Travis In Austin

Just tell her that some folks call it a Kaiser blade, some folks call it a bananer blade, but you call it a sling blade.

Lot of good comments and remarks here about where to get your information. Just a couple of observations, after the "networks" were bought up by large corporations the news departments were converted from being "news organizations" to being a business with accountability for their bottom line, and thus they became entertainment. This has been well documented in academic journals and discussed by everyone from Reasoner to Cronkite. We live in the information age now. We all first thought that this meant we would be more informed. What we all discovered is that there is more garbage then truth in the information, on any subject. Are tubes better than solid state, CDs better than LPs, Ford vs. GM, is a place to eat any good, food safety, product safety, teacher ratings, music ratings and anything else you can possibly think of, including hate. This subject doesn't have to be on a recent event in Congress, it could be on any issue that effects a person and/or their family. It take more work to be well informed in the information age. You have to work at it. It there is a blog article on a subject you have to find out about the blogger, if it is a website, about who is behind the website. To be well informed before the information age all you needed to do was read two or three newspapers with different points of view, a couple of national journals with opposing view points like The National Review and The New Republic, and watch the news on one network in the evening and another network at night. It took a couple of hours a day to be well informed, but it wasn't that difficult. You could save some time by subscribing to a news consolidator that summed up articles from around the country, like "This Week." With the information age you are bombarded with email blasts telling you to worry about this, you get news in the form of sound bites of information with catchy phrases borrowed from advertising, tweets from whomever you deem is worth following about their views in 160 characters or less, viral videos, 24 hour news services. The objective now is to try and have you get all of your news from one source. TV, Tweets, Ipad, blogs, whatever, their hope is that you get it all from them, whoever "them" is. You will have information overload, but you will not be well informed. There are about 6 corporations in the US that control about 90% of the media. You have to be extremely skeptical about any "news" article or broadcast, regardless of the source. Skeptical, not, paranoid, there is a difference. It is hard to be well informed in the information age because of the sorting and sifting you have to do. I think people tend to gravitate to publications and television programs that have similar views they do. It is human nature. The problem is that the view points get confused with the facts. The facts get spun, to match the viewpoint. This isn't news, it is advocacy. Everyone does it, some slightly, some very overtly. It is a fantasy that you are getting fair and balanced information from ANY one network or news source. The way they are organized and that humans run them makes it impossible. Whatever the relative merits, bias, etc. of a particular network, there is no way you can get a balanced approach on ANY issue from a single source. I don't care if it is the weather, a movie review, what the local dog catcher is doing, or national news. If they allow the opposing view point to have equal time, equal stature, etc., they will turn off their base, whatever that is, and lose viewers. They cannot have "balance" because they will lose viewers, and you don't last on those network shows if you lose viewers. AP is still the most often cited news organization and enjoys a reputation as still authoritative and trustworthy. I don't know if that is actually the case or not. Mark asked if the AP article was accurate, here is it is you want to read it and decide for yourself: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_HOMELAND?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Fortunately, on the issue of politics, you don't need to rely on ANY news account to get to the truth of the matter. If an issue is important to you and your really want to know what the situation is, what the arguments are, what political maneuvers are being utilized, what the actual testimony was, the House and the Senate DEBATES, the votes, etc. it is all there on C-Span. Uncut, full length, gavel to gavel coverage. http://www.c-span.org/search/?tagid[]=485&sort=Newest Unfortunately, now in order to be fully informed on a issue, whether it is stereo, home theater, turntables, politics, whatever, it usually requires finding trustworthy sources, whether they be forums such as this one, a blog, website, magazine, and to consult multiple sources when possible. In many cases it takes longer to find a trustworthy and authoritative source then it does the answer, but we have all been burned by misinformation and we know it is worth the effort.

