Spectrum Analyzer Results & Jeff's Take on the US Tax System!

[maxg]

On another subject entirely Jeff, from your tagline:

"Work for a Living? Pay 28% tax.

Living on Dividend Income? Pay 15% tax. (And This is Fair?)"

Actually that you have to pay any tax on dividends is unfair. Dividends are paid by companies AFTER TAX on their profits anyway (paid by the company that issues the dividend). Having to pay tax on already taxed income is a common government con. We have it over here too.

Subject to the rate of company tax dividend income actually pays more tax than employee income.

[Jeff Matthews]

On another subject entirely Jeff, from your tagline:

"Work for a Living? Pay 28% tax.

Living on Dividend Income? Pay 15% tax. (And This is Fair?)"

Actually that you have to pay any tax on dividends is unfair. Dividends are paid by companies AFTER TAX on their profits anyway (paid by the company that issues the dividend). Having to pay tax on already taxed income is a common government con. We have it over here too.

Subject to the rate of company tax dividend income actually pays more tax than employee income.

OOOOOOH, Max! Are you sure you wanted to hi-jack this thread on that topic? I have a strong-felt opposite opinion, despite having given your statements the deference they deserve for years.

Think of it this way. This dividend tax, like the personal income tax, is a tax on people. Who gives a rat's *** how people get their money, whether it is by dividends or a paycheck? Let's discount corporations for a minute since they merely exist as a fiction, they have no brain, they have no heart, they have no soul, they have no body - and they don't get tired or feel physical pain, nor suffer disability.

If the tax system is going to be fair to people, people should bear the burden, if not equally, then at least proportionately to their ability to bear it (I actually believe the latter, and so does our tax code and probably yours).

Now, dividend income is "sit on your *** and the check still comes in" income. Earned income for labor is just that - barring some exceptions, if you sit on your *** and don't work, you don't get paid.

So, the guy who sits on his *** while the check rolls in pays only 15% on his dough, while the laborers pay 28% (of course, we have a stepping scale here as you probably do, too, but my point is well-taken).

Sure, you can use the double-taxation logic if the logic appeals to you, but in the real world as it relates to people and not fictions, that type of logic is not always a good fit and can promote, rather than alleviate, unfairness.

If the system, as one of its more prominent purposes, is to be designed to make people bear the income tax in proportion to the ability to pay it, then the dividend tax should equal or exceed the earned income tax. That's why if you look at what is being said about the distribution of wealth in America, the distribution gap is actually widening - meaning the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

An unstable and widening wealth gap is not a good thing for social stability in any country, nor does it promote the concept of providing an opportunity for the lower-economic-class to rise above the ranks and become middle-class, or the middle-class to become comfortable or wealthy. Hoarding wealth is very dangerous.

History always repeats itself if the lessons are not heeded. I'm not sure if in Greece, you were taught about our American "trust buster" era of the late 1800's. If you're not familiar, Google will probably find the quote for you right away.

That doesn't mean the rich should just go and give it all away to deadbeats, either. That's a different story. But I'm sure we all know folks who have worked hard and will work hard all their lives, never to reach that beautiful opportunity to make any of that significant dividend income, for which they'd only have to pay 15% on unearned income as opposed to 28% on earned income.

Lastly, it surprises me how here, the Republicans (and I'm a conservative, myself, to a fair degree) have been able to brainwash the middle class into going along with this scam. The fat cat pays 15% on unearned income, while the workers pay 28%. If you're a worker and that 28% is too big a hit to leave ample discretionary income, how are you going to buy stocks in order to get that dividend income down the road and pay only 15%? Its the old carrot and the stick trick, and they have sold the working middle class on it lock, stock and barrel.

I'd say a fair shake would be to lower the rate on earned income and raise the dividend rate. That way, the middle class will be better able to buy some of them there stocks and make some of that there unearned income.

