> Why would you want to damp the back wall? Certainly the wall behind 
 > the cabinets should be as dead as possible, but damping the back 
        Whoops, I meant the front wall.  I keep thinking of the front wall as 
the "back" wall because it's in back of the speakers.  I usually think of and 
refer to the real "back" wall as the rear wall.  No, I don't plan to dampen 
it.  I plan to dampen the front wall in BACK of the speakers.
 >GG> The Definitive Sub is worse yet at around 100 lbs.
 >GG> Fortunately, I didn't have to move it around much.
 >
 > A single sub that weighs 100 Lbs? That's pretty light. Each of my 
 > home subs weighs over 185 Lbs.
       
        Light?  What size are your subs and what's in them?  Lead shot?  I'm 
talking about a 250 watt 15" sub with a monocoque cabinet.  It's not big 
enough to weigh more without just loading dead weight into it.  It was just 
"light" enough for me lift it across the house by myself without breaking my 
back.  Weighing more doesn't automatically help the sound.  It's not like the 
cabinet is making noises.  In fact, the driver should be as light and stiff 
as possible.  Extra weight is usually the result of either the amplifier in 
active subs or the cabinet and dampening materials therein.
 > 1200 watts into 2 ohms? The damping factor would suffer at 2 ohms. 
 > I never load my amps at home lower than 8 ohms, because the damping
 > factor falls off sharply below 8 ohms, although the amps are rated 
 > for 2 ohm loads.
        So you don't consider speakers that have impedances below 8 ohms?  
You must not have had a very big selection to choose from as I know of hardly 
any good speakers that don't dip below 8 ohms at some point on the curve.  I 
don't believe there are *any* electrostatics that are rated any higher than 6 
ohms average, for instance.  I also don't think the damping factor of the 
Sunfire is a problem.  It's output impedance is almost zero.
 > If you want state of the art, stay clear of CDs. 16 bit wordlength
 > and low sampling frequencies just don't cut it for anything above 
 > about 4Khz.
        As Stewart Pinkerton would put it, this is utter rubbish.  The LP has 
an equivalent resolution of 12-bit digital and is completely and 
unequivocally INFERIOR in terms of ACCURACY to the CD.  There is nothing 
wrong with the current red book CD format.  Bad sounding CDs are the result 
of poor mixing and mastering by individual recording engineers.  In fact, if 
you replaced the word LP for CD in your statement above, you would be much 
closer to a true statement.  Increasing the word length only gives you 
greater dynamic range (of which the CD is FAR superior to the LP already) and 
increasing the sampling rate would only get you response in an area in which 
humans can't even hear.  Distortion, wow & flutter; these are both lower in 
the CD.  Error correction (the LP has NONE).  Robustness of the format.  The 
CD wins hands down.  Some people do prefer the DISTORTIONS of the LP, but 
they are just that, distortions and are not present in the original signal, 
let alone the original event.
        If you prefer LPs to CDs, fine, but it has nothing to do with 
problems of the current CD format in high frequencies. 
 >GG> Well, Carver amps are voiced and TFM modified to sound like
 >GG> Bob's Silver Seven tubes.  While I haven't heard *those*, I don't
 >GG> doubt the TFM series sound a little different than a
 >GG> solid-state-as-you-can-get Bryston.  
 >
 > This is true; nothing that Carver makes can come close to the sound 
 > of the Brystons. The only thing that beats a Bryston is an FM 
 > Acoustics, but who can afford those beauties?
             
        Once again, you state an opinion I do not share.  My final comparison 
of choice in my speakers came down to Martin Logans and Carver AL-IIIs.  It 
just so happens that the Martin Logan Sequel IIs in question were powered by 
Bryston equipment.  Both the amp and the speakers cost more than my AL-IIIs 
or TFM-35x.  Funny how it didn't sound better.
        As for FM Acoustics, what the heck is that?  The *only* thing that 
can beat a Bryston?  I guess you haven't listened to a Krell lately.          
    
 >GG> The Sonic Holography is incredible. 
 > 
 > That technique has been around for decades; modern techniques are 
 > far more convincing.
      
        And what modern techniques are you referring to and why does no high 
end equipment feature it?  Please be specific as to what models and what 
processing there is that I can buy that is more convincing.
        As for being around for decades.  This is irrelevant.  Tube amps have 
been around far longer and high end audiophiles still buy them.  Sonic 
Holography eliminates interchannel crosstalk, a serious flaw in stereo.  It 
does nothing else.  It RESTORES the sound stage; it doesn't FAKE it like most 
of the "modern" processing methods (Q-Sound, SRS, spatializer, etc,) and 
unlike all of those it doesn't play with the phase of the signal.  As long as 
the current two channel format is around, it will serve a valid function.  
Gimmicky processing methods come and go, but none of them address this basic 
problem with stereo sources (using more than 1 channel to reproduce a mono 
event/instrument).
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------