I have tried to attach the photo of the back of the program for Joe's wife, however, whatever I do, it end up upside down. Maybe somebody here can do something with it and repost it right side up. In the meantime, I have just dictated it out as it appears in the photo so you don't have to turn you head upside down: Obituary Patricia Ann Shultz, of Kyle, Texas, was born October 2, 1959 in Vidor, TX. She passed away Saturday, February 21, 2015, at the age of 56. Pat is survived by her husband, Joe Shultz, and children Aaron Shultz, Emily Shultz, and Jake Kesinger. Sister Sandy Jacobs & Brother Kenneth Jacobs. She met her husband Joe in Hemphill Texas, and they married 28 years ago in Florida on the Gulf of Mexico. Employment took them from Florida back to Nacogdoches, then on to Phoenix Arizona, before returning to Austin in 1992. Pat was a loving wife and homemaker who home schooled Aaron and Emily. Her family and friends will always remember her as a kind and caring mother. The family of Mrs. Pat Schultz wishes to express out sincere thanks for the expressions of lover during our time of bereavement.

Luther and I were able to spend some time today with Joe and his wonderful family. I will attach soon a photo of the back of the program giving a brief background on his beloved wife when I get home.. The music Joe picked out was wonderful and it was amazing how they put together a photo essay of his wife and their family. Travis

Duck or a Rabbit?

Gold and White from the beginning, and it has never changed.

Safe bet...especially since the Scotch is no longer in Binghamton or Rochester. Only the original in Syracuse (where I took my prom date in 1970) is still operating. WHAT? Really? That was one of my favorite places. I went to school with a kid from Binghamton and we went there when I visited, seems like they served us no problem at 18 or 19 (was New York 18 drinking age in the late 70s?). They had locations in LA and Santa Barbara a couple of years later we hung out at. LA closed a long time ago I heard. It seemed like it was a real Binghamton institution that you would never expect to go away, like Scoma's in San Francisco, Morton's in Chicago, etc., etc. The last time I was in Binghamton, a long time ago, I was able to arrange a tour at the Mac factory and then went by there for the obligatory stop. Well I am glad there is one still left, I hope it is good as it used to be.

Michael: So where do things stand now?

Golden Voice/Jerry Milam? He and Azoff were quite a combination. You recorded there? Do you have the tapes Travis

The focus in WWII was production, ours, and destroying their's. Our most advanced fighter, the P-51 was designed before we entered the war and was powered by a British power plant we made under license. Our most advanced bomber, the B-29 was designed in the late '30s and prototypes were made before we entered the war. The focus, ingenuity and genius we had in WWII was getting our production to 100% very quickly and then expanding that capacity. We were 10 years behind the Germans in most things, and 20 years behind in some things like rocket technology. Did we develop things and improve on technology during the war, sure we did. The obvious example is the Manhattan Project, but it didn't "solve" anything. There were sacrifices and shortages at home because we were not prepared. We converted automobile plants to airplane factories. Neville Chamberlain lacked focus and the US sure lacked focus until December 7th. We were on the "brink." Ozone depletion was an international problem, solved by a phased in ban on certain chemicals, based on science, with economic sanctions for violations and aid to underdeveloped countries to be able to comply. It is working. The major distinction between environmental problems such as ozone and AGW is if you reach the brink while you study it and debate it until there is a catastrophe in on of your own harbors, it is too late. As far as how to get to being carbon neutral by 2070, some are talking that it will be possible by 2050. As to how to do it, here is one article I found on a quick search ("how do we get to zero carbon emissions") that references research that I didn't have the time to read. However, what is clear is that the leading industrialized nations are working on getting to carbon neutrality in a very serious way. For the specifics on what the technology and energy policy will look like, the studies and the research are apparently there for the reading for those that want serious answers. We can either drag our feet, or we can be the leader in that technology and innovation to the benefit our economy. http://phys.org/news/2014-09-australia-carbon-emissions-economy.html Will there be a global catastrophe, and if not, why not? No, because science has revealed the problem, the way to fix it, and the world community, through science and technology, is figuring out ways to achieve the solution and be economically beneficial. There will not be a catastrophe because we are working on it now, just like the ozone 40 years ago. Plus, if predictions are true, we will have autonomous vehicles shortly that will be electric, solar powered, or a combination thereof. Tesla and Google will be the leading innovators, not the Big 3 (or is it 2 now) in Detroit. The Coal and Oil states will become like the Tobacco states, they will be heavily taxed and regulated, and they will adapt and find new business and industry in their states to replace the lost jobs and revenue. The coal and oil companies will pour more and more money into politics, eventually realize that is a lost cause, and go the way of Tobacco companies; still here but shifting to mostly exports and international sales, diversifying into other products like beer, and clinging on with every last breath as their sales in the US continue to decline. We will tax them, oil and coal, or the consumers of their products, in order to fund research and development of new technologies to replace oil and coal, AND, as a matter of public policy in order to make alternate energy sources more attractive and competitive. You will see hugh tax credits for electric vehicles, solar panels and wind generation. There will be a restructuring of the Atomic Energy Commission. After these changes in tax and public policy you will then see the focus we had in WWII, driven by price and demand. Of course, some of this might be conjecture.

