OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones ! Half the floor space is now taken up by large-screen
TV's, the DVD players have largely displaced the CD players, and
speakers are now 6-piece units rather than pairs. What the heck is
going on here !?

I can't say this development totally surprises me since music has gone
down the toilet in recent years; but then again, so have movies .
I'm not bitter or anything, just a bit fascinated by it. I always
knew that HT would be big, but I didn't think that it would grow to
the point of shallowing up audio! Oh well, at least now we won't have
to put up with those crappy little TV speakers anymore. Even the
cheapest Bose surround system kicks the ass of those .


* Chexxon

PS: It will be interesting to see what effect the home theater
revolution has on car radios .

Well, you might want to try a different type of store but, even then,
you will likely find plasma monitors all over even though there will
still be lots of 2 channel stuff. Some high-end specialists are still
stereo primarily but the mass marketers are all MCH/HT.

OTOH, multichannel music systems, of quality, are the best music
reproduction today.

Kal

On 21 Dec 2003 14:41:12 -0800, (chexxon)
wrote:

OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones ! Half the floor space is now taken up by large-screen
TV's, the DVD players have largely displaced the CD players, and
speakers are now 6-piece units rather than pairs. What the heck is
going on here !?

I can't say this development totally surprises me since music has gone
down the toilet in recent years; but then again, so have movies .
I'm not bitter or anything, just a bit fascinated by it. I always
knew that HT would be big, but I didn't think that it would grow to
the point of shallowing up audio! Oh well, at least now we won't have
to put up with those crappy little TV speakers anymore. Even the
cheapest Bose surround system kicks the ass of those .


* Chexxon

PS: It will be interesting to see what effect the home theater
revolution has on car radios .

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message . ..

OTOH, multichannel music systems, of quality, are the best music
reproduction today.

Kal

That may be true, but multi-channel music systems aren't what's being
sold in the stores these days. What's being sold are multi-channel
*movie* systems. For multi-channel music, you need a center-channel
speaker that's good for more than just dialogue. It should be on par
with the left and right speakers! In fact, shouldn't all the speakers
be identical aside from the subwoofer? And shouldn't the
amplification for each channel be identical as well?

I have nothing against movie systems, but since I'm not exactly a
movie buff, I don't want to spend my money on a system that's
optimized for movies rather than music. I guess it's a good thing my
current stereo still works .

* Chexxon

On 21 Dec 2003 21:03:47 -0800, (chexxon)
wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message . ..

OTOH, multichannel music systems, of quality, are the best music
reproduction today.

That may be true, but multi-channel music systems aren't what's being
sold in the stores these days.

Try another store. BTW, I agree with your other points.

Kal

chexxon wrote:

OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones ! Half the floor space is now taken up by large-screen
TV's, the DVD players have largely displaced the CD players, and
speakers are now 6-piece units rather than pairs. What the heck is
going on here !?

Money. Shiny toys to sell people. That's about it.


I can't say this development totally surprises me since music has gone
down the toilet in recent years; but then again, so have movies .
I'm not bitter or anything, just a bit fascinated by it.

Music is declining thanks to to death of the recording industry.
It's been a long time coming, and frankly, the artists deserve
better thqan the crap slave labor contracts they had to put up with
for decades.

Most of the good music has moved online and the artists are making
at least some money from it.

"chexxon" wrote in message
om...
OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones ! Half the floor space is now taken up by large-screen
TV's, the DVD players have largely displaced the CD players, and
speakers are now 6-piece units rather than pairs. What the heck is
going on here !?

I can't say this development totally surprises me since music has gone
down the toilet in recent years; but then again, so have movies .
I'm not bitter or anything, just a bit fascinated by it. I always
knew that HT would be big, but I didn't think that it would grow to
the point of shallowing up audio! Oh well, at least now we won't have
to put up with those crappy little TV speakers anymore. Even the
cheapest Bose surround system kicks the ass of those .


* Chexxon

PS: It will be interesting to see what effect the home theater
revolution has on car radios .

It started taking over when DVD players began providing relatively high
quality discreet multi-channel sound.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:04:55 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
wrote:

It started taking over when DVD players began providing relatively high
quality discreet multi-channel sound.

Typically, movie soundtracks are anything but discreet! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(chexxon) wrote in message . com...
OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones ! Half the floor space is now taken up by large-screen
TV's, the DVD players have largely displaced the CD players, and
speakers are now 6-piece units rather than pairs. What the heck is
going on here !?