But, for now, them's the rules of the game. I have 2 possible approaches: (1) whine about it like this and hope it gets changed, or (2) thank God I'm a lawyer and make enough income to where in the up-and-coming future, I'll be sitting on my *** watching those dividend checks roll in.

Which one do you think is more likely? I'm counting on 2.

EDIT: By the way my law firm is a corporation. Do you think the IRS would let me agree to work for my corporation for free and declare a big dividend for myself so I could pay only 15%? Not. I'd be happy as a lark to have my corporation pay tax on the income first if it could then pass it on to me at the lower rate. That way, I could avoid the social securiy, social security matching, medicare, medicare matching, FUTA and SUTA taxes. I'd make out like a bandit.

Corporations, being nothing more than the fiction they are, were designed by the wealthy for the wealthy. We workers also use them because they afford certain liability protections, but if you got lots of dough to invest, they are one hell of a tax benefit as you can now see.

Think about why corporations exist in the first place and what purpose they were designed to serve. Then, you'll know why the idea of corporations wasn't made up by some toothless, working-class stiff who had too much time on his hands.

[Duke Spinner]

The resolution is pretty coarse in the bass. The distance between your first two measurements is an octave and a half. The source and signal path are unstated, as are the measurement tools and methods.

.

If you're measuring in a typical (or really exceptional for that matter) home listening room, a placement differential of inches can render such tests meaningless.

Use your ears. It's what you use to listen to music, and that's why you have the system, right? I respect your inent to gain some understnding here, but flawed methods won't serve that end.

Beenie .....

has said it all .........

[maxg]

On another subject entirely Jeff, from your tagline:

"Work for a Living? Pay 28% tax.

Living on Dividend Income? Pay 15% tax. (And This is Fair?)"

Actually that you have to pay any tax on dividends is unfair. Dividends are paid by companies AFTER TAX on their profits anyway (paid by the company that issues the dividend). Having to pay tax on already taxed income is a common government con. We have it over here too.

Subject to the rate of company tax dividend income actually pays more tax than employee income.

OOOOOOH, Max! Are you sure you wanted to hi-jack this thread on that topic? I have a strong-felt opposite opinion, despite having given your statements the deference they deserve for years.

Think of it this way. This dividend tax, like the personal income tax, is a tax on people. Who gives a rat's *** how people get their money, whether it is by dividends or a paycheck? Let's discount corporations for a minute since they merely exist as a fiction, they have no brain, they have no heart, they have no soul, they have no body - and they don't get tired or feel physical pain, nor suffer disability.

If the tax system is going to be fair to people, people should bear the burden, if not equally, then at least proportionately to their ability to bear it (I actually believe the latter, and so does our tax code and probably yours).

Now, dividend income is "sit on your *** and the check still comes in" income. Earned income for labor is just that - barring some exceptions, if you sit on your *** and don't work, you don't get paid.

So, the guy who sits on his *** while the check rolls in pays only 15% on his dough, while the laborers pay 28% (of course, we have a stepping scale here as you probably do, too, but my point is well-taken).

Sure, you can use the double-taxation logic if the logic appeals to you, but in the real world as it relates to people and not fictions, that type of logic is not always a good fit and can promote, rather than alleviate, unfairness.

If the system, as one of its more prominent purposes, is to be designed to make people bear the income tax in proportion to the ability to pay it, then the dividend tax should equal or exceed the earned income tax. That's why if you look at what is being said about the distribution of wealth in America, the distribution gap is actually widening - meaning the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

An unstable and widening wealth gap is not a good thing for social stability in any country, nor does it promote the concept of providing an opportunity for the lower-economic-class to rise above the ranks and become middle-class, or the middle-class to become comfortable or wealthy. Hoarding wealth is very dangerous.

History always repeats itself if the lessons are not heeded. I'm not sure if in Greece, you were taught about our American "trust buster" era of the late 1800's. If you're not familiar, Google will probably find the quote for you right away.