Spock believed that Global Warming was man made. http://www.rgj.com/story/life/2015/02/27/rgj-archives-spoks-trek-an-interview-with-leonard-nimoy/24121709/

WW II is the wrong analogy. We were slow to get in, it was "their" war until December 7th. The analogy was the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer and the chemicals that caused it my American scientists which led to the phased in ban of freon in aerosol sprays and other refrigerants. The Montreal Protocol was the result that has been amended several times to include other chemicals. Chemicals that increase global warming. The MP is working on the ozone hole. Koyoto is the international solution to global warming, it spells out what needs to be done and by when. We were in Koyoto, a part of the solution, then we withdrew, now we are back in it again. Personally, AGW shouldn't be our main concern. There will be more flooding in New York, othet coastal cities, more severe weather patterns, etc. and we can adapt to that and argue about what can be done all we want. The real problem, in my view, is that the pH of the ocean is 30% more acidic from carbon emissions, all man made. The number and the cause are undisputed. Aside from whatever nations that depend on the oceans we all depend on it for oxygen. If green algae begins to slow in reproduction due to pH increasing, or worse, begins dying, it is all over. The ocean, in addition to providing half of the oxygen we breath also removes half of the CO2 that is removed by photosynthesis. What I worry about is that we are not putting enough focus on the ocean in science and research to determine just how much it can take beyond what we have done already. We learned that coal burning was able to pollute the ocean to the point of toxic levels of mercury in fish in only 100 years. Pregnant women are advised to avoid all fish/seafood in this country. Climate and the weather get the attention because it plays out in storms, floods and heatwaves. A scientist sitting in a lab looking as near microscopic plants is pretty boring and diffict to understand how they are ESSENTIAL for life on the entire planet to exist.

Bumped for Earl to look at

I read posts 1 and 7, twice. In fact, I read all the posts, carefully. In your Post #3 you ask for Chad's thinking on why the change. Chad stated the reason for the change clearly and succinctly in Post #2, I understood it and it makes common sense to me. That sub-forum hasn't changed, it just doesn't make the front page. Forumites, including me, who want some other-than-speaker talk can post there, exactly as before. Can you explain why this is upsetting to some? No personal connections are being lost, nobody is taking down the sub-section or saying this is not important to posters here, its really just a minor change. I feel like I'm not understanding why some people are upset. Since I don't have much opportunity to log on during the day and post, I probably use the “view new content” link up in the right corner more often to catch up or look at the "Recent Topics" section that is off to the side first to see if there are new topics of that day. Other times I go straight to the sub-forums that I have set to push the first post of a new topic to my email. I see only one person subscribed to the general lounge forum for new topics while there are 22 people subscribed to the garage sale section. I did as you and read the indicated posts, read a few additional posts and read several threads in the lounge section and found a lot of content that is interesting, some not so interesting, and a whole lot of back and forth by a few that seemed to only be trying to prove they were right or that seemed to try to discredit rather than adding thoughtfully to the topics, in addition to a few of the forum attorneys on questioning what should and shouldn’t be on the forum trying to figure out that line in the sand (are they trying to figure it out only to subsequently push it?). I suspect that since the banner being questioned in this thread is titled "Recent Audio Posts," some of that banter (many bordering on bickering, amongst other things) may not be helping from a “Klipsch branding” perspective for a new person interested in Klipsch and being directed to the audio forums or even to the casual Klipsch-head that can only frequent the threads periodically. I believe that I probably understand aspects of Chad’s point as actually, it was only through using the “view new content” link is the only way I happened upon a few nice reviews that Joe had done for his headphones and amps as the topic would have been pushed from the "recent audio posts" section rather quickly. Maybe traffic in the lounge is sufficient to have its own side bar like “Recent Topic” since the formatting on my screen shows room in that column..... Disclaimer: As used in this post, "attorneys," “banter,” “bickering,” "Klipsch-head," and other terms were not used or meant to be taken in any disparaging way by any forum member or by anyone reading these threads and lurking. As always, please note that the information presented by this author is meant for fun, sometimes thought-provoking, and is not intended as insult or otherwise!!! Thank you for this post FJD. I was unaware that you could subscribe to a subforum. I will be doing that today. Whether or not they choose to put either of those subforums back on the recent post list it won't really matter to me, I will subscribe to what I am interested in. Travis

