Dusty Chalk

A speaker amp with a common ground? Methinks you were just backpedaling. And no, you just hate being in the wrong, and if someone doesn't capitulate, you start in with the antisocial comments. Fuck you (hey, you going to find me guilty of being antisocial, I might as well live up to it). I cited that example because I think it's a perfect example of meeting the requirements for what qualifies as "balanced headphones", and yet clearly is not. If I misunderstood the requirements for a balanced headphone, someone please reiterate it in a way that clearly explains how my example does not meet the criteria.

Again, I am unfamiliar with your premise, I'm going to have to wander off and figure out what dual voice coils are -- are they around each other? Opposing (I guess this is a matter of which way you connect their inputs)? What separates them? Do they otherwise have the same specs (sensitivity, etc.)? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by series or parallel -- there should be 4 possible wirings, neh? You could swap the + and - terminals in both your series and parallel wirings. But a couple of those configurations are going to end up pitting the voice coils against each other, so I presume two of those wirings don't make sense? I'm thinking out loud here, so feel free to correct me.

No, you didn't. You said that you would if, which is not the same as stating you are. No shit! Well I never... No, that's exactly my point -- it is nonsensical (except in this case of KG's dual-voice-coil subwoofer), which is why I don't think it's appropriate terminology. In some electrostatics, it makes perfect sense to have balanced -- including the reference ground, since they're powered. And "balanced" isn't theory, it's engineering. I have, and you state your position with great verve when you're talking one way, and with great qualification when you're talking the other (and sometimes not at all). So you'll excuse me if I don't hear you when you're talking out of the side of your mouth. You want people to understand you, speak clearly. EDIT: translation -- if you are not part of they, then please reiterate your position, under the assumption that I have not been paying attention. And yes, the "they" I was referring to was the "everyone else except you" that you yourself referred to.

No, not really.

It is if you use the speaker terminals, which is why I specified speaker amp and stock wiring.

I have a Pioneer SX-5590 that I've had upgraded with black gates. Thing sounded friggin' sweet. I left it on during a thunderstorm, and it got hit -- I still have to get it repaired, but my guy who does work on it is optimistic it isn't as bad as it seems.

If I saw people with Stax's in an airport -- much less a black, full-size pair -- I think I'd have a stroke/heart attack/aneurysm/episode/seizure/some combination of the above.

So I shouldn't have let mine go?

Why the 1600 in particular?

You should wear it on a chain around your neck. That thing is friggin' huge.

Saratoga: Monaco (a skeleton with black parts!): from Naked Watch (they also have a tourbillon). From Debaufre, the Air Force White and Orange watches:

Well, as you said before, the load does not know if it's being driven by a balanced amplifier or not, so I stand by what I said before. Nothing you're saying is making the headphones balanced, even if the amp that you drive them with is balanced. My dad always said that most arguments can be concluded by defining your terms, so: what do you mean by "it" in "is it balanced?" The "reference" that you refer to in your last sentence is not "seen" by the headphones. And: Are you insane? (Rhetorical question.) Why would you want to tie the outputs of two amplifiers together? Other than to prove a point. And: why do you need ground cheaters? (I think I know the answer to this, but am very not sure about it.) Dan -- exactly. And yet, by their definitions, they're trying to say that 4 connectors == balanced.

Pop quiz: K1000, stock cable, driven out of a single-ended stereo speaker amp -- balanced, or no?

I was thinking that!

Seconded. Even though I don't have any of your cables.

I take it you didn't read the Rane page that Pars posted a link to. Here it is again. Note: I did read it, including the part right after "the last best right way to do it" which says that it is not frequently practised, but it does very clearly state earlier under "the absolute best right way to do it" that equipment should be grounded on both sides, and that that is the most correct way. It is this sense of "correctness" that they espouse that I've been trying to differentiate as "true" vs. "faux". -10 reading comprehension points for you, and you miss a down for being snippy about it. FURTHER, if you scroll down towards the end, to where it says "Floating, Pseudo, and Quasi-Balancing", you'll see that they very explicitly define exactly what I was talking about, when I used my made-up term of faux-balancing. So I AM NOT ALONE in making this differentiation. NYAH* (sputters) Exactly!!!1! That's why I don't want to call it "balanced"!!!1! You are correct that I should not have used "dual monoblock", but...I was grasping -- there is no term for going from 3 connectors to 4 connectors. All I know is that it's not "balanced". It's basically "stereo with separate returns". I don't even like "pseudo-balanced", since it is by no means a requirement -- you can still be single-ended stereo with 4 connectors. Well, there's two things going on here. One was the one that you latched on to, that I referred to "balanced" headphones as not really balanced, but you seem to have forgotten about why I mentioned that. I mentioned it because it confuses us, and is insufficient definition for "balanced" in other contexts, such as the phono cartridge as was originally asked at the beginning of this thread. I stand by that point, especially after this discussion. I do appreciate KG bringing us back to that, since that was the original purpose of this thread. And he also brought up a very good point in that even though a cartridge can have a 5th connection for that ground reference which I seem to so cravenly require, it is not necessarily a good thing, since it is not a piece of gear with a power supply. The Rane page mentions how the reference ground if used correctly can be a very powerful shield against hum and RF noise, especially in signals which are about to be amplified (and this is crucial with phono, since it is about to be preamplified). So I have no idea if one really wants to use that 5th connection in a phono cartridge, unless one is sure that it is implemented correctly in the cartridge, as a chassis ground (I.E. the cartridge shell). I think. So, I think you owe me an apology for (a) accusing me of quite possibly talking out of my ass, and ( for trying to bully me into succumbing to your point of view. NYAH* *NYAH == fuck you, the horse you rode in on, the herd it came from, and your mama.

They have input attenuators ("volume control"), but you'll find it easier to control from a preamp, yes. Especially if you go back and forth between normally mastered CD's (50%-100% capacity) and MFSL CD's (40-50% capacity -- of the few that I ripped, it seemed like every single one never used the most significant bit).

Gracias, muchacho. I just didn't make no sense.

Deadwood, Season 3, Episode "Leviathan Smiles" Joanie Stubbs: (D)oes it trouble you, keepin' watch on a dark place? Mose Manuel: No, ma'am, it does not. Especially when I know there's light comin' to it.

I've heard tkam's (now someone else's) SP Dragon. And it is quite good, nee, superb.

That's awesome. I hear that friggin' sleep number commercial all the time.

Yeah, I suspected most of them were fake, I just didn't want anyone to get carried away. Thanks, guys. We cool.

Fuck, I can't delete Churros.

That's some nice ASCII art, hydrocity. Happy Birthday, boy, some day, you'll be as old as me.