That doesn't mean the rich should just go and give it all away to deadbeats, either. That's a different story. But I'm sure we all know folks who have worked hard and will work hard all their lives, never to reach that beautiful opportunity to make any of that significant dividend income, for which they'd only have to pay 15% on unearned income as opposed to 28% on earned income.

Lastly, it surprises me how here, the Republicans (and I'm a conservative, myself, to a fair degree) have been able to brainwash the middle class into going along with this scam. The fat cat pays 15% on unearned income, while the workers pay 28%. If you're a worker and that 28% is too big a hit to leave ample discretionary income, how are you going to buy stocks in order to get that dividend income down the road and pay only 15%? Its the old carrot and the stick trick, and they have sold the working middle class on it lock, stock and barrel.

I'd say a fair shake would be to lower the rate on earned income and raise the dividend rate. That way, the middle class will be better able to buy some of them there stocks and make some of that there unearned income.

But, for now, them's the rules of the game. I have 2 possible approaches: (1) whine about it like this and hope it gets changed, or (2) thank God I'm a lawyer and make enough income to where in the up-and-coming future, I'll be sitting on my *** watching those dividend checks roll in.

Which one do you think is more likely? I'm counting on 2.

EDIT: By the way my law firm is a corporation. Do you think the IRS would let me agree to work for my corporation for free and declare a big dividend for myself so I could pay only 15%? Not.

Corporations, being nothing more than the fiction they are, were designed by the wealthy for the wealthy. We workers also use them because they afford certain liability protections, but if you got lots of dough to invest, they are one hell of a tax benefit as you can now see.

Think about why corporations exist in the first place and what purpose they were designed to serve. Then, you'll know why the idea of corporations wasn't made up by some toothless, working-class stiff who had too much time on his hands.

Hit a nerve?

You are confused on how taxation works and confusing taxation with a definition of fair in society.

You are correct in that a company is not a living breathing thing. It is merely a vehicle owned by its shareholders (which is why audit reports are addressed to the shareholders) and its primary function, its raison d'etre if you will, is to provide a return to those shareholders in one form or another - usually fiscal.

If I am a shareholder (and I happen to be in several companies) I own at least a part of the company I have invested in. As my dividends are paid post tax I have already paid tax - albeit indirectly, at the corporation tax rate.

If you add the 15% to the corporation tax rate I would imagine the total percentage is higher than the 28% figure you quote. As an investor that total is what I am actually paying - whatever shows up on my tax return.

Of course - you could change the tax laws so that companies pay out dividends before tax and then hit the beneficiaries with the full tax rate thereafter - but it really wouldn't make any difference to anyone other than making you feel better.

[Z4!]

It looks like Jeff doesn't understand American taxation any better than he understands power requirements for high efficiency speakers! []

[meagain]

Jeff - (besides eating several pages of my khorn thread with your amp stance)...

What you and apparently others fail to read is that I AM having problems with the sound of these things. In an effort to extract better sound out of them, we thought we should test them. This starting point with the analyzer seems alot more sane than dumping thousands of dollars into various amps. THAT makes no sense to 'me'.

I'm done. I'm buying an EQ to fix any room issues and will talk to 3dzapper when I change the xovers & others who have kindly emailed me privately.

Now - I give this thread up for you all to talk about taxes. Should I change the title of the thread for you? []

[Jeff Matthews]

Max, like I said, your thinking is logical, but to design the system based on that logic is unfair. Plus, on your dividend income, you're not paying social security (and matching) and medicare (and matching), so add another 16% roughly to the 28% I stated. And don't forget FUTA and SUTA - though they are more nominal. I'd say, the real rate is 45% or better on earned income.

In the end, your logic is good, but it contributes to an increasing wealth gap. Just like the "trickle down" theory" Reagan espoused in the early 80's.

