Travis In Austin

Ouch

Yes. Throw them all out on their behinee's and demand the newly elected members dismantle special interest. It's a start. Now, now. Just toss the lawyers (both sides) and everything will work itself out just fine. Hey now wait a minute, wouldn't that be like sticking your head in the sand? On second thought I'm all for it. Travis

Yes, we can look at motives. 1. Big, dirty industry wants us to believe there is no anthropological global warming. 2. Climatologists agree AGW is serious issue that can shake the foundations of our planet. They want subsidies to study it and prove it. Profiteers want to manage brokerage houses designed to trade on emission allotments. Who do you believe? That's the question. Seems you align with those greedy climatologists and profiteers. The answer, naturally, is unscientific. All it will derive from is the lenses through which you view politics. I don't agree. You were around when Texas, along with other states, got together to take on tobacco which resulted in the dismantling of the tobacco industry. That case was all about science and big tobacco knew they had none and what science they did have, in unauthorized released documents, showed they knew it was harmful, they knew it was addictive, but they could fund around that. You have seen the standard change like I have from Frye to Daubert. I have dealt with science, and "junk science" my whole career. It can be political, certainly. But you know as well as I do that in medicine and science there is funding protocols to keep it as independent as possible, and then there is funding that comes from business like tobacco, oil companies, drug companies and on the other side as well. The Sierra Club and others have their own scientists, etc. UT and A & M are two of the top public research universities in the country (so is Rice). The protocols for research grants, try to eliminate as much bias as possible, but we are dealing with humans who want the money, and humans who give out the money. But in the end, what results is a peer reviewed research study. This is the filter that science used to weed out the junk, the politics, and even is some cases, made up data. I think it works really well. I am aware that administrations try and put a slant on the research that is conducted by various agencies. This gets exposed, it happened with global warming. But as you know, in science where there is disagreement a true scientist will say it needs to be studied further. It sorts it self out one way or the other over time free of politics just like it did with the ban on CFCs over DuPont's strong stance there was no "scientific link." Pretty soon you become the lone wolf in the wilderness. Science has done so with tobacco, DDT, mercury, the ozone layer, Actos, thermography (remember that, they could diagnosis you after putting you in a freezer and then taking a "photo" of you) and on and on and on. When you have "Institutes" created with tobacco money, oil money, chemical company money, drug company money it is pretty easy to see that they are not scientists. The same is true of anti (fill in the blank) people on the other side. I try to read the actual studies myself, both pro and con, if any, and make up my own mind. The key, is finding the real scientists on an issue, and avoiding the funded advocates who may happen to have a scientific background. We deal with this all the time in forensics, I think that is why is so easy to see what is science, what is "hype" and what is advocacy. Scientists in stating and defending their conclusions write a different way, talk in a different way, refer to prior conclusions in a different way then in the world of jurisprudence and political debate. It is pretty easy to spot, at least for me, someone who is defending their conclusions based on observations (a scientist) and someone advocating a position that may be based on scientific data. I have also seen on many, many occasions say, without hesitation, "the research is mixed on that," or "we don't have an answer to that yet, Dr. _________ over at _________ is doing a study on that now." A real scientist will say when the jury is still out. I do agree, when money is at stake, we will all look through the lens that is going to preserve our self interest. My point is that, given time and the desire to find objective answers, science is where to look. I look at all of the peer reviewed studies on the casual relationship between fracking and local earthquakes. The recent SMU study is pretty clear that they were unable to reach a conclusion one way or the other, much more research is needed. While there is a temporal relationship, there isn't one that would withstand scientific scrutiny one way or the other. Eventually there will be some solid scientific data on that, one way or the other. Unfortunately, I think as a result of Denton banning fracking last November, everyone is going to hire there own private research to be done. It will take years and years to sort that out I am thinking.

The Montreal Protocol happened. Opps, you already answered this, I just did a post. I couldn't for the life of me remember the name of the Protocol. I believe it has been amended a few times and the US is at the forefront of it all.

