It can be done. it's called overdamping. Very few BR speakers do that (Avalon, Tidal among the ones that sound good) because people likes boombastic bass and also because there is a natural dampening in American houses wall construction (thanks to a friend i finally understood this mystery just a month ago).

Rather than going to closed box (penumatic suspension), a BR can be designed not to boom. I have read some paper recently very enlightening, but i cant find it right now. I'll try to if you mail me for a reminder, Peter.

I prefer even more damped loading systems than the closed box such as infinite baffle (if i had a free room behind my listening room, thats THE way to go) and open baffle (which requires LOTS of space IN room).

Edit: Oh, i remembered one thing about that paper, and it is that low frequency reach is much more important than the SPL in low-frequencies. A very low Q design just sound more natural to the hear even if it is -10dB at 20hz rather than -3, while the first is at -15db at 10hz and the second at -30

87dB speakers in a room of about 90 cubic meters requires 75W for 110dB peaks (peaks are 20-30db above the average).
I think that you have a good headroom with your 150W.


For me the other way is true.
Got burned once. Got luckier with several peoples opinion rather than a single reviewer. But I'm 100% satisfied only with my ears.

Actually is none of this, although using a mono (or dual mono) amp has several advantages.
It's how the circuit has been designed and build.

Just two quick comments, Bill.
1) Try to listen to something before you buy it, unless you are totally sure that your tastes and judgement closely matches the one of the reviewer.
2) The speakers are rather unefficient, that requires lots of power to sonorize a medium room (the Soraya is only 105W).

I dont think you are up to a big disappointment, but a not ideal match is very likely.

The specs look good (i'm particularly fond of gigabyte ud mainboards). A dvd by itself won't cause any problem. The most harmless player (i.e no codecs needed) is media player classic.

a-a! This is a false belief.
Our ears are able to listen 10 to 20db below the noise floor.
To measure HD under the noise floor the notch filter trick can (and should) be used.

So, in first instance the noise floor should be very low (and <120dB IS very good for a low-level signal), then the harmonics should be another 10db under it.

Thanks. I already have.
Maybe the subfolders with pics are still cahced?

FIY, I dont use the other stuff. In each main album folder there is just folder.jpg and back.jpg (75% of the times).
IF the albums have a scanned booklet, that's in a subfolder which i THINK (Peter?) is not cached. I do not use the alternative covers feature.

Will check the sizes tonight since i have some free time (yay!)

FIY Girder is 100% stable with IRTrans.

Ah, "progress"

It depends first of all on the fastest signal that will pass through the amplifier. with the NOS1 that's 352khz.
Then on the maximum power at which that signal will be amplified.

There are some simple formulas. in short the 30V/us are good only for low powered amps (<40W).
The classic formula considers 20khz as the maximum frequency containing music signal, which is not the case with upsampled and unfiltered source.

Unfortunately the slew rater measure only vertical speed. I haven't seen any (way to) measure the horizontal speed. But it's the only bit of information that we have that gets close to the definition of speed.
The open loop bandwith is another one, but almost impossible to know unless you can simulate or measure the circuit.

PS: high-efficiency planar(or ribbon) extended midrange is the goal for my next speakers.

That's what I did. I remember I resized all files too big of the main folder (the FLACs). Now i dont know from which byte size i started. Probably not enough.

Will check the thread, thanks!

This is my recipe. Horns and chipamps can be another one. Etc.

No.


Yes, but i kept some huge files (max 2000x2000 pixels). Probably is this. Since the data is the same in both computers.
I resize jpegs only with Photoshop - any other program causes artifact and double compression.

If I'm correct, the cache is gone after i reboot the pc, which makes it pointless.


I have never been happy with it. It is decent on my studio pc (3ghz core2d and gtx280). But not perfect there either. It SHOWS that is not cached.
And I surely should not do this procedure everytime i boot my pc.

PS: the thumbnails of the gallery do not cache completely. Scrolling the library is very cpu or gpu dependent.
this is what i meant in the gallery interface to be not responsive (cant find that thread so i'm writing it here).