All those tax cuts that reduced taxes primarily on only that class of income obtained by the wealthy (most prominently, capital gains) was supposed to spawn invesment, then jobs, then higher pay - all the way down. So, it was argued, the middle class should be content and not fuss about it because they would soon see their reward for patiently and tolerantly watching the rich receive advantageous treatment.

Well, Max, it never trickled. Where we have seen the biggest gains for the middle class is from borrowing. Reagan used the deficit spending to buy our economy out of a recession. This time, Bush used Greenspan to lower interest rates so we could borrow ourselves through the recession. Lots and lots of folks have re-fied their homes and cashed out to keep their lifestyles going. The personal debt load in America is really tremendous, and the equity or net worth is severely reduced.

If only that Republican "love" would have trickled down over the last 25 years.... You've got "conservative" supply-side arguments and "liberal" demand side arguments. My thoughts are give the money (or tax benefits) directly to those who have the demands and let them tell the suppliers what products and services our society most needs. I don't believe in the "build it and they will come" theory.

In the end, I espouse the national sales tax idea - if it were introduced with certain exemption like unprepared foods and basic necessities such as diapers, etc. (Just like our present state sales tax in Texas).

Still, I'm well-headed to category 2, so this is all more of my "sympathetic" side. My "greedy" side (which is natural, of course) is to take advantage of the tax system's unfairness. Unfortunately, not everbody is in position to take that advantage. They borrowed themselves to death since they did not get the benefit of the reduced 15% rate like the wealthy did.

[MarkBK]

Jeff - (besides eating several pages of my khorn thread with your amp stance)...

What you and apparently others fail to read is that I AM having problems with the sound of these things. In an effort to extract better sound out of them, we thought we should test them. This starting point with the analyzer seems a lot more sane than dumping thousands of dollars into various amps. THAT makes no sense to 'me'.

I'm done. I'm buying an EQ to fix any room issues and will talk to 3dzapper when I change the xovers & others who have kindly emailed me privately.

Now - I give this thread up for you all to talk about taxes. Should I change the title of the thread for you? []

Meagain,

Understand your frustration but there is some good advice given - ignore the diversions. One of the most important things Ben was trying to point out is that using the spectrum is a bit premature - a best you might be "seeing" room anomalies, placement variations, etc. The shape of the room, # if windows, wall treatments, furniture placement, etc play a VERY significant role.

Yes you are hearing a problem, but the problem may not be the speakers themselves. While I think this is not worth the effort - if you insist on trying the analyzer - with the test you did - you should swap the two cabs - move the left one to the rights position etc - making sure you are as exacting in placement as possible to reduce adding further errors - then run the spectrum test again - compare to the first analyzer run and see if the variations follow the cabinet (new left should be compared to the old right etc.)

However, I would strongly recommend putting the analyzer aside - change the crossovers - then listen, as recommended in several threads already, to music that you know EXTREMLY well - what ever that might be. It helps if the recording was well engineered - but it is most important that it is music YOU know extremely well.

[maxg]

Jeff - it is not fair that we are doing this to Meagain's thread but I cannot leave it there. Yet again you are hoping all over the map (anagram of amp - hmmmm[])

My comments in bold.

Max, like I said, your thinking is logical, but to design the system based on that logic is unfair. Plus, on your dividend income, you're not paying social security (and matching) and medicare (and matching), so add another 16% roughly to the 28% I stated. And don't forget FUTA and SUTA - though they are more nominal. I'd say, the real rate is 45% or better on earned income.

Fair? We are talking about taxation - there is nothing fair - it is about what a government can get away with levying on the society. Remember, however, that the money I have invested in the company to gain a dividend is already post taxes (including social security and the rest where applicable).

Also - assuming things work the same way over there as here - remember that my investment in that company also pays the employers contributions on social security, healthcare, pensions etc. etc. I may not be paying my own contributions on my dividend - but have I not paid that of others?

Your real rate for the US is way lower than it is for Greece. We have VAT (sales tax) at 19%!!! on top of higher basic tax rates, higher social security payments etc. etc.