CECCA beat me to it.

20 by 16, it doesn't get much better than that. They are going on the long wall? Congratulations on the closing? When's the party?

LOL More and more I have come to the conclusion that "going backwards" to vinyl is a mistake for many people. This is not sarcastic. But, if you don't have a BIG REASON to have vinyl, it can be a huge PITA. And, if you are atuned to the stealthy silence of digital, you may not be happy with vinyl. It's really an acquired sound. Honest. It really is so different from digital. Said the man who offered a preamp with both an MM and an MC phono output option (with Jensen step-up transformerss no less). I think my original review of it on this very forum mentioned that I had a CJ with phono on demo for a week, and a BAT with phono module for a week after that and and the BBX equaled or exceeded them with stock tubes. The CJ and BAT were 2 to 3x the cost of a BBX. I had 3 very specific reference vinyl cuts I used in my comparison of those 3 preamps with a MX 110 as my base reference. That BBX preamp is a vinyl lover's dream. Maybe I should send it back to you so you can yank the phono out and install an inboard DAC? I don't think so. I do agree going to vinyl has its pitfalls. I don't reccomend switching to it just for the heck of it if they have 96/24 or better digital. If you are thinking about it I would try it with an entry level rig and move up from there. It is not convenient cost effective for someone with a large library of high rez digital. But compared to Redbook, or worse MP3, it is certainly worth the effort to give it a spin. For 500 or less you can have a great sounding plug and play vinyl rig. That is going to get you to 90% of what you can expect from vinyl with the right preamp in my opinion. From there you can decide if the cost, hassle of cleaning, getting up to change the record, flip the record and the thrill of the hunt for used vinyl is for you. I have never had anyone from my generation that gave vinyl a try again give up on it. Some stayed with the good basic rig they got, others moved up, wayup, and all of them continue to buy vinyl. Then there are the intangibles about records, the collecting, the packaging, art, etc. There is a great book about record collectors called Dust and Grooves I highly reccomend that discusses the many reasons why people are into vinyl (beyond the digital vs. vinyl debate). Here is a link to the section about Colleen Murphy, the Khorn owner who hosted Klipsch Radio at CES this year. http://www.dustandgrooves.com/colleen/ She discuases in that article her passion for vinyl, about certain records, in a way I couldn't begin to approach, but if you read that article you begin to understand that it goes way beyond trying to ABX a record and a high rez digital file with SOTA DACs. It is emotional for her as well as a physical connection with the music. Most people I know who like vinyl, they may not even prefer it, say they like it because they are more connected orinvolved with the music. I think jumping into a high doller rig with no baseline for a comparison is a mistake for most, not all, people. My gosh, think of the tragedy it would be for the first speakers you EVER heard to have been Khorns and you bought em. Where do you go from there? Tweaking I suppose. Some people have done it, and been extreamly happy, but for most people they started with something and moved along to where you really appreciate that you are finally close to where you want to be, tweaks or no tweaks. Personally, I got a transistor radio from Japan for Christmas in 1967 and listend to radio stations in LA. It probably had a 2" speaker and came with the white little earphone you stuck in your ear. Vinyl is not for everyone, but it is not difficult. I am confident that Earl is going to get that rig on track and I will bet a steak dinner at the Scotch 'N Sirloin in Binghamton that a year from now he is going to be extreamly happy with vinyl with no regrets that he made the plunge. Travis

