PDA

View Full Version : Re: Best Stereo Receiver $250-300??


rdamor
June 24th 03, 10:03 PM
Hi Jose;

I'm surprised that none of the responses you received recommended that
you purchase a vintage Marantz receiver, one made in USA or Japan before
1980, after which even the Japanese companies went "offshore" in order
to avoid the high labor (and other) costs that drove electronics
manufacturing out of USA.

The Marantz Model 2330 receiver, for example, was made in USA in 1977,
and it cost $790! That was a whole lot of money then, and if this
receiver was made in USA today, it would have to sell for over $3,000.

But, you can find one on eBay occasionally for about $300. This model
puts out 130 real RMS watts per channel, not the fake "peak" watts hi-fi
makers claim today. In fact, most 1970s Marantz amplifiers actually put
out MORE than the advertised output! Can you imagine that happening today?

You guys must be all under 18, or you'd know exactly where to find the
best receiver you can buy for about $300. None other comes even close!

See the specs (and photos) here:

http://www.classic-audio.com/

Tyco_brahe


Jose Luiz wrote:
> Hey, I'm looking for a stereo receiver to replace my 5-year old Sony
> STR-DE525. I'm looking primarily in the $250-300 price range but something a
> bit higher or a bit lower in price is acceptable. I would prefer to buy
> another Sony brand since my Playstation 2, CD changer, and portable
> mini-disc player I presume would be more compatible with a Sony receiver but
> I'm looking at other brands as well. I only have two speakers and use my
> stereo system primarily for music, so I'm looking for something with
> excellent sound and can carry a nice-sounding bass at high volumes rather
> than a reciever specifically geared for a home theatre setup, though I would
> like nice sound reproduction for my TV and Playstation 2 as well. The thing
> I hated about my Sony STR-DE515 is that playing a song with a strong bass at
> high levels always shut the receiver down and gave this 'Protector' warning
> so I'm looking for something that can take stronger bass and louder volumes.
> Would this be found in a higher wattage stereo receiver? Any reccomendations
> for a stereo receiver around this price range (or even a lower price range)
> would be much appreciated!!
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Shadow
June 25th 03, 06:31 AM
http://123dj.com/amps/qsc/rmx-850.html - 200w / channel @ 8ohm

QSC is good. I've never had a PA amp go into protect mode on me.
Personally, I have 4 15" Optimus PA speakers, and 2 250w stereo/350w
mono-bridged Optimus PA amps(not really using them). They have never shut
off once. I keep the amps at 100% volume and keep the mixer gain at 0db for
loud, -6db for quiet listening(which would still be loud to most people).
The QSC amps would most certainly not shut off on you.

"Jose Luiz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey, I'm looking for a stereo receiver to replace my 5-year old Sony
> STR-DE525. I'm looking primarily in the $250-300 price range but something
a
> bit higher or a bit lower in price is acceptable. I would prefer to buy
> another Sony brand since my Playstation 2, CD changer, and portable
> mini-disc player I presume would be more compatible with a Sony receiver
but
> I'm looking at other brands as well. I only have two speakers and use my
> stereo system primarily for music, so I'm looking for something with
> excellent sound and can carry a nice-sounding bass at high volumes rather
> than a reciever specifically geared for a home theatre setup, though I
would
> like nice sound reproduction for my TV and Playstation 2 as well. The
thing
> I hated about my Sony STR-DE515 is that playing a song with a strong bass
at
> high levels always shut the receiver down and gave this 'Protector'
warning
> so I'm looking for something that can take stronger bass and louder
volumes.
> Would this be found in a higher wattage stereo receiver? Any
reccomendations
> for a stereo receiver around this price range (or even a lower price
range)
> would be much appreciated!!
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Rich Andrews
June 25th 03, 08:46 AM
rdamor > wrote in :


>
> But, you can find one on eBay occasionally for about $300. This model
> puts out 130 real RMS watts per channel, not the fake "peak" watts hi-fi
> makers claim today. In fact, most 1970s Marantz amplifiers actually put
> out MORE than the advertised output! Can you imagine that happening
> today?
>

I thought the FTC stopped all that "peak power", IEC, Peak Music Power, etc.
bogus watt ratings years ago. Maybe car amplifiers still suffer from gross
over ratings but aren't home wattages are supposed to be continuous power?

r



--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."