In the end, your logic is good, but it contributes to an increasing wealth gap. Just like the "trickle down" theory" Reagan espoused in the early 80's.

All those tax cuts that reduced taxes primarily on only that class of income obtained by the wealthy (most prominently, capital gains) was supposed to spawn invesment, then jobs, then higher pay - all the way down. So, it was argued, the middle class should be content and not fuss about it because they would soon see their reward for patiently and tolerantly watching the rich receive advantageous treatment.

Somewhere you have gone from the basis for calculation of taxation to the percentages levied. The 2 are not really related.

Well, Max, it never trickled. Where we have seen the biggest gains for the middle class is from borrowing. Reagan used the deficit spending to buy our economy out of a recession.

That is basic Keynsian economics 101. It worked for over a century before we abandoned it. Governments spend money on public works projects to boost the economy. The economy warms up and the government eases back on spending to prevent it overheating whilst taking in sufficient additional tax revenues to make up the initial overspend.

This time, Bush used Greenspan to lower interest rates so we could borrow ourselves through the recession. Lots and lots of folks have re-fied their homes and cashed out to keep their lifestyles going. The personal debt load in America is really tremendous, and the equity or net worth is severely reduced.

2 things - bad government is not an issue of how taxation works when applied to investment, further, taxation is not a tool for supporting the spending habits of those that live beyond their means except where they means are below whatever threshold society dictates is the minimum acceptable.

Keeping interest rates low is not a tool for individuals as much as it is for businesses. Low short and medium term borrowing costs allows companies to invest and develop. More importantly - consistent interest rates allow companies to project more accurately and enable a higher proportion of them to survive.

Do you happen to know what the relative proportions of taxable income your government receives annually is from companies as against employees? It is a genuine question - I have no idea.

If only that Republican "love" would have trickled down over the last 25 years.... You've got "conservative" supply-side arguments and "liberal" demand side arguments. My thoughts are give the money (or tax benefits) directly to those who have the demands and let them tell the suppliers what products and services our society most needs. I don't believe in the "build it and they will come" theory.

One the one hand I might agree with you - although I am far from sure demand would better manage the market than supply. On the other hand - trickle down economics, as inadequate as it is, hasn't prevented the US from holding its top spot as the world's wealthiest economy.

I am certainly not arguing against taxing the wealthy more and the poor less - it happens to be my own philosophy. My response was merely to your tagline which I feel is inaccurate.

In the end, I espouse the national sales tax idea - if it were introduced with certain exemption like unprepared foods and basic necessities such as diapers, etc. (Just like our present state sales tax in Texas).

See above - that is the worst of all taxes in many ways - it hits the poor far harder than the rich as it is an instant price rise that they have the most difficulty supporting.

Still, I'm well-headed to category 2, so this is all more of my "sympathetic" side. My "greedy" side (which is natural, of course) is to take advantage of the tax system's unfairness. Unfortunately, not everbody is in position to take that advantage. They borrowed themselves to death since they did not get the benefit of the reduced 15% rate like the wealthy did.

Now you are in a minefield of issues from holding lenders accountable for their over loading of credit to government policy to society as a whole for encouraging such spending.

Still got little to do with the taxation system on dividends however.

[3dzapper]

Meaghan, Remember, you are measuring your room as much as the speakers. that said, you can see the room gain in the 150HZ octave that most rooms will exihibit. The relative inbalance between the speakers is more than likely caused by room reflection differences between the speakers. Things like hard walls, mirrors, oil paintings all reflect sound waves differently.

There are also a few things appearent that are intrinsic to the K-400 in the upper "presence" frequencies (1-2K octave). This is one area that AL K designed networks really shine, they allow one to take that extra Db or two, depending on room, out of the response curve as well as flatten out the impedence load further smoothing the response.