I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel movie
system.

At first I didn't like the sound of 5 channels. After a few months,
my ears adjusted to the surround sound. Now when I put on a two
channel CD, it sounds blah and lifeless.

Last summer we were watching a movie. Suddenly my daugher jumped up
and looked out the open window behind her. Then she laughed, and said
that she thought an airplane was flying low over the house, but then
realised the sound was coming from the system.

Bob Stanton

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...

I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel movie
system.

Is it possible to do this with a 2-channel receiver, or would I have
to buy a new 5.1-channel receiver? I actually may already have the
".1" channel BTW, since my receiver has a level control for
subwoofers.

* Chexxon

On 23 Dec 2003 17:31:08 -0800, (chexxon)
wrote:

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...

I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel movie
system.

Is it possible to do this with a 2-channel receiver, or would I have
to buy a new 5.1-channel receiver?

You probably have to add a 5.1 receiver. Even if you have three more
amps and speakers, it's difficult to set the volume for all the
channels in unison.

I actually may already have the
".1" channel BTW, since my receiver has a level control for
subwoofers.

Stereo receiver with a sub output? Does it have a sub input?

Kal

chexxon wrote:

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...


I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel movie
system.


Is it possible to do this with a 2-channel receiver, or would I have
to buy a new 5.1-channel receiver? I actually may already have the
".1" channel BTW, since my receiver has a level control for
subwoofers.

You can keep the amp as a power amp if you can bypass the preamp
section. The DTS and processing modes - it has to be done by
computer chips, so a new HT processor is required.

Me? I use three Yamaha CA-1000 amps and an older HT receiver's
preamp/processor section. Cheap, funtional, and still great for
stereo.

(chexxon) wrote in message . com...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message . com...

I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel movie
system.

Is it possible to do this with a 2-channel receiver, or would I have
to buy a new 5.1-channel receiver? I actually may already have the
".1" channel BTW, since my receiver has a level control for
subwoofers.

* Chexxon

I bougth a DVD player that had 5.1 channels output.(Toshiba) When
watching a movie, the right and left channels are switched to the old
sterio preamp high level inputs. The center channel from the DVD
player is switched to the external audio input of the TV set. The TV
speakers make a very good (voice) center channel.

Someone had given me a set of powered, small speakers, from a
computer. At first I had no use for them and they stayed under my bed
for a year. Latter I pulled them out, and connected them as the rear
two channels. What surprised me was how good the (cheap) rear speakers
sound when the front channels are playing.

I had two old KLH woofers and an old Radio Shack SA-150 amplifier. I
connected them as the subwoofer. DVD 0.5 channel.

I needed to buy a four-way audio-video switch from the Shack and had
to build a two-way audio switch for the center channel. (TV set input)

Seting levels is a problem. I balanced the five channels and put
pencel marks on the face of the volume controls. To change the levels,
I put the controls to the right pencel marks.

Bob Stanton

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om...
(chexxon) wrote in message
. com...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message
. com...

I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel movie
system.

Is it possible to do this with a 2-channel receiver, or would I have
to buy a new 5.1-channel receiver? I actually may already have the
".1" channel BTW, since my receiver has a level control for
subwoofers.

* Chexxon

I bougth a DVD player that had 5.1 channels output.(Toshiba) When
watching a movie, the right and left channels are switched to the old
sterio preamp high level inputs. The center channel from the DVD
player is switched to the external audio input of the TV set. The TV
speakers make a very good (voice) center channel.

Someone had given me a set of powered, small speakers, from a
computer. At first I had no use for them and they stayed under my bed
for a year. Latter I pulled them out, and connected them as the rear
two channels. What surprised me was how good the (cheap) rear speakers
sound when the front channels are playing.

I had two old KLH woofers and an old Radio Shack SA-150 amplifier. I
connected them as the subwoofer. DVD 0.5 channel.

I needed to buy a four-way audio-video switch from the Shack and had
to build a two-way audio switch for the center channel. (TV set input)

Seting levels is a problem. I balanced the five channels and put
pencel marks on the face of the volume controls. To change the levels,
I put the controls to the right pencel marks.

Bob Stanton

With the cost of a new or refurbished 5.1 receiver on www.ecost.com and a
variety of other sites hovering around $300 one has to ask the
question....why would you go to all this trouble?