"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6

Arny Krueger
June 25th 03, 01:59 PM
"Shadow" > wrote in message

> http://123dj.com/amps/qsc/rmx-850.html - 200w / channel @ 8ohm
>
> QSC is good.

Agreed. I have a USA-400 and a USA-850.

The RMX series are AFAIK QSC's new series of Chinese-assembled amps with
agressive pricing.

>I've never had a PA amp go into protect mode on me.

I suspect you have, but you just didn't notice it. "Pro" grade amps are
specifically designed to avoid audible shutdown any reasonable way they can.
20,000 people might be listening.

> Personally, I have 4 15" Optimus PA speakers, and 2 250w stereo/350w
> mono-bridged Optimus PA amps(not really using them). They have never
> shut off once. I keep the amps at 100% volume and keep the mixer
> gain at 0db for loud, -6db for quiet listening(which would still be
> loud to most people). The QSC amps would most certainly not shut off
> on you.

The QSC amps I have have been subjected to torture rituals, and I have made
them shut off many times. However, no harm was done, and the test conditions
were unrealistic.

I'm the sort of guy who has probably broken the tires loose on every car
I've driven and under a variety of conditions. I say know where the limits
are, and stay away from them whenever you can.

In comparison, I've simply fried at least one Pioneer receiver on the test
bench, accidentally to be sure. Again the test conditions were totally
unrealistic, but unlike the QSC amps, the Pioneer receiver needed repair. It
didn't get it, because it cost more to repair than replace.

Most "receiver shut down" anecdotes trace to shorted strands on speaker
cables, way too many speakers in parallel, badly ventilated cabinets,
rubbing voice coils, a receiver that was simply broken, etc. In normal
reasonably careful use, it shouldn't happen and usually doesn't happen.

Comparing the light cruiser-like construction of QSC amps to the sports-car
construction of price-conscious consumer receivers is not fair, given the
difference in price per watt. Also, notice I said "light cruiser" for QSC,
and not "Battleship". There are "Battleship"-like amps around, but they seem
to be going the way of dodo birds.

Leon North
June 26th 03, 02:56 AM
rdamor wrote:

> Hi Jose;
>
> I'm surprised that none of the responses you received recommended that
> you purchase a vintage Marantz receiver, one made in USA or Japan before
> 1980, after which even the Japanese companies went "offshore" in order
> to avoid the high labor (and other) costs that drove electronics
> manufacturing out of USA.
>
> The Marantz Model 2330 receiver, for example, was made in USA in 1977,
> and it cost $790! That was a whole lot of money then, and if this
> receiver was made in USA today, it would have to sell for over $3,000.

Um, most of that would be incorrect. The 2230 had an opening suggested retail of
$349 which dropped to $299 after a year. It is rated, per the manual, at 30
watts per channel into an 8 ohm load. It was also manufactured in Japan. The
receiver in that lineup which cost in the ~$700 range was the 2270 which was
rated at 70 watts per channel. There was a later model, 2325, which was rated at
125 watts per channel and sold in the ~$1,200 range. Whether these are a good
purchase these days is dicey due to their age and need for recapping. YMMV. You
could also read the specs at the URL you linked. All of this is covered there,
too.

LN
--
"I = ER is a fact" - A. Dimbulb Krooger

dave weil
June 26th 03, 12:34 PM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:02:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Leon North" > wrote in message