AGW would have been a very simple scientific issue, and is in fact a case study of the ramifications of trying to play politics with science. As I stated a couple a hundred posts ago, the problem has been that a previous administration tried to put a spin on the science behind AGW, censored scientists and used political appointees (non-scientists) to rewrite scientific conclusions. They were able to do this until they messed with the wrong scientist: Dr. James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Space Institute for over twenty years. Dr. Hansen first testified about AGW before Congress in 1988, saying that the effects were present then. The way that government was trying to influence science was a fundamental shift, apparently, for the first time government was trying to alter the scientific research and conclusions of its own agencies. This wasn't using opposing scientific view points to refute an agency's scientific research and results, it was trying to snuff out that research. The reason for any "controversy" concerning AGW is that it was initiated by politics, and then carried forward by the oil lobby who set up "institutes" that are no different than the now deceased Tobacco Institute. Here is a quote from an article about what Dr. Hansen had to endure at the hands of political appointees: "At NASA, orders authorized by administration-appointed public relations officers “reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science,” an agency investigation stated recently. Climate scientists were not allowed to conduct media interviews without prior approval. Hansen had to remove the 2005 temperature data from NASA’s website. Even Hansen’s daily schedule suddenly required prior consent. Hansen decided he had seen enough. He sent an email in January 2006 about the NASA constraints to New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, who first uncocered the restrictions. During an interview on the CBS program 60 Minutes, Hansen said, “In my more than three decades in the government I’ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.” Federal scientists, from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies have since acknowledged that their climate findings were also being repressed. “[Hansen] did a great deal to help unmask the Bush administration’s collusion with the global warming disinformation campaign,” said Piltz, who helped expose the White House when he publicly resigned from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. “He’s a bit like a lone wolf. Nobody can tell him what to say or what to do. They made a mistake when they tried to mess with him.” Today Hansen rallies openly for drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. He writes personal letters to governors urging them not to approve new coal-fired power plants in their states. He decries the increased role of fossil fuel lobbyists in American politics — once testifying to Congress that NASA’s mission had apparently become to “protect special interests’ backside.” I have attached a PDF of the Inspector General Report that concluded that NASA's Office of Public Affairs, at the direction by political appointees, had censored and marginalized science and the report found that this had long term implications for NASA. The report states: "The actions of the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs also had an impact on many levels of Agency operations. News releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution. Some scientists claimed to have self-censored; others simply gave up. Worse, trust was lost, at least temporarily, between an Agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves." Another article in the Christian Science Monitor stated: "In 2004, a NASA press conference announcing the findings of a study on air pollution was squelched. An e-mail from the public affairs office advised that the "Administration does not want any negative environmental news before the election ... as such news could alter the election." Dr. Hansen had published scientific peer reviewed articles about ACW as far back as the middle 70s. He was published in Science magazine in 1981, seven years before his testimony in Congress. I don't know if everyone is aware of the significance of having an article published in Science, but it is generally regarded as every research scientist's dream to be published in that journal. It is considered by most to in scientific research to be the next best thing to a Nobel Prize. It is a major BIG deal. I have attached a copy of his article from Science as well. This was cutting edge SCIENCE in 1981 and there has been an additional 30 years of SCIENCE since that time to back that up. The oil industry has been funding the denial of AGW since the late 90s. I didn't come up with this myself, it is out there if you look and are wiling to sift through the propaganda. There is an excellent book on the subject that I read when it first came out a few years ago by James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science. I bought it because I was concerned that politics/government was trying to corrupt science. Unfortunately, that book highlights that that is fact was the case with AGW. Here is a link to a review of that book: http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda/ I can understand an industry group trying to advocate its position in the light most favorable to their interests. That is the purpose of industry groups. Tobacco were masters at it until the trial lawyers got a hold of them. But to have government trying to squash legitimate science had never worked before. The Surgeon General issued his report in the 60s, TV ads were banned, warnings appeared on boxes, and other regulations came about as a result of that report and subsequent ones, but there was no attempt to try and bury the report, edit the report, or censor the Surgeon General. There really would be no debate if the government hadn't actively participated in attempting to manipulate the science regarding AGW in conjunction with big oil's media campaign. The political appointees at the NASA PIO did make a mistake when they tried to mess with him. A lot of those people were fired or resigned and Dr. Hansen was there until he retired in 2013. You cannot fool mother nature and you cannot fool science. oi_sti_summary.pdf 1981_hansen_etal.pdf