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message news:BbidnXOi0o-




With the cost of a new or refurbished 5.1 receiver on www.ecost.com and a
variety of other sites hovering around $300 one has to ask the
question....why would you go to all this trouble?

At the time, I had reservations about 5.1 channels. I wanted to try it
for home theater, but I wasn't sure I would like it very well. I
didn't want to spend a lot just to find out if I would like it. At the
time, surround sound processors and amplifiers were *quite a bit more*
than $300. So, I put together a 5.1-way system from existing
equipment. Because I already had some old powered speakers for the
rear channels, *my total cost was only $15*, (for a cable to go the
the rear).

I took the $500 dollars I saved, and used it toward a vacation in Key
Largo. (I'd highly recommend going to the Keys in the dead of winter.
Daytime highs are usually 80 degs, night time lows 60 degs. The ocean
is a little chilly in January at about 68 degs, but heated pools are
quite common.) Well, we all spend our "mad money" in different ways.
:-)

Bob Stanton

"Bob-Stanton" wrote in message
om...
(chexxon) wrote in message
. com...
(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message
. com...

I added three channels to my old sterio system. The right and
left of
the sterio are now the right and left channels of the 5 channel
movie
system.

Is it possible to do this with a 2-channel receiver, or would I
have
to buy a new 5.1-channel receiver? I actually may already have
the
".1" channel BTW, since my receiver has a level control for
subwoofers.

* Chexxon

I bougth a DVD player that had 5.1 channels output.(Toshiba) When
watching a movie, the right and left channels are switched to the
old
sterio preamp high level inputs. The center channel from the DVD
player is switched to the external audio input of the TV set. The TV
speakers make a very good (voice) center channel.

Someone had given me a set of powered, small speakers, from a
computer. At first I had no use for them and they stayed under my
bed
for a year. Latter I pulled them out, and connected them as the rear
two channels. What surprised me was how good the (cheap) rear
speakers
sound when the front channels are playing.

I had two old KLH woofers and an old Radio Shack SA-150 amplifier. I
connected them as the subwoofer. DVD 0.5 channel.

I needed to buy a four-way audio-video switch from the Shack and had
to build a two-way audio switch for the center channel. (TV set
input)

Seting levels is a problem. I balanced the five channels and put
pencel marks on the face of the volume controls. To change the
levels,
I put the controls to the right pencel marks.

Bob Stanton

Good for you, Bob. I read the thread to the point where the cars came
in - and stopped there!

My HT system just grew, too. It started with an older RCA stereo TV
and a stereo receiver plus two speakers. Then I added a Heathkit
surround processor and another stereo receiver and rear speakers (all
used or repaired junked units) with various mixed speakers to hand
(some vintage - Jordan-Watts and Ditton 15's.) About that time I had
added a sub - two actually, Energy E-SUB2's driven by another spare
receiver. Then we upgraded the TV (a Toshiba) and I added a used
Yamaha RXV1070 5.1 Prologic system and new PSB Image 2B mains (kept
the Dittons for rears - I'd sold the Jordon-Watts a while back and
replaced them with a pair of bookshelf units.) By then I was playing
with a centre speaker and learned the importance of sonic matching
the mains - had to retire both a cheap centre "clunker" and a used
Wharfdale and put in a new PSB 9C centre (excellent.) Lastly I
upgraded the sub amplifier (2 channels) to a used Yamaha M4 (over 120
wpc into 6 ohms) with custom crossover and preamp (home brewed.)

At each step of the way all of the above were phased and leveled, of
course (using the well known RS analog SPL meter.)

That's it to this day. Contemplating a new Yamaha digital receiver in
due course but no hurry - might wait for a used one to turn up!

BTW, the old RCA TV is now in the family room with its own stereo
receiver and two outboard speakers - all recycled, of course!

Recycle, repair and reuse!

Cheers,

Roger
--
Roger Jones, P.Eng.
Thornhill, Ontario,
Canada

Anti-spam... Reply to: SurfNews"at"sprint"dot"ca (but written
correctly)

"Engineer" wrote in message news:vZrIb.309


BTW, the old RCA TV is now in the family room with its own stereo
receiver and two outboard speakers - all recycled, of course!

Recycle, repair and reuse!

Yes, I enjoy building speakers systems and amplifiers from older
equipment and parts.

