Active Equalizer/crossover Open Baffle dipole Speaker system designed by Seigfried Linkwitz of Linkwitz-Riley fame [url]www.linkwitzlab.com[/url]. Manufactured and distributed by Audio Artistry [url]www.audioartistry.com[/url]
Two-way system requires seperate amp for main panels and woofer seperates. Woofer channel has 12dbl variable.
Main panel consists of (2) 8" open baffle dynamic driver mids, and tweeter (xo at 1500hz).
Woofers are (2) 12" dynamic drivers, also open baffle, in push-pull configuration (xo at 100hz).
Each driver, with the exception of the 2) mids, which are wired in paralell, is powered by its own 60w distortion free amp (400)
(4-60wpc ATI stereo amps) 2 stacked each side. I used their AT6012 12 channel 6ow amp (leaving 4 amps unused) when amp was located at center rack.
RadioShack 16awg Megawire soldered to each driver, with dual banana plugs at amps (all of which the cable snobs with jeer at :-) to which I laugh at all the way to bank, or the dealer to upgrade any system's weakest link, the speakers.
For Shuffle / 5-disk changer / disappointed in SACD/DVD-A, and so-called tech upgrades: HDCD, 20bit, etc., which just serves the labels to resell their entire catalog again, and again. I have had as many as 3 versions of the same album before I felt like a dummy :-) Now I use direct digital connection to the Lexicon DC-2 and use its 24bit DA conversion so the Sony serves as transport only.
Lexicon DC-2
I consider top end gear (especially cables and tweaks) of less significance and focus on the speakers/setup and a distortion free amp to power them.
Audio Artistry 'Dvorak'
A 2-way Active EQ/XO open baffle design by Seigfried Linkwitz, of Linkwitz-Riley fame.
DIY Phoenix
Open Baffle / pair 12" Shiva dynamic driver in push-pull configuration per woofer / 1-60w amp channel per driver / see www.linkwitzlab.com /Phoenix / woofer
ATI AT602
(4) 60wpc Stereo Amps. Each of (8) drivers to a seperate amp. Total of 480w for system.
Well, if Dida does his homework he'll reallize what's really going on here. He can further enhance his musical enjoyment beyond what he EVER thought was possible. Then he'll be in a position to share his perspective on speaker/room interactions just like I'm into power delivery/noise control, Redkiwi and vibration, TWL and vinyl playback, Lugnut and racks, DeKay and budget yet highly effective tube systems, Jahaira and DIY room acoustic treaments, etc.
Personally, I've been feeling a lot of tension over these past few years as our country and the world has become increasingly divided. With so very infrequent expressions of community, this one really stands out. I don't take it lightly. My wife and I are just about to get in the car and drive our dogs to San Francisco for some playtime at the beach in the marina. You have brightened our day, and lifted a great deal of that tension. Thank you, all. And special thanks to Didactically for sparking such a show of community.
'Me thinks thou all dost protest too much'. What is up with that?
Oh, I know. That is what you do when lacking a credible arguement on an issue. Attack the person. Attempt to destroy their credibility. At least it will serve as a diversion from one's lack of credible argument.
A ancient, popular, and often used strategy. Made all the more evident in the current political campaign.
Thank you FatParrot, I second your call for 'kinder, gentler postings' in this thread. I, of course, am guilty as everyone else, and even more so considering the lengths/ponderousness of my own misdirecting scribblings. And of course. . . apologies to Dida.
...for unsportsmanly-like conduct (myself included)! Let's stop "piling on" Didactically. It appears from his postings that he is dealing with issues other than stereo gear. I, for one, have not shown much Christian charity while dealing with someone here on Audiogon who may be at a low and bleak point in his life.
Didactically, I truly hope that your stereo rig and music bring you joy, if you are indeed going through some tough times. I know, because I've been there myself. And many times, my music was the only beacon in a sea of blackness.
Metralla- I questioned this before, and by using market pricing its MUCH less, the DC2 and the 333es are out of production units(the DC2 for a NUMBER of years) I am not as familiar with the rest of the product lines to know if anything else is no longer in production.
Since you don't like me taking you to school, I'll let the Kiwiman teach you about vibration control. He's extremely well versed in the subject--and works on different products than yours truly. I have found non-resonant, Caribbean Moca wood to fill a niche in my system. Since this is an area you lack any knowledge, take it easy. Be open minded and perhaps one day you'll ask for forgiveness...
