bypass outlet and hook wires directly to romex??


i see these highend wall outlets (wattgate; etc). it seems to me that unless they have some sort of filter or conditioner...would it not be better to connect the wire to wire?? power cord wire to romex (remove male on power cord and remove female outlet)? it would be a lot cheaper. any thoughts?
jvr
Thanks, Twl. I'm sorry Bwhite, but I couldn't help but feel I was now put into the position of defending Home Depot's zip cord of which I've never dabbled with in my system. So I got a bit defensive and lashed out a bit. Please accept my apologies also.

Twl, that great observation came from a very knowledgeable friend and probably saved me quite a bit of frustration and money.

But it certainly did not take me long to believe that observation.

Twl, may I ask what you've done to try reproducing the bottom-end?
Sure Stehno, I'll tell you what I can about my trials and tribulations regarding that topic. I have built quite a few different speakers in my day, and the designs varied based on my knowledge at the time I made them. Good low bass isn't hard to get, it just requires the introduction of other design parameters that can be very problematic to the rest of the design. Most people would say that direct radiating bass from a large cone driver with a proper Fs and system Q is best for deepest bass. Vented or unvented propose different quandaries: vented usually creates notches or cancellation effects at some points, unvented tends to raise the Fs and limit low extension( large boxes and isobarik helps this problem, but adds others.) It's a "pick your poison" situation. TL(transmission line) can be very good if you get it right. Alot of tuning. To be short, this requires multi-way since no one large driver goes to 20k(or near). You already know my feelings on that. My solution was to address the problems created for the system by impedance spiking at the Fs(resonant freq of the driver). At this point, either a crossed-in sub or rolloff in response is the normal choice. The rolloff is caused by the increase in impedance creating a load that is usually 9 to 24 db down for the same power input level. It spikes around the Fs and tapers down below the Fs. By paralleling a properly calculated resistor(non-ind) across the speaker terminals, this spike can be reduced by about 60%-70%, thus allowing the amp to "see" a more driveable load with consequently reduced rolloff. This evens out the response curve in the most critical area - Fs and below. Now the amp can drive the speaker to much lower frequencies(+-3db), with rolloff ocurrring much deeper than before. Now, with my current one-way system, spl is limited by cone size and won't move the air necessary for real low bass. So I tuned a transmission line for half the Fs to bolster the additional octave of bass response(83Hz-41.7Hz). This is a big can of worms to tune without messing up the lower mids. Since it is a front firing line, notch effects do happen, but I reduced it down to slight by tuning. This impedance adjustment w/resistor also corrects the high rollofs as well, since they are also due to impedance rise, although at a much slower slope. Both ends improve, in my speaker's case, to within the 3db down point of the amp with regard to impedance. The price to pay is that the nominal impedance of the system is also reduced by some 25%. Some amps may not like this. However, you'll notice that the peaks are improved by a far greater amount, due to the product divided by sum nature of the load. It amounts to a very simple way to flatten and widen response of the interface between amp and speaker, with a minimum of additional complexity. Just for fun, go look at some driver graphs where they plot frequency response and also have a graph for impedance curve. You will notice that on a good driver, the flat section of the response curve is also the flat section of the impedance curve(around nominal). You will also notice that the rolloffs in the freq response curve also correspond to the rises in the impedance curve at the same frequencies. By flattening out one's rises(impedance), you also flatten out the other's dips or rolloffs(freq response). How about that?
Twl, I think I have a headache. You're obviously way into this.

I know a few people at your level who also complain about the same type of thing. Because they cannot quite synergize the sub to the monitors as they see it should, they do away with that reproduction of the lowest regions all together.

That's the part I don't understand. It truly is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

My system is listed in virtual systems here on audiogon with Aerial Acoustic 10t's and a Triad Platinum 18inch sub. I love it. Dialed it in a bit and it still blows me away just how much low bass information exists in all types of music.

I wouldn't want to be without the sub. And just in case you're wondering, I'm quite familiar with the fact that there are many, many subs that have absolutely no musical definition whatsoever.

I'd suggest you buy something like an Aerial SW12 12 inch sub for $5000 new or $3000 used and see how you can configure it to your mains.

If it gets you 9/10th's of the way there, why not keep it?

-John
John, I see your point. I have considered the possibility of using a separate amp and subwoofer combo with an active crossover. I realize that if it is crossed out low enough, there will be little or no problems created in the lower mids. I have a design in mind that's sort of like the Pipe Dreams sub: a vertical transmission line tube, but quarter-wave design is not best for deepest bass so it would have to be long. Who knows, maybe I'll go for a sub? Thanks for your input.

Tom