A few years ago Radio Shack had a good 4" woofer (1022). When they
discontinued it, I bought as many as I could find, (at closeout
prices). At one point I decided to hide my 5.1 speakers. Built two
columns speakers (of five 4" woofers each) into the stand that the TV
sits on. For a while, I had a 5.1 way system with no visible speaker
boxes. The problems was, the right and left speakers were too close
together and the system didn't sound as good as with the old larger
speakers. Went back to the larger, but better sounding, right and left
speakers.

Latter, I learned that many movies have a lot of sound coming from the
center channel. The center channel needed something better than the TV
set's small speakers. I had these two columns (of five woofers + a
tweeter) sitting hidden in the TV stand, and doing nothing. I realized
I could drive them with the TV set's amplifiers (10 Watts/channel) and
make them the center channel. (The TV's amplifiers did a surprisingly
good sounding job of driving the columns.)

It seems a little strange, but now my center channel now has *twelve
drivers*. Oh yes, it also sounds good.

Bob Stanton

"chexxon" wrote in message
om...
OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones !

Up until about 1992, there was a solid "average joe" constituency interested
in audio.
Up until that time, there was a value oriented manufacturing segment,
patronized by hobbyists, that included the likes of Hafler, formerly Dynaco,
Heathkit, etc.

The trend in gear after that time shows a shift of emphasis from substance
to appearance, with sharp escalations in the price.
In the late 80's and early 90's there were already some failures of chains,
ie., Stereo Discounters, that had deep stocks of wide brands of mid priced
merchandise.

So I would say that the stereo market peaked sometime in the mid to late
80's, and began a gradual decline that accelerated in recent years.

(chexxon) wrote:

OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but


When American companies, et al, decided that 2% profit wasn't good
enough. So they cheapend and dumbed down audio to the lowest common
denominator to maximize profit. At the same time the Japanese companies
picked up the slack. Seems they were perfectly content to make 2% (same
thing happened to RAM in the US).

You can still buy good sounding equipment but unfortunately it comes
from the fringe edge audiophile companies that are somewhat small
companies and the prices are way outta site.

IMHO, the best bet these days is the used market. I would much rather
invest in an Apt Holman or Audionics pre-amp and an old Mac power amp
than most of what's available today, IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE. Heck even
an old Marantz receiver is better than the cardboard and plastic crap on
the shelves today.

Long Live eBay!!!!!

On 2003-12-22, wß wrote:


You can still buy good sounding equipment but unfortunately it comes
from the fringe edge audiophile companies that are somewhat small
companies and the prices are way outta site.

IMHO, the best bet these days is the used market. I would much rather
invest in an Apt Holman or Audionics pre-amp and an old Mac power amp
than most of what's available today, IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE. Heck even
an old Marantz receiver is better than the cardboard and plastic crap on
the shelves today.


The problem is finding vacuum tubes. No one makes the same quality
tubes I used to pay $40 for a matched pair of power tubes. That
matched set of new old-stock (NOS) tubes now costs $400 ...if you can
find them! Because of this, the old high end tube amps like Marantz,
Fisher, and MacIntosh can now be had for peanuts. As you point out,
there are fringe amp makers. They've redesigned their products to use
the inferior Chinese and East European tubes. But, they've put
absolutely insane prices on them. $5-20K is typical. Screw that!
I'll continue to use my circa '64 Fisher/JBL system as long as I can.

nb

notbob wrote in news:bcHFb.617861$HS4.4520078
@attbi_s01:

On 2003-12-22, wß wrote:


You can still buy good sounding equipment but unfortunately it comes
from the fringe edge audiophile companies that are somewhat small
companies and the prices are way outta site.

IMHO, the best bet these days is the used market. I would much rather
invest in an Apt Holman or Audionics pre-amp and an old Mac power amp
than most of what's available today, IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE. Heck even
an old Marantz receiver is better than the cardboard and plastic crap
on
the shelves today.


The problem is finding vacuum tubes. No one makes the same quality
tubes I used to pay $40 for a matched pair of power tubes. That
matched set of new old-stock (NOS) tubes now costs $400 ...if you can
find them! Because of this, the old high end tube amps like Marantz,
Fisher, and MacIntosh can now be had for peanuts. As you point out,
there are fringe amp makers. They've redesigned their products to use
the inferior Chinese and East European tubes. But, they've put
absolutely insane prices on them. $5-20K is typical. Screw that!
I'll continue to use my circa '64 Fisher/JBL system as long as I can.

nb


If you can find old high end McIntosh tube amps for peanuts, I will take
them all! As a matter of fact, just because I am such a nice guy, I will
pay the original MSRP for the amps. I wouldn't want to have anyone feel
like they lost any money. I will arrange for pickup worldwide and pay in
cash as well.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"notbob" wrote

The problem is finding vacuum tubes. No one makes
the same quality tubes I used to pay $40 for a matched
pair of power tubes.

