Hello Dean, thanks for the response. Krell is a little above what my wife will approve. I checked Rotel and they didn't have anything that was 6.1 without adding an additional amplifier. I would like to consider B&W for the speakers, but again above what my wife will allow. My original system was Definitive Tech speakers and Adcom components. The lesser replacements were Wharfedales with an HK receiver. Leaning towards a Denon receiver and Wharfedales again, unfortunately, the speakers are DQed and supply is hard to find.
Mark Dean Olynyk wrote: > Hi Mark, > > When I bought my hometheater I thought it was pretty high end until I > did some market research and discovered companies like Krell. > > So that said, I have no idea what segment my gear goes into.. > > I've got B&W for speakers and haven't gone into components yet so I went > with a Rotel receiver. They work great together... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Behalf Of Mark A. Patton > Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 3:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Flatline > > Well don't use the TPS 5-Iron as the benchmark! :) > > Do try to build some demos based upon different slopes. Possibly your > current > slope as well as your current slope divided in half. (ie: 4 and 2) This > might be > a good starting point. If you prefer your current slope, try a slope > equal to > 125% (ie: 4 and 5) of your current slope. (using 2 demo clubs, you could > accomplish this with only 1 extra shaft -ie: you could take the UGLY > lesser > slope long iron shaft and trim it to the steeper short iron shaft). > > What this does take is the most pricey investment: TIME > Finding that out again trying to put together an audio system based upon > limited > budget. Just spent 2 hours listening to systems that I did not like as > much as > my original (no longer available) but cost 25-80% more. :( > > Anyone into mid end audio, please email me in private. > > Mark > > Steve \"Cub\" Culbreth wrote: > > > Mark, > > > > My thanks to you and all who replied. The last few days have been > pretty > > hectic around here with lots of work and relatives visiting. Extra > highest > > is something I don't need on any of my irons, so I may have to forego > the > > flatline. However, I may look at going on a 2cpm slope rather than the > four. > > Also I may play around as you suggested and come up with an even > different > > variation. I don't think this will be just another set of > swingweighted and > > frequency matched (4cpm slope) set of irons. I have too many of those > in the > > closet and shop already. So it is time to experiment. > > > > This is a little odd but I don't have a favorite iron. I feel > comfortable > > with all but my TPS 5-Iron. It is hell bent on missing target no > matter what > > I do to it. My 944Cs, on the other hand, play great throughout the > set. > > > > Thanks again for all of the comments and feedback. I'll be sure to let > you > > know how this comes out. > > > > Cub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark A. Patton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:03 PM > > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Flatline > > > > > Steve > > > > > > Have read the responses through this evening, but how about this: > > > > > > Presuming a std iron set of 3-9 > > > Determine your preferred middle iron (lets use a 6 for this example) > as > > well as > > > the freq for your preferred shaft (I have a good thought this is a > known > > fact to > > > you) > > > > > > Build some demo 3s and 9s with the same shaft. Make one of the 3s > and one > > of the > > > nines the same freq as the 6. Make another 3 and 9 on a slope of say > 2 > > cpm. > > > Another on 3cpm and yet another on 4. (you can handled this however > you > > would > > > like, it might be that demos on a 2cpm and 4 slope might work best > for > > this and > > > limit the amount of demo clubs). > > > > > > Now hit the range. If you have access to a distance caddy or some > other > > similar > > > the device, that much better. If not, get a knowledgeable friend to > > accompany > > > you to observe and take notes on performance. > > > > > > This has been my practice for establishing slope preference for a > while > > now. > > > Unfortunately, one of the items taken when I was robbed was my bag > of demo > > irons > > > for determining this (heavy damn bag and I hope they dislocated > something. > > Bet > > > they are surprised at the set though of only 5 and 9 irons.) . I > have > > observed > > > most people prefer a slope between 2.5 to 3.5. I know I like 3.0 on > a std > > > swingweight matched set. > > > > > > As far as all irons being the same length, I am curious if you are > > interested > > > also in Jorgenson's total match as well. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > Steve \"Cub\" Culbreth wrote: > > > > > > > I've discounted flat-line freq matching in the past but had a > little > > time to > > > > ponder it lately. Besides the fact that the short irons may hit > longer > > and > > > > higher, wouldn't you lose control all the way around? I mean, > using a > > 4cpm > > > > slope we try to maintain the feel and playing flex throughout the > set. > > If > > > > you flat-line a set based on your current 7-Iron freq, because you > hit > > it > > > > the best, wouldn't you end up with long irons that are way too > stiff and > > > > short irons way to soft? Seems a no-brainer to me, but I have to > > wonder. > > > > > > > > Have any of you played a flat-line set? Have any of you played a > set > > with > > > > only 2cpm of slope throughout? > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear your thoughts before I get too tempted to test > the > > > > principle. > > > > > > > > TIA, > > > > > > > > Cub > > > > > >
