Woodog

---------------- On 9/23/2003 12:32:21 PM paulparrot wrote: Bowling for Columbine, which I would never dream of watching, is anything but fair. Check out this analysis: ---------------- *blink* uhmmmmmm... well, about set amps that is... I wish I could hear one. Anybody near Bowling Green, KY that has a set amp or push-pull amp or any type of tube amp to which I might be allowed to listen? The *only* experience with tube amps I have is my Fender Twin.. the hotter it gets, the sweeter it sounds. forrest (experentially challenged)

---------------- On 9/23/2003 11:06:25 AM Allan Songer wrote: BUT THEN AGAIN!! Why is it that jazz musicians for the most part hold it together for much, much longer than pop and rock performers? ---------------- How right you are. Is it because the approach is much more cerebral? Do they have to stretch the gray matter more in that genre? Is it because they have a better chance at preserving their hearing? Are their suppliers keeping the poisons out of their recreational supplies? Maybe they haven't been wrung dry by, as Joni Mitchel put it, 'the star-maker machinery behind the popular songs'. Bluegrass music is much the same way. The stellar performers in this genre are still crankin'. Doc Watson, at near 80 last February, sang and played for nearly 2 straight hours.

Glad you rode it out and made it through. Forrest

I don't have the answer either, but my thoughts are with you.

---------------- On 9/18/2003 7:59:12 PM joshnich wrote: My cornwalls are in the same room with my 7 foot Schimmel and my 69 D28 and I can tell you its hard to tell the record form those fine acoustic instruments. Josh ---------------- OMG, now those are real TOYS! I'm so jealous. My major in college was piano yet I've not had an acoustic instrument to play in nearly 10 years. .. I'm so envious. Forrest

---------------- On 9/18/2003 3:23:14 PM William F. Gil McDermott wrote: Well I don't know whether this is the whole story. Having context must help. In distinction, consider the anagram puzzle called "Jumbles" in the newspaper. It always seems difficult to me. In some of them the first and last letter must be in the proper position; or is that the secret to why it is difficult? Bset, Walilm (The non lexicdys) ---------------- Ok.. I PROMISE I won't post another thing about this. I'd much rather be listening to or playing music.. but one of my friends (and a rock'n'roller with me back in the day), who has a much more facile mind than my own... sent this to me via email. I do hope 'cut and paste' works well. fascinating stuff. forrest Stuart Massey wrote: Ok, I whipped up a randomizer and put my message through it. See if you can read it... --------- begin randomized message ---------- Bcesaue tihs sntcneee flwools the rlues olutnied in the origianl msagsee, eorvnyee ouhgt to eoetcnnur llitte trbloue irepnetirntg it. Hveweor, I ianmgie evoernye wlil fnid it dfifciult. Why? Frsit of all, of the ntieny-trhee wdors in the oirgnail mgassee uendr ctdoniraisoen, fftiy-ehgit are of fuor lreetts or lses. Eihter tehy're ipsmbosile to jumlbe or thier jblunimg is tviiral. Aethnor eelven are fvie lretets lnog, wchih menas you olny hvae to ubnljmue there leretts - a fialry esay tsak. Aeonthr tihng I nticoe abuot tihs is taht the leertts in bteewen the frsit and the lsat are not in cpeletolmy radonm oredr. In fcat, the cnsntoaons are uulslay in the rgiht odrer. Of the ttirhy-fvie wrods taht are fvie or mroe lertets lnog, olny egiht hvae cotnonnass swpaepd. Tshoe are (two cnnstooans) "erevy", "place", "whole" and "waetesd", all of wchih I tihnk are rteahr dlifufict to raed wehn not in ceonxtt; and (mroe tahn two cnotnsnaos) "rraeesch", "Aoriccdng", "iprmentot" (mleslpsied), and "Urivitensy", all of wihch are a ltlite eeaisr to raed bacseue the eelirar cntansonos are slitl erlay in the wrod, the ltear cnnaosonts are sitll letar in the wrod, and the vwoels are in the rihgt oderr. --------- end randomized message ---------- --------- begin un-randomized message ---------- Because this sentence follows the rules outlined in the original message, everyone ought to encounter little trouble interpreting it. However, I imagine everyone will find it difficult. Why? First of all, of the ninety-three words in the original message under consideration, fifty-eight are of four letters or less. Either they're impossible to jumble or their jumbling is trivial. Another eleven are five letters long, which means you only have to unjumble three letters - a fairly easy task. Another thing I notice about this is that the letters in between the first and the last are not in completely random order. In fact, the consonants are usually in the right order. Of the thirty-five words that are five or more letters long, only eight have consonants swapped. Those are (two consonants) "ervey", "pclae", "wlohe" and "watesed", all of which I think are rather difficult to read when not in context; and (more than two consonants) "rseeacrh", "Aoccdrnig", "iprmoetnt" (misspelled), and "Uinervtisy", all of which are a little easier to read because the earlier consonants are still early in the word, the later consonants are still later in the word, and the vowels are in the right order. --------- end un-randomized message ---------- Epilogue: It's notable that the jumbled versions of the longer words with swapped consonants that I cite are harder to read when randomly re-jumbled.