Have you been living in a cave for the last 30 years?
Consumer have plenty of choices for high quality
new vacuum tubes.

That matched set of new old-stock (NOS) tubes now
costs $400 ...if you can find them!

Yea, so? You can spend that much for new, too.
Consumers have plenty of choices and price ranges
to choose from.

Because of this, the old high end tube amps like
Marantz, Fisher, and MacIntosh can now be had for
peanuts.

Not so. There are many considerations in establishing
the value of classic equipment. Many of the classic
vacuum tube amps (50's, 60's and early 70's) have
limited technical capability in reproducing digital
bandwidth and dynamics... modern tube amps
generally do not have these limitations.

As you point out, there are fringe amp makers. They've
redesigned their products to use the inferior Chinese
and East European tubes.

Quack, quack, quack...

But, they've put absolutely insane prices on them.
$5-20K is typical. Screw that!

Quack, quack, quack...

I'll continue to use my circa '64 Fisher/JBL system as
long as I can.

Translation: You have no hearing acuity or no financial
means .

Powell wrote:


"notbob" wrote

The problem is finding vacuum tubes. No one makes
the same quality tubes I used to pay $40 for a matched
pair of power tubes.

Have you been living in a cave for the last 30 years?
Consumer have plenty of choices for high quality
new vacuum tubes.


Agreed. And also, a reasonable supply of NOS tubes such as Mullards, etc., if
one feels small preamplifier tubes of yesteryear are that important. As for
output tubes, modern tubes from companies like Svetlana and Ei are generally
considered to be quite reliable and decent sounding.



That matched set of new old-stock (NOS) tubes now
costs $400 ...if you can find them!

Yea, so? You can spend that much for new, too.
Consumers have plenty of choices and price ranges
to choose from.


For a reasonable idea of the broad spectrum of both NOS and new tubes
available, one can check out dealers like Upscale Audio in California, which
carries a very broad range of tubes at various price points. There are also
several other dealers who regularly advertise in Stereophile and on the web.
And of course, modern tubed equipment manufacturers such as conrad johnson,
Audio Research, VTL and others generally stock supplies of most tube types
needed for their products.



Because of this, the old high end tube amps like
Marantz, Fisher, and MacIntosh can now be had for
peanuts.

Not so. There are many considerations in establishing
the value of classic equipment. Many of the classic
vacuum tube amps (50's, 60's and early 70's) have
limited technical capability in reproducing digital
bandwidth and dynamics... modern tube amps
generally do not have these limitations.


And actually "old high end tubed amplifiers" from companies like McIntosh and
Marantz can *not* generally be had "for peanuts", especially when their age and
condition is factored in to the equation. A cursory glance at eBay and/or
Audiiogon will reveal that classic McIntosh and Marantz amplifiers (especially
the former) generally command quite high prices, relatively speaking. And try
and find a nice McIntosh FM tuner for anything remotely resembling that ot
yoiur garden variety SS tuner, and............. you usually won't. (And for
good reasons, soncially speaking). Even some of the relatively less expensive
Fisher receivers (when new), if in pristine condition, can command pretty
respectable prices compared to budget level SS equipment.


As you point out, there are fringe amp makers. They've
redesigned their products to use the inferior Chinese
and East European tubes.

Quack, quack, quack...


I'll second the quacking . Many users don't think that, for example,
Svetlana 6550C or EI KT-90 Type III output tubes are inferior to some of the
older GE or other historic brands at all. (Chinese output tubes, granted, are
not all that well received by many users).



But, they've put absolutely insane prices on them.
$5-20K is typical. Screw that!

Quack, quack, quack...


Decent tubed amplifiers can be obtained from companies like Conrad Johnson,
Audio Research, VTL, Cary, etc. can be had for a lot less than the price range
he's specified, especially if one does not need more than, say, 100
watts/channel.


I'll continue to use my circa '64 Fisher/JBL system as
long as I can.

