Hi--
> Yep! I hope I
never need to get along with a "boom box" for a stereo...
> Music would not
be the same. I know musicians with horrible systems,
> and they do not
care at all - they seem to hear music differently
> (but Bob White's
stereo was a mush of weird cheap components, without
> even a pair of
similar speakers, yet it sounded good...;-).
Most professional
musicians seem to be able to listen to the music while ignoring the
reproduciton quailty. I do this
too. It is more important for the music
to be good than for the reproduction to be excellent. It's just that we get accustom to good music, reproduced well,
and if we have to do without it for a while, we miss it.
But for me, music is sound. It is hard to conceive of
enjoying it presented with ugly sound...
> >LOL. Do you mean to tell me that you don't
believe that all those
> >overpriced
"exotic" amplifiers are designed by geniuses capable of
> >engineering
feats that exceed all known science?
> Wha'?! You mean
they aren't????! ;-)
Well, some are. If you don't believe me, just ask 'em. John Curl (for example) is quick to inform
people that his designs are based on techniques that mere mortals can't understand.
Bob Carver really
blew the lid off the "sonic signature" crap, about 25 years ago, but
of course the audio press/guru's either quickly forgot, or were unable to
extend what they'd learned to anything other than Bob's demo.
About 25 years ago, I gave a demo at the Seattle Audio
Society, showing
where some of that "amp" sound came from. Looking
at a 1k square wave
coming out of amps, they look great into 10 ohm loads. Add a
speaker, and
the square wave changes a bit (enough to color the sound).
Change the
speaker or amp, and the square wave changes... Add a small
series resistor, and look at the square wave on the speaker side, and...;-)
Kinda basic
stuff, but BC actually made use of it...
> >The
"average" audio consumer may be better off today, but the
'audiophiles"
> >are getting
the short end of the stick (in many if not most cases).
> In what ways is
a high-distortion single-ended 10-watt tube amp,
> with
transformers wound with oxygen-free titanium, not a great
> buy at
$30,000??? What are you saying???! ;-)
Now I can fully
understand why some people like the "exotic" SET amps. They're like the old guitar amps, in that
they add euphonic harmonics to the sound, and with some recordings this can be
quite pleasing. Try playing your synth
through one of the "richer sounding" SET amps. The result is usually extremely nice. These things are musical instruments, not
amplifiers, and some recordings do sound better when played through an
instrument than reproduced accurately.
I have to respect anyone who can design an amp that sound pretty. The best I can do is to design an amp that
doesn't have any sound at all.
Fortunately, that's the kind of amp I prefer, but I do understand the
charm of some of the SET amps.
Yes. But it is best when people who like these things to
understand that these are not low-distortion, accurate
devices...;-)
The price is another
matter. How do you put a price tag on a
work of art?
(I think it's purely
a matter of whatever the market will bear.)
Hmmmm... If I pull amps out of old console radios, and
justify
selling them for high prices as "antique
classics", does this
work?;-) What if I copy them, but add esoteric materials and
a nifty name...? Sounds like a scam to me...;-)
> Yes, and those
polka-dots for the walls, and silver interconnects
> with gold ends -
but the bricks you are supposed to put on the amps
> are cheap,
anyway (and my SS Carver Silver Nine Ts [gosh, was he good
> at naming
things! ;-] came with a suspension plate for the amp to sit
> on - I guess so
as to not upset the movement of electrons when the
> shelf shakes...?
;-).
I've got a Shatki
Stone (http//www.tricell-ent.com/Shakti.htm).
The ads say it's designed based on scientific prenciples (I think the
scientific prenciple at work might have something to do with human
gullability), and it is patented. Must
work, right? ;-)
(BTW, I didn't buy
the thing. A friend was going to throw
it in the trash, and I salvaged it.)
Good plan! Ya never know......;-)
> >Don't get me
started. ;-)
>
> Uh-huh, but it
IS fun...;-)
It's fun until we hit
on something one or both of us consider a matter of faith. ;-)
Might be hard to do that, though. I've had a few of my pet
beliefs
shattered (absolute phase, etc.), but I hardly whimpered
when it
happened - best to know the truth...
> There is lively
pop and jazz music here, too - and we get the
> big-name
imports, too, yet....
We still have a few
recording studio's in this area, and a fair college choir, but this part of the
US is culturally disadvantaged.