ok... I must be really uptight... I just realized 'iprmoetn' is misspelled. Forrest (obviously too much time on my hands) ---------------- On 9/18/2003 8:52:59 AM Woodog wrote: ok.. I'll admit it, I hate spelling errors, but then I read this. Now I dno't crae qitue as mcuh. Birllaint Obsrevatoin... Aoccdrnig to extnesvie rseeacrh conudcetd at Oxofrd Uinervtisy in Enlgnad, it deosn't raelly mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be in a toatl mses and you usulaly can sitll raed it wouthit much porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. Jsut thnik a momnet abuot all the tmie you and I watesed laernnig how to splel wrods croreclty! ----------------

My thoughts are with you and your family. Here's hoping there's no damage. Forrest

ok.. I'll admit it, I hate spelling errors, but then I read this. Now I dno't crae qitue as mcuh. Birllaint Obsrevatoin... Aoccdrnig to extnesvie rseeacrh conudcetd at Oxofrd Uinervtisy in Enlgnad, it deosn't raelly mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be in a toatl mses and you usulaly can sitll raed it wouthit much porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. Jsut thnik a momnet abuot all the tmie you and I watesed laernnig how to splel wrods croreclty!

---------------- On 9/16/2003 2:29:20 PM stan krajewski wrote: A guy I work with who is really fussy about his equipment is very happy with the Event 20/20 "near field" monitors. I believe they are about $300 for a pair and $500 for an amplified pair. In fact, I just asked him seconds ago he is totally satisfied with these. ---------------- Griffinator also suggested this line, but I'm so in the dark... haven't heard of them. I'll seek them out. The smaller size, in this case, the better. thanks, Forrest

---------------- On 9/15/2003 2:59:19 PM garymd wrote: Just got it home. Craftsman 10hp, 5600 watts RMS, 8600 watts peak. ---------------- Perfect match for the attached picture! Forrest (sorry, had to)

---------------- On 9/16/2003 1:38:07 AM prodj101 wrote: why aren't you interested in the mackie's at all? they're a damn fine pair of studio monitors. ---------------- Coinage... sounds like they are pricey (good stuff usually is) bummer that I don't have that much to put into it right now... I am going to check them out, though. We have a dealer that sells mackie here in town, so I'll definitely audition them. Maybe if they sound that great I'll wait a while and save up..... nah, I'd rather spend money on a tube amp at home for my cornwalls. but thanks for the input man! forrest

---------------- On 9/13/2003 4:53:21 PM kenratboy wrote: Check this out: http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=SRS65A&P1=MON Don't know if its any good (as in, as good as Roland, not as in it is junk, as it isn't), but it looks like a honest, hard-working monitor. ---------------- kenratboy, thanks.... this looks like what I might be after. I'll search them out and compare 'em. forrest