>> rdamor wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jose;
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that none of the responses you received recommended
>>> that you purchase a vintage Marantz receiver, one made in USA or
>>> Japan before 1980, after which even the Japanese companies went
>>> "offshore" in order to avoid the high labor (and other) costs that
>>> drove electronics manufacturing out of USA.
>>>
>>> The Marantz Model 2330 receiver, for example, was made in USA in
>>> 1977, and it cost $790! That was a whole lot of money then, and if
>>> this receiver was made in USA today, it would have to sell for over
>>> $3,000.
>
>> Um, most of that would be incorrect. The 2230 had an opening
>> suggested retail of $349 which dropped to $299 after a year. It is
>> rated, per the manual, at 30 watts per channel into an 8 ohm load.
>> It was also manufactured in Japan. The receiver in that lineup which
>> cost in the ~$700 range was the 2270 which was rated at 70 watts per
>> channel. There was a later model, 2325, which was rated at 125 watts
>> per channel and sold in the ~$1,200 range.
>
>Leon dispels suspicions about his illiteracy by proving that he can at least
>read and comprehend manufacturer's spec sheets and price lists.
>
>>Whether these are a good
>> purchase these days is dicey due to their age and need for recapping.
>
>Leon, why don't you give us a reliable unbiased indication of why these
>specific units would require recapping.
>
>> YMMV.
>
>For sure!
>
>>You could also read the specs at the URL you linked. All of
>> this is covered there, too.
>
>As if spec sheets tell us how something is going to sound...

The only problem here is that Leon didn't make any claims about how
the unit sounds - he just corrected the original poster's citing of
incorrect specs.

Sorry.

You lose.

Again.

Leon North
June 27th 03, 08:48 AM
Turdy Krooogles bleats piteously:

> "Leon North" > wrote in message
>
> > rdamor wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jose;
> >>
> >> I'm surprised that none of the responses you received recommended
> >> that you purchase a vintage Marantz receiver, one made in USA or
> >> Japan before 1980, after which even the Japanese companies went
> >> "offshore" in order to avoid the high labor (and other) costs that
> >> drove electronics manufacturing out of USA.
> >>
> >> The Marantz Model 2330 receiver, for example, was made in USA in
> >> 1977, and it cost $790! That was a whole lot of money then, and if
> >> this receiver was made in USA today, it would have to sell for over
> >> $3,000.
>
> > Um, most of that would be incorrect. The 2230 had an opening
> > suggested retail of $349 which dropped to $299 after a year. It is
> > rated, per the manual, at 30 watts per channel into an 8 ohm load.
> > It was also manufactured in Japan. The receiver in that lineup which
> > cost in the ~$700 range was the 2270 which was rated at 70 watts per
> > channel. There was a later model, 2325, which was rated at 125 watts
> > per channel and sold in the ~$1,200 range.
>
> Leon dispels suspicions about his illiteracy by proving that he can at least
> read and comprehend manufacturer's spec sheets and price lists.

Why, thank you, Turdy. How kristian of you.

> >Whether these are a good
> > purchase these days is dicey due to their age and need for recapping.

You seem to need a better news client. Failing that, you might learn how to
use the one you've got. You are +still+ butchering format.

> Leon, why don't you give us a reliable unbiased indication of why these
> specific units would require recapping.

No big deal, dimbulb, but many normal people find that ~30 year old capacitors
can be less than wonderful, especially when they leak. Your religion of
sameness would obviate any need to replace them so you would save some more of
that money that you don't have. <s******-chuckle>

> > YMMV.
>
> For sure!
>
> >You could also read the specs at the URL you linked. All of
> > this is covered there, too.
>
> As if spec sheets tell us how something is going to sound...

Still having trouble with that 'reading comprehension' thing, I see. The
point of checking the specs is to confirm that the previous posted information
is incorrect. You've lost the thread here and seem to be grasping at strawmen
again. Get a grip, retard, and learn to read.

See my sigfile. You remain bone grindingly stupid.

I remain,

LN
--
"For every logical sane thing you say, Arnie will come back with at least one,
and usually two or three stark-raving tangential, illogical, insane
responses." mmg - psych

rdamor
June 27th 03, 10:55 PM
Hi SM;

I wouldn't recommend any of the Marantz SR-series. Those came after the
good stuff. About 1980 all of Marantz went to Japan. All the new
Japanese designs were based on consumer-level marketing. The Marantz
models that were designed in USA and built in Japan in the late '70s and
early '80s was fine, but after that all of their production went
"offshore," just like it did here. From Japan it went to So. Korea (not
too bad), to Taiwan (not as good), and then way downhill to Malaysia and
now mainland China.