I can, it is pretty simple. Our atmosphere has a layer of ozone that surrounds the Earth. The ozone layer filters out UV light from the Sun. Without it, life as we know it couldn't exist on Earth. Some scientists way back when, the 60s maybe, believed there was a hole in the ozone layer. Some other scientists thought the reason for the hole was being caused by chemicals such as CFCs and HFCs (contained in A/C refrigerants and aerosol sprays). There was a big debate about all of this. Science kept building and more and more data came in. We, being a world leader, sent up some satellites to confirm there was a hole and sure enough there was one and it was growing (slowly) and we, along with other nations adopted an international protocol banning the use of CFCs and other chemicals. We were a couple of years behind in adopting it because the big chem companies like DuPont, were not convinced by the science. The US went ahead and adopted the treaty in the 80s, signed by Reagan, which phased out CFCs, etc. Since then we have been one of the leaders in the agreement, signing on to amendments to the protocol and I believe we signed on to something last year that limits things even further. The hole is supposedly closing or closed up. The 25th anniversary of the international agreement was a few years ago, some science journal I read said that treaty banning CFCs had over 100 states that had joined that that the banning of CFC was working to reverse the trend. We now have a bird up in the air that measures ozone in near real time. It is kind of Deja vu all over again.

in NY , you cant see the sky on smog days , the air has a kinda of a nice odor -like the smell of a car's muffler - you need a mask to filter the nasty dust particles that burn the eyes but again that is not man made ,yep , just natural You are using a micro example to explain a macro phenomena. Does man create smog in New York? Of course he does. Does it change the temperature in Africa? I'm not convinced. the planet turns every 24 hours - next time you use your washing machine - take a close look , did you notice that your clothes got cleaner as they spun around , now add a bit of dirt and spin it , I betcha that your clothes are dirty - same things with a planet -one huge washing machine -instead that the gases interact -it is called global warming - My washing machine doesn't have the best scrubbers nature can make: Trees and plants. Lift top or front load? Just kidding, a topic of another thread long ago and forgotten.

Really? I would like to see it, sincerely, just simply to be well informed. Most, really all, of the scientific "evidence" I have seen recently about the data is from a big oil funded think tank or "Institute." It really isn't scientific, it is spin, misinformation and sometimes just outright lies, just like the Tobacco Institute used to put out. Here is a link to an article that identifies the well know big oil funded "Institutes." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545 The one you frequently see is the Heartland Institute. There are other websites on the other side that have just as much hype on the other side. And then there are a few that are science driven that expose what is science and what is hyperbole. I really would like to see any peer reviewed studies you run across to the contrary, or a mainstream source that makes reference to such a study. I have been burned too many times on studies cited by talking heads on both sides to review a study they cite to prove their point. I have yet to read a study they cite that says what they say it says.

No, it is a Samsung Note3 or something. I think there might be an option to switch to swipe type, I will give it a try. WIth my laptop or pc I use Dragon dictation software, which is my everything I "write" tend to be long winded. With that you have to go back and carefully check on syntax, verb agreement, and other grammatical things which I discover typically after I have made a post. I will try swipe and see if that is better.

Well I guess "long lasting" is certainly relative, it only took us 150 years to pollute the entire ocean system with mercury (granted, there wasn't any way to know that burning coal in order to eat and survive could possibly build up to the point that it became toxic in fish, but it is still there in significant levels 50 years after we had conclusive proof of it. The mercury is still in fish at the top of the food chain in levels that limited portions are recommended, and it is strongly recommended that women avoid most fish. I guess it will eventually work itself out over time. To me, fifty years is "long term," but most things related to the Earth are looked at in terms of geologic time, eons. I do agree, wholeheartedly, with your sentiment in trying to to improve the human condition while we are here.

Travis, I agree with the substance of your post. It can only be assumed that passion while typing explains the numerous typos, my favorite being, ". . . 30 rears from now . . ." What do the Kardashians have to do with global warning? My posts are frequently found to be riddled with typos when I re-read them. That prompts a removal of the mittens and editing. Solving global warming will only stall, briefly, the population crisis. The developed world's population is under control. The developing world's population is out of control. Until we recognize that there is only one world, and that we're all in this together, population growth will accelerate with catastrophic consequences. I'm not optimistic. That will teach me to try and type on a tablet, my fat thumbs and small screen make it a slow learning process. I went and tried to edit it back into something comprehensible. Travis