Here is the quote from Colleen Murphy about new vinyl that I referenced in my previous post above: So not all new vinyl sounds perfect. Indeed, Murphy reckoned, as big labels stampeded to get involved, and inexperienced startups joined them, there was a danger of vinyl’s magic being debased. “Some of what’s coming out is great,” she said. “Because in some ways, the public demand for quality is increasing, and people are making an effort.” She mentioned the ongoing reissues of Led Zeppelin albums, which are manufactured at Optimal. “Jimmy Page was in charge, they’re mastering them from the original tapes – that’s really good. But then there’s other records, and other labels …” She mentioned an operation based in California. By coincidence, I had just bought one of their supposedly remastered vinyl albums and been so repelled by the sound – thin, full of pops and crackles and excessive sibilance – that I had taken apart my turntable, in search of a fault that was actually in the grooves. “******* terrible,” Murphy agreed. “I have a feeling they might even master from MP3. They definitely aren’t mastering from the analogue tape; the sound is too thin. They go on that whole, ‘We do 180g vinyl!’ thing. But I’d rather have something good on lighter vinyl, than a 180g frisbee.” Here is a link to the full article http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/07/-sp-vinyls-difficult-comeback

Earl This, in my opinion, is the first issue you need to get resolved. Did you get the Music Hall TT, or did you bypass that one for this one? What you are describing isn't in the vinyl. Do you have a couple of reference records that you know play quite and are familiar with their sound? If so, I would pick one of those to use for any minor adjustments you may make, you have to start from a known quantity. While the dealer may be a long ways off, there used to be a pretty good outfit where you are located, Stellar Stereo, a Klipsch dealer, new and used gear, service department. I would give them a call and just see what they would charge to set up your turntable. You might be able to get out of all of this for under $50. I have never done business with them, just looked around in there one day and saw some pretty cool stuff. You may have already determined that they are not an option, for whatever reason. This is what it takes to set up a turntable properly, http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/cartbasics.html Galen knows what he is doing, there is no hype in there. Some people on here can do all of that, I cannot, I just have always paid to have it done, but then I am not a cartridge swapper, I have two good ones, one MM and one MC on two tonearms and after they were set up I never messed with them other to confirm that the tracking weight was correct. What I found is that unless they have to be moved, the tracking weight never drifts with either of my tonearms. So that is the good news, once it is properly set up you don't ever really have to mess with it. What people have described to you on here to help you with your problems is certainly good advice, the problem is you are describing about 4 or 5 different problems, all of this could either be unrelated or interrelated. The static is an easy one do deal with, and it needs to be dealt with. Static is a significant cause of noise, and it seems to magnify any popping or clicking by a factor of 10. Get yourself a Milty Zerostat gun, about $100 now I think. They WORK. Get a piece of packing popcorn, they will cling to a record that has any static at all, zap it with the Zerostat and that popcorn falls away. You want to do it after you clean each record. Playing a record creates static, washing a record creates a tremendous amount of static. There is no way of getting around that, and I have come across any fluid or cleaner that can reduce static like a Zerostat can. That will solve your static problem. I have washed and cleaned well over 5,000 records and used that Zerostat on each one after cleaning and it is still going strong. I think they say they are good for at least 10,000 pulls. You want to get rid of all of the static after you clean the LP because the static that you have created while cleaning the record attracts things, like packing popcorn and DUST. Cleaning a record unfortunately turns it into a giant dust attractor. Do you have a stylus cleaner and brush? Make sure that you do, and people will vary on how often to use it, about the norm is after every two sides of a clean lp. Here is a link to the products Acoustic Sounds has. http://store.acousticsounds.com/c/87/Stylus_Cleaner I use the Onzow Zerodust, you drop the needle with the cue arm in to the clear substance that is slightly thicker than jello, lift it up and you will typically see a black dot that gets left behind in the substance, representing whatever goo was on your stylus and cantilever. It is a good indicator of how effective your recording cleaning is because you can see what is getting left behind after one, play, two plays, etc. I also use, periodically, something like the Last stylus cleaner with the Acoustech stylus brush. You apply the liquid with the brush in the bottle, but only one brush stroke because you want to really remove dirt and goo onto the brush that goes right back in the bottle (they have a brush that is fitted inside the bottle cap like nail polish typically has). The you use the stylus brush by gently pulling the brush from back to front directly towards you so that you minimize any force on the cantilever either left or right. With the Onzow you don't need to worry about