Probably most parts... Ithaca seems like an oasis in a
"redneck"
desert...;-)
> >I hate to
say it, but I've reached the point that I don't believe any claims made by
manufacturers
> >unless I
know their products well, through first hand experience.
>
> Yes.......
It was a hard
lesson. In spite of 55 years of
experience, I still expect everyone I meet to conduct themselves in a
respectable manner (a manner deserving of respect). Even when I know better, I still have to give people the benefit
of the doubt (often even if there is not real doubt). By the time I give up on a company or individual I've let them go
way over the line, usually several times, and I've reached my tolerance
limits. At that point I tend to get
pissied, and then things get ugly.
Same for me, 'cept the last - I've been scammed a couple of
times,
but I don't get too exceited about it... (I tend to see
"the big picture").
I like doing business with companies and individuals who do
more than just talk the talk.
> Much as I hated math, I do find simple math and
geometry useful, along with
> the *concepts* of calculus, though my skills in all are
VERY basic...;-)
> But, all that work and miserable time spent gaining
these very few things! ;-)
I'm dyslexic, so math is a pain. Fortunately, the guy who taught me the calculus understood his
subject, and taught it well. If the
application is interesting enough I can usually build models (mental models,
computer models, equivalent circuits, or whatever will work) that allow me to
"see" the parts of equations that aren't readily apparent (to me), so
when I'm motivated I can eventually sort out most of the math headaches. For the most part, I prefer to leave the
grinding of complex equations to those with far better skills than my own.
I begin to think (about time!) I must have something going
on - I can use
either hand, but not coordinate them well (one finger for
the letters, the
other for the shift key - and my timing has gone from 10%
success at first,
to about 80% now [with many thousands of posts/emails...]).
But I can "see"
things...;-)
Even if it was reproducable (unlikely, IMHO) I don't think
anyone would be interested. Audiophiles
don't care much for the laws of physics or the loudspeaker/room interface, and
non-audiophiles just don't care.
Yes. Surprising, though...;-)
> Bob is not a "movie fan", so I guess when I
do see one, the whole thing
> is so much fun, I don't need the
"extras"...;-)
We've got 122 DVD's, and about 150 Laser Disks, and were one
of the first people in this area to have a C-band sat. dish. Now we have one of the small dishes, and a
TiVo. I've been a "movie
collector" since the days when Beta VCR's had rotary switches to change
channels. ;-)
I bought 26 more VHS tapes today (a store closed). I heard
Bob up at 630
this morning, beginning to list the tapes/DVDs for me so I
wouldn't duplicate TOO many this time...;-) It took us a while (about 500 on
the shelves...).
We use to tape movies off the air, and edit out the
commercials. Marg is a Trekie, and a
bit Star Wars fan, so when StarWars came out on Beta tape, we purchased our
first pre-recorded movie. On the TV at
home, the movie lost all its impact, so we went out that very evening, and
bought a 45" front-projection TV and a better VCR. Next day I arranged the audio rig around the
big-screen TV. As far as I know, up
until that point in history, a "home theater" was a theater in the
home where you watched movies on 70mm film.
Everyone who saw the setup liked it.
Never would I have guessed that the idea could be such a marketing
success. The big screen and speakers
just take up too much room for it to be practical. It'll never catch on. ;-)
I'm TOTALLY mystified by this - I've seen too many expensive
stereos
stuck in the corner, stereo speakers NEXT to each
other...!;-) BTW,
Bob is a Star Wars fiend, too. I've about memorized the
first three...;-)
Some nights, "we" hit two Star Trek episodes (I
tend to fall asleep...;-).
> I predicted 4-channel audio would fail when it came out
- people don't
> care enough about stereo to set it up properly, so they
were unlikely to
> spend the extra and put up with the extra stuff for
quad. I was surprised
> in the new interest in it (6-channel!!!) for just the
occasional
> video-watching. I would not have predicted that!
There's on critical difference. There was no preceived need for the old "quad" audio
systems.
Yes. The issues were always confused in Quad - and
technically, the
two main systems were poor, and not entirely compatible with
stereo
playback (I used to be amused by the weird spacial effects I
would
get with Columbia quad recordings played on carefully set up
Quad
(NOT "quad"...;-) electrostats...