Stick to the Marantz models that are listed on the Web site I gave,
above. You won't find any SR-models there.

Cheers,


Tyco_brahe

Schizoid Man wrote:
> "Jose Luiz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Jose Luiz" > wrote...
>>>
>>>>Hey, I'm looking for a stereo receiver to replace my 5-year old Sony
>>>>STR-DE525. I'm looking primarily in the $250-300 price range but
>>>
>>something
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>bit higher or a bit lower in price is acceptable. I would prefer to
>>>
> buy
>
>>>>another Sony brand since my Playstation 2, CD changer, and portable
>>>>mini-disc player I presume would be more compatible with a Sony
>>>
> receiver
>
>>>but
>>>
>>>>I'm looking at other brands as well. I only have two speakers and use
>>>
> my
>
>>>>stereo system primarily for music, so I'm looking for something with
>>>>excellent sound and can carry a nice-sounding bass at high volumes
>>>
>>rather
>>
>>>>than a reciever specifically geared for a home theatre setup, though I
>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>>like nice sound reproduction for my TV and Playstation 2 as well. The
>>>
>>>thing
>>>
>>>>I hated about my Sony STR-DE515 is that playing a song with a strong
>>>
>>bass
>>
>>>at
>>>
>>>>high levels always shut the receiver down and gave this 'Protector'
>>>
>>>warning
>>>
>>>>so I'm looking for something that can take stronger bass and louder
>>>
>>>volumes.
>>>
>>>>Would this be found in a higher wattage stereo receiver? Any
>>>
>>>reccomendations
>>>
>>>>for a stereo receiver around this price range (or even a lower price
>>>
>>>range)
>>>
>>>>would be much appreciated!!
>>>>
>>>>Jose
>>>
>>>Check out two Marantz models - SR4120 and SR4300. They are both in your
>>>price range. In fact, you can purchase a refurbed SR4120 at
>>>http://www.accessories4less.com for $220. I've never heard the 4300 but
>>
> I
>
>>do
>>
>>>own a 4120. It's fairly neutral sounding and pumps 60wpc.
>>>
>>>Make sure you do a power matching with the loudspeakers that you are
>>>planning to use.
>>>
>>
>>I own a pair of cerwin vega E-312 (or E-315 - I don't remember which ones
>>they are off-hand) speakers. According to Cerwin Vega's website the power
>>handling is 300 watts for the E-312 and 400 watts for the E-315. So I
>
> think
>
>>I may need a more powerful receiver than the ones you mention below...
>>
>>Jose
>>
>
>
> Yep, if you are talking rms rating. A lot more powerful. In fact at such
> high ratings, I would recommend using different power and preamp stages.
>
>

rdamor
June 27th 03, 11:02 PM
Hi Shadow;

I have one of those "battleship" amps, driving the 15-inch woofers in my
home stereo. It's a Phase-Linear 400. It's been running faithfully
since 1971, almost every day, and it sounds great. I've never been
crazy enough to turn it up more than half way. Usually listen at 1/4
power. Nice headwoom, 'tho.

By the way, caps will last a long time if they are; 1) not overheated;
and 2) not stored for long periods without occasional power on.