With psychic power, primal intensity & boogie factor,
This is like watching some punch drunk Dilbert on his way down on his way out..You just watch in awe thinking dude give it up! Ref stop the fight.. he's getting killed in there..Tom
Fatparrot: Your attemtp to protect Guido from me is sweet. What I cannot figure out is how is that I caused so much damage by holding an alternative view that he needs it.
Do you feel that same way...is that why you are so defensive that you retaliate againd my ideas? as though if you not destroy them they will continue to assault you.
Guidocorona, your posts were a "hoot"! Informative, amusing, and very well written...you should be writing Op/Ed or satire pieces professionally. I don't think that I will be joining you as a guest for dinner, however! As for Didactically, any attempt at a meaningful discussion on audio or his cultist's views on audio are pointless. Read through his posts. Irrelevancy, absurdity, and redundancy run through all.
Ah yes, of course. My apologies. Not realized attention span problem. Briefer next time. No worries. problem very treatable. May be caused by long exposure to residual trace distortion in audio system.
Your brave quest for the absolute and truth in the reproduction of the artistic phenomenon is Very insightful, Dear Didactically. And yes, I have in fact been chuckling at both my subjective and objective nature for a very long time. And plan to go on chuckling. I did have an initial problem understanding your otherwise keen posting, until I realized that the obscure term 'muscians' utilized there, was in fact a rather trivial misspelling of 'musicians'. The other term I had some difficulty with is 'Mona'. The word in question means--in Venetian vernacular--'woman of lax moral standards'. In North America the word has been rather unfelicitously adopted as a proper female name. Phylologically, the derivation is from classic Latin mea domina--meaning my mystress or my lady. Subsequent vernacular contractions during the Middle Ages turned it into the Italian Madonna, French Madame, middle Italian Monna), and finally the execrable Venetian mona. Except for the final one, the meaning has remained pretty well unaltered, with the term Madonna also used as a title of sort for Mary, mother of Jesus. I suspect the work of art you are referring to is likely the Monna Lisa, [meaning Milady Lisa) painted by Leonardo and, if memory serves me right, currently displayed at the Louvre. As you would agree, changing her name to Mona sounds utterly inappropriate, given the above. There are several problems in your otherwise brilliant argument: 1. The Monna Lisa is certainly a work of art, but is not an objective representation of reality. The woman in the portrait, may or may not have existed, and is likely to be a fantastic composite of many subjects, including the author. The painting's background is even more problematic. Attempts have been made over the last several centuries to map it to a particular North facing view of the river Adda near Milan with the Alpine foothills in the background. All efforts have met In with little success. In all likelyhood, the Monna Lisa is an instantiation of some fantastic imagery in the mind of Leonardo, transfered to an oil painting. Thus, even under the most favorable of circumstances, the viewer is not beholding reality, but a fantastic artifact. And under what circumstances can you view the painting correctly? Not in the Louvre for certain, where lighting and context are of necessity very different from what Leonardo experience when painting it. Where did Leonardo paint this work? What lighting did he use? Was the lighting constant or did it change? To perceive the painting correctly we would need to replicate exactly the conditions Leonardo found during the creation process, we would need to rejuvenate the pigment to bring back the exact colors of its inception. If this were not yet impossible enough, the true seeker of artistic truth would need to look at the painting through Leonardo's eyes, who may very well have suffered from some chromatic aberrations. Ultimately, the seeker of artistic truth would need to get into Leonardo's mind and behold his very fantastic image directly. Looking at the Monna Lisa in any way whatsoever gives a unique 'view' of the original, but is not the original. Drawing moustachos on a likeness of the painting is much more similar to driving a screwdriver through a speakercone, than tweaking the preamp in your system. The latter is more akin to a lighting adjustment on a museum display.
2. In music the quest for objective truth is even more hopeless. The work of art exists at many levels: a. The virtual work in the mind of the author. b. The original score, which may not match exactly what he/she had in mind, or may have left much implied for sociocultural reasons, and which may no longer exist. c. One or more published scores, which may or may not be truthful to the original. d. A multitude of performing interpretations. e. A multiplicity of recordings/pressings. f. A virtually infinite number of audio systems and setups. g. Hearing peculiarities of the listener. In a word: hopeless!