whether there are any chemicals in the cleaner that may harm the cartridge or cantilever in anyway, it is a pretty basic polymer. There is another company making the Onzow now, which I have not tried but it looks identical and they charge about $30 I think as opposed to the Onzow for $80. There is a link to one of those here: http://www.extremephono.com/Stylus_Cleaner.htm It looks identical in every way to the Onzow, but i have never tried it. I have used the Onzow literally hundreds and hundreds of times, for over five years, and it is still working like the first day I had it. Another nice thing about it is you can decide for yourself if brand new records need to be cleaned before playing them. (There is a great deal of debate about this). You simply clean your stylus before playing a new record and play one side, dip it into the Onzow and see if it picks up anything. I, personally, have had very mixed results. Some new records there was nothing there to pick up, others I picked up a ton of goo from just one side. I think this is a function of the formulation of the PVC that each plant uses, the plasticizers used, etc. A dirty stylus will cause some of the problems you describe, but I don't think to the extent you are describing. What you are describing, tinny treble, screechy, and a buzziness that moves when you switich the outputs of the TT to the preamp I have encountered on a couple of occasions. One was related to a ground issue, the ground wire came off, OR, for whatever reason, that turntable/cartridge/preamp setup did not like being grounded (this has only happened once that I recall). The other situation was loose/dirty contacts of the four leads that connect to the back of the cartridge. The third was a bent cantilever. I am hoping that Steller Stereo still has the reputation they used to have and would be reasonable in trying to get you set up. Just let them know how much gear you have purchased in the past six months, and what you are planning on getting in the future and they will probably do it for free to get you as a loyal customer. If they want a fortune for something that should be handled by the dealer where you purchased it then I would just call them up and let them know what the issues are to see if they can take you through it step by step over the phone. Lastly, on pops and click with records. Pops and clicks can come from pristine looking brand new vinyl for a number of reasons. There should really be any pops or clicks on a new record, 90% of mine have none, the others have a few and some have a lot, but the music outweighs the noise and clicks. I had KHorns like you, very unforgiving in the noise floor department. When you drop the needle in the lead in groove before the first song, there will typically be noise, just like you would expect, the sound of just the turntable with a stylus rubbing on side of the lead in groove. We all know what it sounds like, it is used in movies all the time. Crackling before it gets to the music. Some are quieter than others, but it is NORMAL, and much more noticeable with Khorns. I know many, many vinyl people who turn down or "mute" their system until just before it gets to the music. However, pops and clicks after that point should not be there. They can come from a few different sources. First, static, which we already covered. Static can cause pops and clicks that disappear after a blast with a Zerostat. Or is they are still there, it can reduce them. The condition of the record is obviously second, on a new record this should not be an issue. Unfortunately, another reason is that the pops and clicks are pressed into the record as part of the production process. It is not very common, but it happens. There was a thread on here recently about Colleen Murphy noticing that there was a particular pressing plant in California where she was hearing new releases with pops and clicks in them. Several years ago several of us bought the Doors vinyl box set at about the same time and we discovered a very noticeable pop in the exact same spot. They repressed that record and sent us free replacements. Unfortunately, when you purchase a new record you need to open it and listen to it right away to see if there is any problems. Acoustic Sounds and the local place I buy from have never had a problem with exchanging a record, or saying "it is in the pressing, they are all like that, do you want to return it?" It is very rare that I have a problem so I think they know I am not going home and recording it and then trying to return it. Used vinyl is an entirely different story and unless you get someone how play grades their vinyl it is going to be a crap shoot. I have the works looking lps play completely quiet, and I have had mint looking vinyl be so noisy it was unplayable. I think that is a function of what type of equipment it was played on, worn out sapphire needles for example. At the Austin Record Convention, supposedly one of the largest in the world, you see the true diehard collectors walking around with their portable battery operated record players so they can give an lp a test spin for sound quality. If you can identify a couple of records that sound clean and quiet they will be invaluable to you as reference records to either trouble shoot with or try new things out with. I hope that whatever is causing these issues turns out to be a simple fix that can either be handled locally or over the phone with the dealer. Good luck, Travis Dictated by not edited due to time, I apologize in advance for the syntax and grammatical errors my program and rambling thoughts may have created.

