-=> Quoting Gordon Gilbert to T Owen <=-
 GG> Whoops, I meant the front wall.  I keep thinking of the front
 GG> wall as the "back" wall because it's in back of the speakers.  I
 GG> usually think of and refer to the real "back" wall as the rear wall. 
Oh, ok. Now I get the picture. You had me worried for a minute. 
 > A single sub that weighs 100 Lbs? That's pretty light. Each of my 
 > home subs weighs over 185 Lbs.
 
 GG> Light?  What size are your subs and what's in them?  Lead
 GG> shot?
Each is 4x2x2 1/2, with a single 18" EV, good for 1000 watts peak, 400
watts continuous. They are plenty for the living room.
 GG> Weighing more doesn't automatically help the sound.
Doesn't help your back either. 
 GG> It's not like the cabinet is making
 GG> noises.  In fact, the driver should be as light and stiff as possible.
 GG> Extra weight is usually the result of either the amplifier in active
 GG> subs or the cabinet and dampening materials therein. 
True.
 > 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.
 GG> So you don't consider speakers that have impedances below 8
 GG> ohms?  You must not have had a very big selection to choose from as I
 GG> know of hardly any good speakers that don't dip below 8 ohms at some
 GG> point on the curve.
I was referring to nominal impedances, which is how the drivers are
rated, as well as the amplification. If the amp is rated for 8, and the
speaker is rated for 8, you have a fair match, same with lower ratings.
 
 > 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.
 GG> As Stewart Pinkerton would put it, this is utter rubbish.  The
 GG> LP has an equivalent resolution of 12-bit digital and is completely
 GG> and unequivocally INFERIOR in terms of ACCURACY to the CD.
This is a common (and unfortunate) misconception. I have never been a fan
of LPs; let's face it, even a good pressing is only good for a few plays.
I was referring to anagog *tape* The resoloution is so far beyond 16
bit digital at today's low sampling rates that it makes CD look like
a bad joke (it is really just a marketing problem). 
 GG> There is nothing wrong with the current red book CD format.
Unless you count the resoloution and the sound.
 GG> Bad sounding CDs
 GG> are the result of poor mixing and mastering by individual recording
 GG> engineers.
A recording engineer can futz up a mix to any format, this is a given.
I was referring to the medium itself.
 GG> In fact, if you replaced the word LP for CD in your
 GG> statement above, you would be much closer to a true statement. 
LPs are inferior, yes, inferior to *analog tape*, and to some extent
to CD.
 GG> Increasing the word length only gives you greater dynamic range (of
 GG> which the CD is FAR superior to the LP already) and increasing the
 GG> sampling rate would only get you response in an area in which humans
 GG> can't even hear.
That's precisely the point. Why do you think that manufacturers try so
hard to keep the bandwidth wide? It isn't because we can *hear* those
frequencies below 20hz and above 20khz, but we can percieve them, and
we can *hear* the artifacts of limited bandwidth, such as the phase shift
that starts a decade above the low cutoff frequency, and a decade below
the high cutoff frequency. An amplifier that has a bandwidth of 20-20k
sounds terrible. An amp that has a bandwidth of 5-200k sounds much more
natural, even though we need to filter the extremes to avoid sub and
supersonic oscillation, as well as other undesireable aspects.
 GG> If you prefer LPs to CDs, fine, but it has nothing to do with problems
 GG> of the current CD format in high frequencies.  
I do not prefer LPs to anything; I don't even have a turntable anymore.
The CD format is ok below about 4k, beyond that it sounds harsh.
  
 > 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?
 GG> Once again, you state an opinion I do not share.  My final
 GG> comparison of choice in my speakers came down to Martin Logans and
 GG> Carver AL-IIIs.
Opinion is one thing, but the fact is that the Carver amps simply do not
have the rails that a Bryston has. I would take a Crown over a Carver,
a Crest over a Crown, a Bryston over a Crest, and an FM Acoustics over
all of them (but who can afford an FM?). AL-III? Never heard of that one.
... Posted by the committee to outlaw BAD VENUES!
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20
---------------