That said, 'the thing created is inferior to the one who created it'. Or, put an audiophile way, 'the listening non participant is inferior to the muscians creating the music'.
You draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa when you tweak your playback system with some subjectivly preferred sonic distortion or other, regardless of the poetic terms you may describe the experience in.
BTW, do not try so hard to use impressive language in your writing. It only makes it worse, and that tends to make me weep, or chuckle, depending.
Rather, take a look at why you may be trying so hard. That could reveal some truth or other in one's subjective nature. Face that and 'chuckle' it away if you can.
The Helvetico-Kaschubian sage Aloysius Q. Schmaltzenstein-Gavronsky, author of the monumental "Sattura Et Fictitia" [Appenzell, CH. 1996] recently co-authored an authoritative paper with Prof. Maurizio Passerin D'ENTREVES< Compte De Courmayeur, titled Psychoacoustic Myths, Regressio Ad Infantiam, And Institutional Decline In participatory Democracies. This seminal work, to be published in appendix 13 of the 2007 issue of Acta Phylosopica Refutata, official organ of the Apocriphal Society of Groznian (Croatian Republic), suggest the possibility that the methodical and acritical ingestion/absorption of quasi-religious philosophies of music, based on pseudo-scientific dribble, can lead to severe chronic neurocoustic distortion, followed by emotional regression of the individual, and may be a leading cause of institutional decline in western participatory democracies. The authors cite a little known Ethnographic work by Ruth Benedict, which discusses a severe case of regressive behavior suffered by the organist of the Cymbrian village of Cogne, in the Western Alps, in 1928, following the reconstruction of the formerly excellent Cavillier-Colle pneumatic organ in the local parish Church, according to the outwardly mathematical, and in prima face scientific sounding, but ultimately spurious principles of 'Radionics', which yielded one decade of civil strife in the alpine community and which may have been a co-triggering factor in the 1929 stockmarket crash.
The bottom line is, dear Dr. Didacto, that we love music and sound for what it does to us, emotionally, and sometimes even synesthetically, regardless of how it is being produced, amplified, naturalized, modified, carved, purified, pacified, declawed, delouced, enhanced, or otherwise processed. We are more seekers of subjective beauty and unexplained emotions, than of a rigorous and objective truth. The sight or thought of a Gaussian distribution curve of harmonic distortion centered around 5Khz never stirred me, but when after 2 hours of outwardly objective and very analytical audition of the Esoteric X-01 CD/SACD player at Andy Singer's shoppe in New York, the consultant finally surprised me with an SACD remaster of Brahms's 4th conducted by Fritz Reiner, I started to cry like an 8-year-old. Except. . . I am 51. I have no idea why the combination of Shunyata Python, X-01, Bermester SS electronics, Synergistics interconnects and JM Labs Utopia Altos let at that time so much music through. I do not even like Bermester and Utopia most of the time. But that old recording, that I had heard so many times as a child played muffled and scratchy on my father's Grunding, had suddenly turned into pure magic.
Why bother to argue if I am right or wrong? Objective or imagining things? Heck I even love sweetbreds! And stewed tripe to boot! And even St. Honoree torte! Should I seek a pseudosientific explanation for the delight of ingesting those delicious morcels of bovine pancreatic gland expertly pan-fried in aged Spanish madera wine? Or will you let me enjoy my grand quest for heavenly sounds, which you so villified as a puny 4-month or was it 7-month itch, my music, and my corny food in blissful peace? Oh yes, and without cruelly reminding me that It's indeed high time that I bought a nice present for my wife, who has in complete truth so patiently indulged my extravagant hobby for more years than I care to remember?
Maybe Dida & Freud have the same girlfriend. This morning one of my best friends came out of detox for the third time because of her...
Oh, I understand what Dida is trying to say:
1) I don't have credibility (he does). 2) The post I wrote is about me (there must be better ways of establishing credibility then). 3) Frued knows what he said--and his teachings said that what I posted has to do with guilt on my behalf. What I'm accusing his system of lacking mine does (and my personality). 4) Frued said people who refer to themselves in the third person lack credibility. 5) Dida knows about the human psyche because he read--and understood Frued.
The Psychic speaks with an accent but doesn't think with one...