---------------- On 9/15/2003 8:22:22 PM DrWho wrote: wow, don't go with the roland...we use them at our church and it just sounds awful, and you can't turn them up very loud either. for keyboards, the only good monitoring system i've found are taller speaker cabinets. sadly, i've not found anything "good" for near field monitoring of keyboards. I was just didn't wanna let someone get something they might not like. However, there is that chance that you might find that they sound amazing so try and listen before you make a final purchase. I would hate to make you dislike something before you tried it for yourself. I will recommend seeing how loud you can get them when testing...keep in mind that on stage, you need it cranked a lot more than in a relatively quiet store. I wish I could provide an alternative...I'll be watching this post eagerly It's no fun lugging around big speakers if/when there's a smaller alternative... ---------------- hmmmm... gonna check around now... but here's the thing.. I don't play the keyboards in an ensemble like a lot of 'praise' ensembles in the bigger churches. I've played on stage before in jazz, country, and electric ensembles, and on those increasingly rare occasions when I do gigs like that, I start with about 150 watts of power and speakers designed to handle those kinds of tansients. I know how to play the volume game with the likes of Fender Twins, Stratocasters, Sonor Drum kits, etc. I'm definitely not looking for loud in this context. Not even near loud. I just want something small that can sit on a shelf in front of the keyboard, about 2 to 3 feet from my ears (on either side), and act as a reference monitor with quality sound. Maybe promedia speakers would do the trick. I don't know. The keys are already running through the cornwalls and heresys. They are killer main speakers for the application I'm using them for. I do not (and will not) abuse them with volume, however. The room is not that large, maybe 1000 - 1300 ft2, and with a pair of cornwalls and a pair of heresys the sound is wonderfully clear and well dispersed at moderate volume levels for congregational singing and the solo pieces I play. Where I sit, though, out of the main soundfield, I can hear the mains, but not clearly. In addition, there's a honking subwoofer just to my right, making my personal soundstage even darker. I get the feeling that some of the responses here have assumed that the keys are being used in ensemble work. they aren't. Seems like the Rolands fit the bill I'm looking for, but armed with this clearer (hopefully) description of the application, are there better choices in the 300 - 400 range for a pair? thanks for the advice!

---------------- On 9/15/2003 4:56:27 PM dodger wrote: Greetings: It's nice to see offers when things or a place may be needed and comments for the positive thoughts. GaryMD may get the backwash, so good luck to him and if he and his family want to come to Rochester, you know where we are. Safe arms be around all affected. Win dodger ---------------- Yes, good thoughts are out there to all affected. forrest

---------------- On 9/14/2003 7:09:59 PM Allan Songer wrote: No disrespect to Krall and Cole, but if you want to hear some REALLY GOOD female jazz vocals try these! I've left off anything that isn't "Hi-Fi" so don't worry about bad sound. Helen Merrill "Helen Merrill" on Emarcy Helen Merrill "Dream of You" Emarcy Chris Connor "Chirs Connor" Atlantic Chris Connor "Live at the Village Gate" Atlantic Sarah Vaughn "Sarah Vaughn" Emarcy Sarah Vaughn "No Count Sarah" Mercury Anita O'Day "Pick Yourself Up" Verve Anita O'Day "Sings the Most" Verve Billie Holiday "Songs for Disingue Lovers" Verve Billie Holiday "All or Nothing At All" Verve Helen Carr "Down at the Depths of the 90th Floor" Bethlehem Joy Bryan "Make the Man Love Me" Contemporary Helen Humes "Songs I Like to Sing" Contemporary Betty Carter "The Modern Sound" ABC Paramount Abbey Lincoln "Straight Ahead" Candid Carmen McRae "The Great American Songbook" Atlantic Well, that's enough to get you started. I guarantee that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE RECORDS IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING YOUR HAVE HEARD from Krall and Cole and Barber and . . . ---------------- wow.. thanks Allan. forrest

---------------- On 9/14/2003 7:09:28 PM garymd wrote: Beauty is only skin deep I guess.Reminds me of Julia Roberts and that country singer. ---------------- OMG... that would be the amazingly talented Lyle Lovett. That dude is uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugly... but man, he can rock! His keyboard sideman, Matt Rollings, is one of the best on the road today. Forest

I read your recommendations for Holly Cole and Diana Krall in another thread way back in July... made some notes... went shopping today and picked up a CD by each of those... Holly Cole - It Happened One Night Diana Krall - Love Scenes sweet! I really like the Diana Krall the best, but both are excellent. Now there are about 25 other notes... forrest