Regards,

Tyco_brahe

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shadow" > wrote in message
>
>
>>http://123dj.com/amps/qsc/rmx-850.html - 200w / channel @ 8ohm
>>
>>QSC is good.
>
>
> Agreed. I have a USA-400 and a USA-850.
>
> The RMX series are AFAIK QSC's new series of Chinese-assembled amps with
> agressive pricing.
>
>
>>I've never had a PA amp go into protect mode on me.
>
>
> I suspect you have, but you just didn't notice it. "Pro" grade amps are
> specifically designed to avoid audible shutdown any reasonable way they can.
> 20,000 people might be listening.
>
>
>>Personally, I have 4 15" Optimus PA speakers, and 2 250w stereo/350w
>>mono-bridged Optimus PA amps(not really using them). They have never
>>shut off once. I keep the amps at 100% volume and keep the mixer
>>gain at 0db for loud, -6db for quiet listening(which would still be
>>loud to most people). The QSC amps would most certainly not shut off
>>on you.
>
>
> The QSC amps I have have been subjected to torture rituals, and I have made
> them shut off many times. However, no harm was done, and the test conditions
> were unrealistic.
>
> I'm the sort of guy who has probably broken the tires loose on every car
> I've driven and under a variety of conditions. I say know where the limits
> are, and stay away from them whenever you can.
>
> In comparison, I've simply fried at least one Pioneer receiver on the test
> bench, accidentally to be sure. Again the test conditions were totally
> unrealistic, but unlike the QSC amps, the Pioneer receiver needed repair. It
> didn't get it, because it cost more to repair than replace.
>
> Most "receiver shut down" anecdotes trace to shorted strands on speaker
> cables, way too many speakers in parallel, badly ventilated cabinets,
> rubbing voice coils, a receiver that was simply broken, etc. In normal
> reasonably careful use, it shouldn't happen and usually doesn't happen.
>
> Comparing the light cruiser-like construction of QSC amps to the sports-car
> construction of price-conscious consumer receivers is not fair, given the
> difference in price per watt. Also, notice I said "light cruiser" for QSC,
> and not "Battleship". There are "Battleship"-like amps around, but they seem
> to be going the way of dodo birds.
>
>

Leon North
June 28th 03, 08:09 AM
Tyco_brahe wrote:

> Hi Leon;
>
> Um, you should read more carefully. I gave Model 2330 as an example,
> not 2230.
>
> Tyco_brahe

You are correct. I was wrong. My apology. Time for new specs :•)

LN
--
"I am just a hack writer and fabricator of false information for a small-stream audio
magazine." - H. Ferstler - 2003

Arny Krueger
June 28th 03, 04:57 PM
"Jose Luiz" > wrote in message >...
> Hey, I'm looking for a stereo receiver to replace my 5-year old Sony
> STR-DE525. I'm looking primarily in the $250-300 price range but something a
> bit higher or a bit lower in price is acceptable. I would prefer to buy
> another Sony brand since my Playstation 2, CD changer, and portable
> mini-disc player I presume would be more compatible with a Sony receiver but
> I'm looking at other brands as well. I only have two speakers and use my
> stereo system primarily for music, so I'm looking for something with
> excellent sound and can carry a nice-sounding bass at high volumes rather
> than a reciever specifically geared for a home theatre setup, though I would
> like nice sound reproduction for my TV and Playstation 2 as well. The thing
> I hated about my Sony STR-DE515 is that playing a song with a strong bass at
> high levels always shut the receiver down and gave this 'Protector' warning
> so I'm looking for something that can take stronger bass and louder volumes.
> Would this be found in a higher wattage stereo receiver? Any reccomendations
> for a stereo receiver around this price range (or even a lower price range)
> would be much appreciated!!
>
> Jose

You are just another delusional brain-less idiot whose been convinced
by Atkinson and his hench-men that competently designed receiver can
sound different from each other. And blue-berries grow under my
out-house. ;-(
Your gun your bullet your brain.

LOL!

Joseph Oberlander
June 28th 03, 10:06 PM
(snip)

Note the real address in the header - fake. Not Arny.

Tyco_brahe
June 29th 03, 12:36 AM
To all;

Leon is obviously a gentleman, with enough character to admit he was
wrong. My hat's off to you, Leon.

Now listen carefully. A Marantz 23xx series is the best audio receiver
you can buy, anywhere, and the price of replacing a few capicators that
are found faulty is small cost to pay. Any qualified and experienced
audio electronics repairman can check them in circuit.

That is; unless you think that tubes sound better, but then you'll have
to plan on paying three or more times as much for similar solid-state stuff.

Regards,


Tyco_brahe

"This country is a nation of laws. Badly written and randomly
enforced." - Frank Zappa


Leon North wrote:
> Tyco_brahe wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Leon;
>>
>>Um, you should read more carefully. I gave Model 2330 as an example,
>>not 2230.
>>
>>Tyco_brahe
>
>
> You are correct. I was wrong. My apology. Time for new specs :•)
>
> LN
> --
> "I am just a hack writer and fabricator of false information for a small-stream audio
> magazine." - H. Ferstler - 2003
>
>

rdamor
June 29th 03, 12:40 AM
Hi Amy;

I agree with you, completely, but must you be so..., in your face?

