I'm back from a long break from this forum and am very happy to see it active. I have a few comments/questions based on recent posts.
Thanks Brian for the TF2000 photos. I have been wanting to take the backs off of my 2000's for years now to tighten up some connections and to just check it out.
Thanks also for the complete TF2000 manual. I think it curious that the manual on the second to the last page speaks about the demerits of gimmicky psychoacoustic illusions and brags about the sonic accuracy of the TF, but isn't the TimeWindow series a form of psychoacoustic gimmickry? I know that maybe the author, probably from DCM marketing, is speaking more to the electronic "hologram" electronics of the days (I always wanted a Carver Sonic Hologram to check out what the fuss was about), but the sound field of the TimeWindow series and SurroundScape could be considered a "gimmick". I'm not bashing the TimeWindows because I own and love pairs of the original TW1, SurroundScape, and one of the beast Powered SurroundScape, as well as the TF2000, and one each of TF-400 and TF-600.
Papadoc87 - How would you describe the sound characteristics between your TW3, or 1's for that matter, and the TF500? Do you feel that you need the TF500 to reproduce the accuracy for music and the TW3 for the sound field for movies? With today's electronic "psychoacoustic gimmickry" of surround processors, does it really make a difference using either the TF or TW for movies? Since the TW was also known for sonic accuracy (as noted in the TW marketing brochure showing signal traces), is there really a perceivable difference between TF and TW, especially with 50 year old ears?
I wish I could grab those TW7's to complete my collection.
My TF2000 cost a fortune in freight when I bought them off of eBay.
Thanks to all for your contributions to this forum.