A good four channel recording (4 mics, 2 for the performers,
and 2 for hall ambiance) can create a more convincing "you are there"
illusion that a 2 channel recording, but that's not the way the recording
industry does things. Instruments
flying around the room are more like a seance than a musical performance. With movie soundtracks we have a completely
different situation. "3-D"
sound effects are used to enhance the visual effects. You hear a jet approaching from behind; As it passes over your
head, you see it as it comes into view at the top of the screen. You can create this kind of illusion pretty
easily, and professionally installed HT systems usually end up working pretty
well (for their intended purpose). It's
not (normally) high-performance audio, but it's still a fun hobby. Using good audio gear in the HT setup only
enhances the experience.
Yes. But I'm still satisfied with good two-channel...;-)
If I had to go out to see a movie, I'd see very few.
About 1 per year, now...
As for the 6.1 and such, 4.1 channels actually works a
helluva lot better, but the extra channels make setup easier (if all you care
about is movie effects).
> Yes. I don't remember the measured curve, but I thought
at the time
> that the resonance was too high, and loaded the cone
center...
> (25cps? - higher than rating, anyway...).
25 Hz. rings a bell.
Let me see if I have any of the curves on my hard drive (be right
back)....
[]
Oh well, I guess it was a tad higher than 25 Hz. in the
small box (this was with a port). The
TEC is "interesting."
[]
You can clearly see the cone flopping around after the
signal stops. -(
(Had to go look at the original - reformatting to get rid of
HTML dumped the graphs)
In a small box, both of these effects are not
unexpected...;-)
> Yes - but I do directly compare items, a
"no-no" in the magazine world
> (and one of the articles is over 150,000 hits, as I
recall...;-).
> But, no money...;-)
If it's about money, writing articles is the wrong line of
work. ;-)
Writing, in general. I knew a successful publisher. *I* was
embarrassed
by what was offered even "name" authors! For
visitithaca, the writers got
almost nothing, once, while we photographers get a yearly
payment per
photo that is more than what the authors got for entire
articles...
(the extensive music articles are the most embarrassing -
these took a LOT
of work...).
> >Now I wish I hadn't asked. -(
> >(Just kidding.)
;-)
>
> Oh-oh! ;-)
> It was one of the best of the first-generation cameras
(and still better
> than some current 3-chippers), but the last generation
(Sony VX2000,
> Sony TRV950 [good light only], Panasonic DVX100, Canon
GL2 [they finally
> got one good...;-], and JVC DV GY300) appear all to
have similar and
> good pictures - though I still slightly prefer the
VX2000...
I keep thinking that it's tiem to upgrade the digital still
camera too. And the PC. Better is always the enemy of good-enough.
True - but this week I did *not* buy the $700 loaded P-IV
2.66GHz,
and will continue with my 800MHz P-III for editing (it was
close,
though...! ;-) I did get a Sony 707 5-megapixel still camera
today,
and checked it out. I think I will not use it much...;-)
> I had a job for a year, got "let go", decided
I'd had enough of
> regular hours... I taught photography part-time at
Wells College
> in the 70's for about 7 years, but otherwise, I've
"fed myself"...;-)
Teaching (in a classroom) can be fun. All depends on the subject and the
students. I taught a math course at a
school for kids with attitudes (kids no other school would accept). Rewarding, but certainly NOT fun.
Except for one term, with one student (bright, but
background
starved her of common bits needed for easy communication),
the
students at Wells College (let's face it, it was a
"finishing
school"...;-) were VERY easy to teach - they had the
background,
and it was similar for all...
> Are you sure we are not related??? ;-)
> Heard last winter coming out of the store door,
"Momma! There goes
> Santa Claus!" ;-) I have gotten jollier with my
increases in girth,
> so...;-)
I always got a kick out of the Santa thing.
I'm, uh, "beginning" to......;-)
> One of nature's many "dirty tricks", this
stealing of hair with time...;-)
Frank Herring use to say that God only made a few perfect
heads. All the rest he keeps covered
with hair. ;-)
(Frank had not one hair on his "perfect" head.)
Hmmmmmmmmm........;-)
> Bob collects "by default" (he never bothers
to throw away what he doesn't
> want); I collect "by intent" (I want my old
stuff - but Bob sees
> little value in it). I guess my photos, etc. may
therefore be preserved
> by default, not by intent...;-)
We do both (collect by both default and intent). If it weren't for the Buddhist Filing System
all would be lost.
Yes...;-)