Translation: You have no hearing acuity or no financial
means .













Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...


I'll second the quacking . Many users don't think that, for example,
Svetlana 6550C or EI KT-90 Type III output tubes are inferior to some of
the
older GE or other historic brands at all. (Chinese output tubes, granted,
are
not all that well received by many users).


however, their KT66's are fantastic.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

I'll second the quacking . Many users don't think that, for example,
Svetlana 6550C or EI KT-90 Type III output tubes are inferior to some of the
older GE or other historic brands at all. (Chinese output tubes, granted, are
not all that well received by many users).

The problem with many Chinese brand tubes is their reliability.
I've had many 6550s from Chinese descent that sounded wonderful, but
lasted very short in a standard application.
It is said their quality has gone upwards the last few years, but I've
never since tried any Chinese tubes.
I've heard similar reportings from tube-related friends of mine.

I can live very happily with modern production Svetlanas, Sovteks and
JJ Teslas though.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

On 2003-12-22, Powell wrote:

Translation: You have no hearing acuity or no financial
means .

What? ...I'm getting flak from a duck?

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:27:20 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2003-12-22, Powell wrote:

Translation: You have no hearing acuity or no financial
means .

What? ...I'm getting flak from a duck?

The opposite of AFLAK?

Kal

In article bcHFb.617861$HS4.4520078@attbi_s01,
notbob writes:
the inferior Chinese and East European tubes. But, they've put
absolutely insane prices on them. $5-20K is typical. Screw that!
I'll continue to use my circa '64 Fisher/JBL system as long as I can.

Of course, one can always roll one's own power amp, loudspeaker system,
etc. Available parts exist (although transformers are somewhat expensive,
but if you don't want the typical off the shelf Hammond transformers,
there are companies that will custom wind them in single quantities),
and it's a heck of a lot cheaper than what new tube amps cost.

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

(chexxon) wrote in message . com...
OK, so when did everyone lose interest in music and go ga-ga over
movies? Enquiring minds want to know . Pardon my ignorance, but
you see, I pulled a bit of a hi-fi Rip Van Winkle. After buying my
current stereo system in the early 90's, I took 10 years off from
being an audio buff, and only recently got back into it. And I
quickly found out that most "audio" stores have been transformed into
video ones ! Half the floor space is now taken up by large-screen
TV's, the DVD players have largely displaced the CD players, and
speakers are now 6-piece units rather than pairs. What the heck is
going on here !?

I can't say this development totally surprises me since music has gone
down the toilet in recent years; but then again, so have movies .
I'm not bitter or anything, just a bit fascinated by it. I always
knew that HT would be big, but I didn't think that it would grow to
the point of shallowing up audio! Oh well, at least now we won't have
to put up with those crappy little TV speakers anymore. Even the
cheapest Bose surround system kicks the ass of those .


* Chexxon

PS: It will be interesting to see what effect the home theater
revolution has on car radios .

I have a question,

When did the automobile take over from the horse and cart?

"Zakhann" wrote in message
om...
(chexxon) wrote in message
. com...

I have a question,

When did the automobile take over from the horse and cart?

When people tired of plodding around in horse ****.

ScottW

I have a question,

When did the automobile take over from the horse and cart?

When people got sick of cleaning horse **** off their driveway, I
guess . So what are you implying, that movies have made music
obsolete? I guess that I better trade in my CD's for DVD's while I
still can ?

* Chexxon

In article ,
(Zakhann) writes:

When did the automobile take over from the horse and cart?

Perhaps it did for the majority, but that means of transportation
didn't become obsolete. There are still people who use a horse and
buggy. Actually, that would be more fun for slowing down traffic than
driving a tractor down the road transporting a round bale of hay. Not
sure what sort of licence tags would be needed for the cart, but with
just the horse, alone, no drivers licence is needed, there's no
vehicle registration to bother with, no ID cards from Big Brother are
required, no safety regulations to bother with, etc. It's actually
quite convenient for short distances if you don't need to carry much
with you.. a few risks are involved. but that's life. No radio, so
you'll enjoy your hi-fi all the more when you get home. :-) :-) :-)

So... while most consumers claiming to be knowledgeable of audio (who
don't know a FET from a pentode, spectrum analyzer or an XLR
connector, and are often content with muddy sounding "subwoofers")
appear to be interested in the home theater mumbo jumbo, that doesn't
mean that hi-fi, as many of us know it, is obsolete. :-) After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used... which is really a
good thing, since it's now easy to haul a carload of LPs home for only
a few bucks.