Many of us are skeptical when confronted with seeing reasonable questions hooted down with derision, often by non-scientists. Solid scientific evidence is often so clear and plain that reasonable questions simply aren't possible. That is very true, but that hasn't stopped one group or another from trying to do so. When I was growing up there was this thing called the Tobacco Institute. Funded by big tobacco to fight the increasing number of studies linking smoking and lung cancer. They then expanded to try and prove that nicotine isn't addictive, and finely, that second hand smoke isn't harmful. The Tobacco Institute is extinct, it was killed off as part of the Tobacco Settlement. "Evolution is just a theory." Of course, the people advancing that argument didn't understand that scientists use the word theory in a completely different sense. Solid scientific evidence, is simply the conclusions derived from observations, and subject to peer (i.e., other scientists) review so that they can see if the observations are repeatable and the conclusions reasonable. This isn't one of them. It depends on what you mean by "one." If you mean, what the effects of global warming may be, I certainly agree with you, those are the important reasonable questions and are the ones being pursued. If you mean that there are reasonable questions about global warming, mainstream science have left those with those conclusions behind. That global warming has occurred and is, at least in part, man made, is what solid scientific evidence has revealed. There are no reasonable SCIENTIFIC questions about that. The original post asked the question is the "hype" about global warming over, referring to an article in a British newspaper by a global warming skeptic form the UK, who has been debunked. I took it from his post he meant the "hype" was the science, or that the will the debate go away. As you know, "hype" doesn't have any place in science, it isn't in peer reviewed articles to begin with. Is the "hype" over with respect to think tanks and pundits putting their spin on it, not by a long shot. Big oil has set up new Tobacco Institute like foundations and contributed over 500 million to them to try and say that it either: 1) doesn't exist (they have acknowledged they lost that one; 2) even if it does exist you cannot prove it is causing any real harm; and 3) if it is causing harm it is not man made. People will say there is debate about one aspect or another and quote a scientific study which is typically a "report," not a study or peer reviewed article, that is typically from one of these "Institutes." For example, the Heartland Institute. It never ceases to amaze me that giant industry, when faced with good solid scientific evidence, thinks that American's are stupid that it can react by trying to fund that evidence under the carpet. That the climate changes over time, often rapidly, is clearly evident in the historic and geologic record. Such changes are responsible for massive impacts on human history, what tiny amount of it there is. This one is no different except suddenly there is some mechanism in society that has a strong belief that the planet shouldn't do this and if it's happening it's humanities price for its sins. Not me, I don't think religion has anything to do with it. What the effects will be remain to be seen. I don't think the leaders in the scientific fields involved, at least from what I have read, indicate we are going to turn into Venus anytime soon. I have seen scientists discuss that venus has an atmosphere that is 96% CO2 and then seen non-scientists turn that into what is being suggested by global warming science. Even if you take heat out of the effects of fossil fuel burning, CO2 build up has caused the oceans to become 30% more acidic (in the pH sense) from fossil fuel emissions. Even if there was no global warming, that is a problem that cannot continue on indefinitely. The odds are against it. Against what? Even if it is the case it remains a natural phenomenon unless you believe we are supernatural beings. Warming due to CO2, that is at least in part due to human activity is what the science says, the Institutes of big oil have are trying snuff that out like a cigarette about 10 years ago, they have moved on to debating what amount is man made, and what the effects will be. Science says the warming is man made, it is not natural. The drop in pH of the oceans is not natural. Further, the effects are almost perfectly balanced in upside and downside...which is pretty much natures way. Some areas get warmer and wetter, others drier. The peer reviewed articles that comprise the body of scientific literature in this area have taken into account the natural cycles and variations and have concluded that the warming is outside of the those variations, that is, even factoring in historical warming and cooling periods, there is a net rise. So even in cooling periods, we are warmer then in previous cooling periods. In Britain, crops are being cultivated again that haven't been possible in a thousand years. I am sure that is true. Is that because it is warmer there? Or are they using GMO crops that are impervious to cold? That is the latest line by the big oil institutes by the way, "even if global warming exists, it is beneficial." Cigarette companies used to say the same thing about smoking. It's better for the "news cycle" to beat the drum of doom than to discuss the upside. That is my real problem in all of this I guess. What is news. We cannot rely on the "news" to give us a fair and balanced approach on any issue, even one that should be devoid of politics like science. You have to look behind every report, every "expert" invited on the program to discuss the meaning of this study or that study. Big oil Institutes provide "experts" to discuss this report, or that commissions findings and they have never been a scientist that I have seen. They are typically a lawyer or lobbyist employed by "the institute." That is what gets me emotional, how people can be fooled by the new Tobacco Institutes after knowing what it is they do, and why they do it. What remains a mystery to me is how people develop such emotions over it. Last time I looked out this morning the sun was rising on a beautiful day with no sign that human extinction is any more likely today than yesterday. They shouldn't get emotional, they should check things out for themselves, see who is advancing the position, is there a bias, and look for a credible source for a counter-point, and draw their own conclusions. You can go to NOAA, the NASA site previously mentioned. If you believe NASA and NOAA are in a conspiracy against big american oil, there are a lot of other sources that are not funded by big oil. It was a beautiful day here today also, but the problem is that when it comes to global ecosystems, changes are very slow. That fact that you wake up and everything looks the same is why this is so difficult for people to comprehend, and so easy for big business to brush away. I am sure that 200 years ago when people were burning coal every day to stay warm and cook they woke up and said something similar. When coal got used to fuel the industrial revolution and helped solidify us into a great nation, I am sure that people woke up every day and went about their business. When technology raged forward and we got electricity across this great nation, fueled by coal power plants I am sure people work up even happier then before they had electricity. Then one day a scientist somewhere discovered elevated concentrations in fish, and another scientist discovered it was making people sick, and another one discovered that the source of the elevated mercury in fish was from coal, and then another discovered that mercury causes birth defects. Coal producers, steel companies and other business that relied upon coal were able to initially question the science, and when the science couldn't be ignored, the Clean Air Act was passed, the Clean Water Act and the creation of the EPA. I am sure that fishermen who were wiped out my mercury scare, coal miners who lost their jobs, and a lot of others at some point woke up one day, saw that the sun was shining and said "this day sucks." There are a lot of things you can pass the buck on to the next generation, unfortunately we have learned the hard way that the environment isn't one of them. The fact that it only took 100 years to pollute an entire world ocean should be quite scary. The US spends more on global warming research than border security. It is a priority, as well as it should be. The last thing I will say is to try and bring this more to home, and everyday life. In May, 2011, In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) (these are the people who study our ability to grown food for ourselves in the United States) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture: A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world. Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems. As between Exxon/Mobil and food production capacity, I think I will err on the side of caution and do what little I can to try and get this under control. I have yet to see one study to suggest that reducing CO2 output would have a negative impact. Dave