I play an electronic keyboard (a Roland RD-600) for my church, and use Cornwalls and Heresys as the main speaker system. It works out well. Because of the location of the keys and mixing board I am not in the direct soundfield of the main system, and need a reference monitor. I currently use a Peavey KB300, which is huge, and because of its size is placed behind me. I have also become disenchanted with its sound and would rather have smaller, near field monitors firing towards my face (from a distance of 2.5 feet) as opposed to the KB300 which fires at my back and seriously compromises what I hear. I also want these to be powered speakers. I'm considering Roland DS-30a monitors, which currently go for about 200 - 300 on the used market, but thought that some of you might have better choices. I don't need a huge sound, just an accurate one. Any ideas out there? Forrest

---------------- On 9/13/2003 10:56:13 AM groover wrote: I recently replaced a pair of Soliloquy 6.2 with 1985 Cornwall II(Sols are available,btw). Never having heard Corns before I was taking a bit of a risk but figured I could always resell them. Well, needless to say on this site I am thrilled. I have a couple of questions. Please forgive my ignorence. - How do I get inside. The back is a sepperate piece but there are no fasteners. Are these the type that need to be accessed by removing the cone/horns? - What is the difference between the I and II? - How does my particular model/vintage stack up against others? - I have gleaned the archives regarding upgrades and tweaks. What will benefit my particular flavor Cornwall. Thank you much. ---------------- check out this site for a review of your Cornwall. Needless to say, after reading it, that they are thrilled with it over there at Belgium Audiophile School. http://www.belgaudio.com/kcmap.htm A fellow named Gill gave me the absolute best advice for dealing with my new Cornwall purchase... go slow... fiddle with the position of the speaker cabinets relative to your listening position. Harness your desire to modify the innards until you have basked in the sound of them for a while. You have made a good 'sound' decision. Welcome. BTW, if you want to modify the speakers, there are more than a few folks around here who've been there, done that. later, Forrest

I really enjoyed Kenny's death in South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. honorable mention to Bill Gate's death in the same flick. forrest

---------------- On 9/11/2003 11:58:37 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote: It is very easy to do. Don't over psyche your self out of doing it. Unscrew it ...two solder places....pop the old one out..pop new one in ..solder...screws back to the magnet and horn itself.. pretty simple.. (very close to reality here) I am surprised it was really this much from Klipsch. Are you sure you were asking just for the replacement diaphram... And not the whole tweeter? BTW sometimes it is better to replace BOTH diaphrams to get a better matched sound..left and right channels.. FYI. ---------------- The quote was for a pair of diaphragms. One new tweeter would have cost around 200.00. I saw pairs of alnico tweeters on ebay for much less than that. at any rate, the repair's already done. I'm sure I could have done it myself, but the price was right and it felt right to have someone who does a lot of 'em do the repair. They sound great now. I let my son play his BAD BOYZ II soundtrack at high volume, and the percussion was nailing us to the wall. I practised on the Roland RD-600 through them for a while after that, and then, later I listened to Rickie Lee Jone's 'POP! POP!' cd. Sweet, clear and well defined. You should be overloaded on Cornwalls by now. How did the cornwalls from the movie screening room work out?

---------------- On 9/12/2003 11:58:10 AM dodger wrote: Grretings: That is true. I believe a truce may be finally in place. Don't go over to the Cornwall Vault thred. That makes the worst of this seem miniscule. (snippage here) Win dodger ---------------- Actually, that thread has some really cool poetry in it, and it is great to see how some forum members hijacked the thread to obscure it's original purpose. Pretty neat. Forrest

---------------- On 9/2/2003 9:17:10 PM Woodog wrote: ---------------- On 9/2/2003 12:40:56 PM wrench_peddler wrote: I got a set from Bob and they sound wonderful. ---------------- Everyone, thanks for the advice. I'm going to send it to Bob and let him do his thing with it. I was just baffled by the huge difference in prices. (not that I'm complaining about a $50.00 repair charge!! goodness that's inexpensive!). Forrest ---------------- I sent it off last Wednesday 9/3 and got it back today, 9/11. Took it home, installed it, and soaked in the wonderful sound. Thanks Bob Crites, you do great work! I highly recommend this guy. Fast turnaround, reasonable price, well packed, the works. thanks again! forrest

---------------- On 9/10/2003 8:05:29 PM William F. Gil McDermott wrote: For its day, the scene in the first Indiana Jones movie when the ark is openned, and the bad guys start melting. Not bad. Gil ---------------- I immediately thought of that one too! I saw the Godfather when I was 13. Those deaths were pretty memorable. :-)