Also, nice to meet a female audiofile, if that's applicable.

Cheers,

Tyco_brahe

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jose Luiz" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Hey, I'm looking for a stereo receiver to replace my 5-year old Sony
>>STR-DE525. I'm looking primarily in the $250-300 price range but something a
>>bit higher or a bit lower in price is acceptable. I would prefer to buy
>>another Sony brand since my Playstation 2, CD changer, and portable
>>mini-disc player I presume would be more compatible with a Sony receiver but
>>I'm looking at other brands as well. I only have two speakers and use my
>>stereo system primarily for music, so I'm looking for something with
>>excellent sound and can carry a nice-sounding bass at high volumes rather
>>than a reciever specifically geared for a home theatre setup, though I would
>>like nice sound reproduction for my TV and Playstation 2 as well. The thing
>>I hated about my Sony STR-DE515 is that playing a song with a strong bass at
>>high levels always shut the receiver down and gave this 'Protector' warning
>>so I'm looking for something that can take stronger bass and louder volumes.
>>Would this be found in a higher wattage stereo receiver? Any reccomendations
>>for a stereo receiver around this price range (or even a lower price range)
>>would be much appreciated!!
>>
>>Jose
>
>
> You are just another delusional brain-less idiot whose been convinced
> by Atkinson and his hench-men that competently designed receiver can
> sound different from each other. And blue-berries grow under my
> out-house. ;-(
> Your gun your bullet your brain.
>
> LOL!

Tyco_brahe
June 29th 03, 12:43 AM
Geeze, I thought it was "Amy."

But if it's not really Arny, he won't be offended at my remarks.

LOL!

Tyco_brahe

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Note the real address in the header - fake. Not Arny.
>

Joseph Oberlander
June 29th 03, 07:27 AM
George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>Note the real address in the header - fake. Not Arny.
>
>
> Personally, I prefer the fakes.

Heh. Me too, sometimes - at least they are somewhat funny.

FMLive
March 6th 07, 03:36 AM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:02:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Leon North" > wrote in message

>> rdamor wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jose;
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that none of the responses you received recommended
>>> that you purchase a vintage Marantz receiver, one made in USA or
>>> Japan before 1980, after which even the Japanese companies went
>>> "offshore" in order to avoid the high labor (and other) costs that
>>> drove electronics manufacturing out of USA.
>>>
>>> The Marantz Model 2330 receiver, for example, was made in USA in
>>> 1977, and it cost $790! That was a whole lot of money then, and if
>>> this receiver was made in USA today, it would have to sell for over
>>> $3,000.
>
>> Um, most of that would be incorrect. The 2230 had an opening
>> suggested retail of $349 which dropped to $299 after a year. It is
>> rated, per the manual, at 30 watts per channel into an 8 ohm load.
>> It was also manufactured in Japan. The receiver in that lineup which
>> cost in the ~$700 range was the 2270 which was rated at 70 watts per
>> channel. There was a later model, 2325, which was rated at 125 watts
>> per channel and sold in the ~$1,200 range.
>
>Leon dispels suspicions about his illiteracy by proving that he can at least
>read and comprehend manufacturer's spec sheets and price lists.
>
>>Whether these are a good
>> purchase these days is dicey due to their age and need for recapping.
>
>Leon, why don't you give us a reliable unbiased indication of why these
>specific units would require recapping.
>
>> YMMV.
>
>For sure!
>
>>You could also read the specs at the URL you linked. All of
>> this is covered there, too.
>
>As if spec sheets tell us how something is going to sound...

The only problem here is that Leon didn't make any claims about how
the unit sounds - he just corrected the original poster's citing of
incorrect specs.

Sorry.

You lose.

Again.

IN YOUR CLAIM THAT HE HAD THE WRONG INFORMATION, YOU REFERED TO A 2230 (TWENTY TWO THIRTY) HIS INFO WAS FOR THE

2330(TWENTY THREE THIRTY) AND YOU BOTH WERE CORRECT.

Scott