There is no definitive relationship between a good speakers frequency response plot and how it sounds. If one was to look atjust the frequency response plot of a $40,000 Wilson MAXX 2 speaker system it would be dismissed as a joke. However it is one of the best sounding speakers around. Why? Low distortion. Low distortion was PWK's holy grail.

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/805wilson/index4.html

Once you have your Khorns sounding their best, then it is time to tackle some of the room issues. This would hold true for any loudspeaker system, it's only as good as the listening room. You won't need ugly foam stuck to the wall there are other more subtle means to accomplish those goals. Things such as drapes, wall hangings and the material of the furniture all make a difference.

Rick

[Jeff Matthews]

Well, Max, it looks like you and I agree on a few basic fundamentals of the argument. I won't belabor each point as to where I agree or not, but suffice it to say, we do.

My point was about overall fairness in terms of how it affects the wealth distribution across all boards. You can do too little or you can do too much. I think we're in a "too little" phase.

There should be no arguing with this, though - which happens to be my plan:

I finish getting my house paid off, which will not be that long from now. That leaves me pretty much 100% debt-free. Then, I take my income and put it into (A) investments that pay dividends, for which I will be taxed at 15% and not 45%; ( investments that return capital gains, which again are taxed at only 15% and not 45% - if you hold them for at least 1 year, or © both A and B.

That, I would think, is absolutely a "dummy-proof" plan on how to cut my personal tax burden by 2/3's. I agree that w/corporate dividends, you can show me the "logic" (which it is) of how I paid the higher taxes anyway, and that is why I am more inclined to lean towards B, which is capital gains income Not only that, but going the capital gains route, I get a wider array of investments that I can personally control, as opposed to putting my money in the hands of the Ken Lay's and Andrew Fastow's of the corporate world and hoping they're not skimming too much or cooking the books.

Bottom line...... It takes a fair degree of wealth for a citizen to get to the point of sustaining his/her lifestyle on investments that yield unearned income that is taxed at a lower rate. How are they supposed to get that opportunity to get the required wealth when they are taxed at a rate that makes them share a heavier burden than those who already have the wealth? Too little focus is on how we would define "discretionary income" and use that to impose a more proportionate tax burden. I think a fair subset of the "discretionary income" point I am making is hidden in the 15% tax rates for dividends and capital gains.

But you can count on this..... The plan's dummy-proof and undeniably sound, and I will take full advantage of the unfairness as it is my duty to myself to do so. I am still honest enough to point out its flaws when considering a policy of societal wealth distribution.

As to everyone else, you gotta know the rules to play. The way to play the rich man's game is to spend a good while living below your means - well below your means. That's why I don't go buy a $30 SPL meter at RatShack for the heck of it. [] Courtesy of "The Millionaire Next Door," a great book! Not that the book will change your habits. I already had the habits, and the book simply reinforced my behavior.

[Jeff Matthews]

Meagain, you devil! I saw the name on the thread change. That was hilarious, reading the subjects together like that![]

[Deang]

Please, no more tax BS (take it over to the General Forum).

Meagain -- I'd like to know a little bit more about your system:

Model and year of your Klipsch

Brand of amp/preamp (or integrated or receiver)

The size of your room and how far back you guys sit

The kind of music you normally listen to

[Jeff Matthews]

I can help you before she gets back on-line and can fill in some blanks.

What I recall is she has 1981 KHorns w/AA xovers.

She's driving with an HK-6xxxx something receiver that's rated at 65 wpc and 85w peaks.

I think they like classic rock; she sure mentioned alot of it.

There's a pic of part of her room in the "I bought Klipschorns" thread a few pages back. You can see the fireplace serving as one of her corners, but apparently, she used some MDF wood to close the gap and act as a false corner. She also lists the complete HK model number in that thread.

No more tax policy. Max started it! []

[meagain]

Hi Dean

1981 Khorns with AA's

Harman Kardon AVR 435 (65 wpc w/peak of 85. Various dig/analog ports to chose from & able to do pure 2 channel if desired).