That is an awesome store, that and Amoeba in California usually always puts my luggage overweight.

Dave, can you expound on what this is and does? Here you go. Blocks everything outside specified hours except calls to numbers we've defined, provides text logs of all texting (we really DON'T snoop without a very serious reason), and all website visits. We've been very happy with it so far. Capture2.PNGCapture1.PNG Does mobile watchdog work with all service providers? AT&T is the one I am most interested in. They used to provide a service similar to this gutted it, so she discontinued it.It looks exactly like what she needs. Travis EDIT: I went to their site and see that it is an app so I am sure they have it for iphone and have a free 14 day trial. He will be having that on soon I am sure.

You got my vote.

What age do you get them cell phones? My GF's son is 13, he got a cell phone a year ago. She can and does monitor him constantly if she is away. She is a bit more conservative then that chart. She won't let him walk or bike anywhere. She can do face time and see what is going on. Seems like technology is what they need protection from, but also can be your friend.

Also, in terms of long-range satisfaction, I found my previous car's turbo-Diesel to be tiresome to drive because of the turbo lag which required babying the accelerator and brakes, and higher noise and vibration. Be sure you don't mind those things over 10's of thousands of miles. I switched to gas, though I still miss the better mileage and fewer fill-ups. That was a really nice car Larry. It seemed like when diesel prices were within 20% of regular unleaded prices it was a "no brainer" to go for diesel, you made up for it with fuel economy. Gas here is Austin is pretty much 2.00 per gallon, and diesel is $3.00 per gallon all over town. If you are driving something large, towing, etc. diesel might make sense. You could look at Honda Natural Gas Civic, but I think they are about 25K as I recall, highway they are supposed to be getting close to 40 MPG. It is easy to fill them at home if you have natural gas at your house, the problem could be finding NG when you get to the rig. Here is a NG station locator http://www.cngprices.com/station_map.php The good thing about natural gas is that if you do it at home it runs about .80 pre gallon, and on the road it is about $2.20. The price of NG stays more consistent than gasoline, I don't believe you pay fuel tax on the road, you for sure don't pay it if you recharge at home (it is a build in tax break). After looking at the gas tank size it doesn't look like it would work for you, in city about 220 mile conservative range, and hwy about 300. Gas would have to get over $3.00 to make it worth while. It it were $4.00 per gal. it would be a real money saver, IF, they had a NG station between your house and the rig. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-honda-civic-natural-gas-test-review T