the graph and it really shows the lift. Looking at it this way, it could be interpreted as a 6-7db lift. hmmm, there is another minor blip at 13k - 14k of about 3db's. Could this be a harmonic of the 5k - 8k bump? If so, could it be equipment driven or is it a function of the room?

Here's a quick graph in Excel. Let's see if the forum will accept it as an upload. Edit, it didn't. From the info (ignoring the bass), you have a small dip around 4k. That's a good thing in my book, others may not like it. Then you have a monster problem, in my opinion, from 5k - 8k range which coincides to your complaint. That is why I suggested starting with some absorption. Soak up those peaks rather than letting them bounce around the room over and over. That is nearly an octave. Will a crossover change be able to attenuate 3/4 of an octave?

The forum ate my previous post but this was my point (in a nut shell). You are measuring the speakers, room, and equipment in this "test". Of the three things listed, fixing the room will have the biggest impact. Forget the crossovers for now (sorry Dean) they will make a difference but not as big as fixing the room. From the numbers you posted: It looks like you have a mild mid bass hump followed by a mild trough (it's hard to tell because is was a small sample) but it looks fairly smooth. Then a jump in the high frequencies. Do you have a lot of hard surfaces in the room, hard floors, windows, bare walls? I would look into some sound absorption.

A big enough room, Room treatments, Parametric EQ for the sub ( I rank this higher than even having rear speakers).

Or try the older Lexicon NT series. I had an NT-512 in my system for a while and it is super. It was made by Bryston and similar to the 9B THX. 125 X 5, 250wpc into 4 ohms. It actually tested out over 150wpc into 8 ohms. Probably not as good as 9 BSST (or whatever the current letters are).They also made NT-312's, and 212's (three and two channels) so you could go the 2 three channel amps or the 3 two channel amp route. They would be out of warranty though since Lexicon only had a 5 year non-transferable warranty but Bryston is great to deal with and will offer assistance if needed.

My listening room is next to the laundry room so I have this to deal with.

You guys are still at it? I'll have to rewind back to the beginning of this one. [<)]

I agree. It would be very interesting to see the results if you could draw a correlation between amplifier power and use of EQ.I bet those that bought into the wattage wars would be more apt to using EQ. Those that use low power would probably fall into the minimalist camp where the less gadgets in the signal path the better. My vote went to no controls, bypassed, switched out, whatever the phrase. But I do EQ the room with the use of selective (broadband) absorption and speaker placement, where placement is the biggest impact. For example moving as little as +/- 1/2 inch increments from the rear wall can clean or create boomy bass. That said, I set the speakers (read EQ'd the room) to my liking over the course of a couple of months and haven't changed it since.