Room size: (bad) Khorns are on 11.5-12' wall & we're sitting a bit back from what "I" think is the sweet spot.

Music type: All except country & we have no blues here that I can find. Tendancy towards harder music with complicated musicianship/time signatures, etc.

Good things: Bass. Deep & punchy. I've no complaints.

Problems: Some highs can be harsh (cymbal crashes). Sometimes sibilance(sp) issues but I think that's mostly the particular recordings. Some almost 'hall-like' tone, not so much an echo, but more a detached atmosphere - airey (maybe lack of warmth?) that seems disconnected somehow. Perhaps something missing in the middle or a 'gap' between bass & highs? Perhaps bass 'too too' sometimes overwhelming. A semi-imbalance. But I'm not smart enough to translate that into Hz or frequency ranges, etc. to better explain.

I'm a bass lover and these are the first speakers I've dealt with that I didn't have the bass tone control up a notch or 2. This is good. I guess my first order of biz is to chill out the harsh parts which seem detached & often jump out too much.

Tonight we're going to try 3dzapper's recapped x-overs in BOTH speaks. I plan to give them a good listen as long as he's not in urgent need for their return. We did the spectrum analyzer to try to get a baseline as to where we are right now. It made sense to me & still does. I posted it to see if the knowledgeable people here can see any major problems to the speakers themselves before I went from there. For all I know - something mechanical was off. These are the only khorns we've heard so we had nothing to compare to. And it didn't cost us anything.

I'm not overthinking this. I have problems with what I hear right now and know they can sound much better. We plan to remodel and intend to size the room with the khorns in mind. Until then, I realize my room s*cks and I'm thinking that Behringer EQ that's been talked about here can help balance things out & accommodate my situation for the interim. Though I'm thinking even with a new room, this EQ can still help cuz it likely will never be perfect.

I'll be happy-ish if someone tells me the numbers above do not show defects in a given horn, etc. and are just a result of my room. I can then cross that off my list.

So Dean, do the numbers above look appalling to you or are they just in the normally semi-bad category and merely an effect of the room?

[Tom Mobley]

Max started it?

No, you started it with this line(s):

Work for a Living? Pay 28% tax.

Living on Dividend Income? Pay 15% tax. (And This is Fair?)

What you avoided is the truth so cleanly and clearly stated by Max, to wit :

"You are confused on how taxation works and confusing taxation with a definition of fair in society."

Problem is, lawyers like you that can't or won't separate your personal

convictions from factual observations end up getting appointed to the

federal bench where they promptly start substituting their

personal convictions for factual observations, creating the mess we

have now.

Sorry, meagain. Still recommend you listen to the collective

wisdom here, lots of people with decades of experience in setup and

listening have posted excellent suggestions to you.

[whell]

Problem is, lawyers like you that can't or won't separate your personal convictions from factual observations end up getting appointed to the federal bench where they promptly start substituting their personal convictions for factual observations, creating the mess we have now.

Uh oh.....!

I agree that we need not carry on the tax discussion in 2 channel. However, I'm always up for a good tax debate. Lets crank it back up in the General Forum.

[maxg]

Dean,

Your wish is my command.

Meagain,

Too funny! (changing the title of the thread).

Jeff,

Yes - I did start it - because your tagline is insane.

Try to pick investments based on traditional risk/yield analysis rather than on how severe or otherwise the Taxation is. Just do the calculations after tax.

Meagain 2,

Ssssibilant Horn sssssystems often have SS amps ssso ssssmart lisssteners choose tubesssssss.

Nice tube pre would probably do the trick (I know a guy that makes them) if your amp has a pre-in.

Otherwise get a nice refurbed integrated Eico / Dynaco / Fischer .....

[Colin]

why such big differences between the speakers?

[meagain]

Colin - are the differences 'over the top'? Abnormal?

Mark suggested switching the speakers & redoing the test. That'll be easy and we'll likely do that tonight for kicks.