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:38:36 -0000, (R. D.
Davis) wrote:

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used.

Bull****.

Happy New Year!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:38:36 -0000,
(R. D.
Davis) wrote:

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound
better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not
scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used.

Bull****.

Double Bull****.

Even in it's ideal state vinyl is deficient in every measure to
CD except nostalgia.

Double Bull****.

Even in it's ideal state vinyl is deficient in every measure to
CD except nostalgia.


Some of us prefer to listen to them rather than measure them. That is where the
advantages of LPs show themselves.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:38:36 -0000,
(R. D.
Davis) wrote:

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound
better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not
scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used.

Bull****.

Double Bull****.

Even in it's ideal state vinyl is deficient in every measure to
CD except nostalgia.

There are 2 intrinsic advantages to the LP: First is the much more
impressive cover art, which has been mentioned frequently. Also
there's a clever game you can play with LPs. It only works with the
standard classical canon. Cover the label and examine the velocity
pattern of the disc under the light of a bare bulb. The object is to
identify the selection. It's amazing how successful you get after a
bit of practice.

Norm Strong

In article ,
"Rusty Boudreaux" writes:

Even in it's ideal state vinyl is deficient in every measure to
CD except nostalgia.

Excessive wax buildup in your ears can cause you to think that.

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:38:36 -0000, (R. D.
Davis) wrote:

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used.

Bull****.

Happy New Year!

Does the writer of that have a habit of muttering inappropriate and
obscene words and phrases at random as it appears? If so, there's a
name for that problem in the DSM, for which help should be sought,
although it's most likely unrelated to his possible hearing
problem. ;-)

Happy New Year!

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

R. D. Davis wrote:


In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:38:36 -0000, (R. D.
Davis) wrote:

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used.

Bull****.

Happy New Year!

Does the writer of that have a habit of muttering inappropriate and
obscene words and phrases at random as it appears? If so, there's a
name for that problem in the DSM, for which help should be sought,
although it's most likely unrelated to his possible hearing
problem. ;-)

Happy New Year!

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:

All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.








Just for the sake of those not familiar with psychological/psychiatric
terminology, I presume you're referring to the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual
(DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association. And the condition to
which you are referring is Tourette's Syndrome.

Actually, Tourette's Syndrome is more of a neurological disorder than a
psychological one, although it is often treated with psychotropic drugs such as
Haldol and Risperdol. And while involuntary swearing is one of the most
noticeable symptoms of people suffering from this condition, it is only one of
many involuntary motor symptoms, and not the most common.



Bruce J. Richman

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:24:54 -0000, (R. D.
Davis) wrote:

In article ,
(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:38:36 -0000, (R. D.
Davis) wrote:

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used.

Bull****.

Happy New Year!

Does the writer of that have a habit of muttering inappropriate and
obscene words and phrases at random as it appears?

Nope, I only type totally appropriate words, as above.

If so, there's a
name for that problem in the DSM, for which help should be sought,
although it's most likely unrelated to his possible hearing
problem. ;-)

I fear that any hearing deficiency is much more likely to be suffered
by someone who is sufficiently deluded to think that vinyl provides a
'closer approach to the original sound' than does CD...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"R. D. Davis" wrote in message


So... while most consumers claiming to be knowledgeable of audio (who
don't know a FET from a pentode, spectrum analyzer or an XLR
connector, and are often content with muddy sounding "subwoofers")
appear to be interested in the home theater mumbo jumbo, that doesn't
mean that hi-fi, as many of us know it, is obsolete. :-)

The biases of the writer are obvious in several areas. Since Pentodes are
part of a totally obsolete technology, why should modern consumers know
anything at all about them?

Then there is this mention of "...the home theater mumbo jumbo..." which
clearly suggests that in the author's mind, any coupling of audio with video
is snake oil.

After all,
remember that the average consumer believes that CDs sound better than
vinyl LPs... which we know isn't true, if the vinyl is not scratched
up, dirty, etc. and an adequate turntable is used... which is really a
good thing, since it's now easy to haul a carload of LPs home for only
a few bucks.

We've got yet another old-timers whose ears are apparently so shot he can't
hear the tics and pops that bedevil most music lovers. Should we have a
lottery about his age? Anybody for over 65?