The very first post is a slanted partisan political view, with a link to a slanted partisan source. The linked article was in response to recent reports from reputable climate scientists that 2014 was the hottest on record. Christopher Booker, the author of the linked article, has a long track record of promoting ideas that run counter to the scientific consensus. He's a partisan hack, and his article is just pandering to the misinformed. Is that the sort of open discussion you want to promote? As I said, the whole thread is an ad hominem, inherently political, and not really appropriate in an audio forum. Here is what I think, since I am the OP. There are without a doubt 'partisan hacks' that promote their agendas on both sides. Some of those sources you like, I'm sure. But just because you aren't friendly with the source doesn't mean you get to lock a thread. That'd be for purely personal reasons. I'm sure you could post an article from one of your favorite news sources to rebut the one I linked? I'm sure you could also link some scientific data from a university? And I'm sure I could pull some numbers about how much the government funds those scientific studies. So you see....it's all subject to controversy and just because you don't like the source doesn't mean you get to shut down the world. Unfortunately you happened to pick a hack who is also known as quack over there. He is a journalist, not a scientist. In addition to being a global warming skeptic he also argues that "asbestos, passive smoking and BSE have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies. Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian and the UK Health and Safety Executive has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos." Booker has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health. He also believes in intelligent design and that evolution is a hoax. I went to one of the sites someone linked, Global Warming lies .com, and it was filled up it with a lot of "facts", with no back up to support the "facts", but it said go to any of the links below for the "full story" and I saw that one is NASA. NASA no longer has to tone down, edit or have their scientific findings watered down like they did in a previous administration, so I went there. What I expected to find was there, that there are cyclical patterns to to warming and cooling, and "global warming" is the study of determining whether we are at, below, or above average for any point in a cycle, whether we are in a cooling or a heating period. There is a 90% consensus in mainstream science, both private, academic and public, that we are above where we should be, and that it is manmade. It is not just in the air, it significantly affects ocean water temperature. So not only do we get more intense El ninos, we are seeing measured increase in ocean temperatures that are up. A simple search for "corral loss" will get you to scholarly mainstream sites. CO2, the byproduct of greenhouse emissions, goes into the air, and more than a third of that ends up in the ocean. It is part of the carbon cycle that we all learned about. The elevated amounts from fossil fuels has caused the cycle to go out of balance, increasing the acidity of the oceans, which also results in lowered the amount of calcium carbonate that is necessary of the ocean lifecycle. The acidity of the oceans has increased (lowered pH) by 30% from the beginning of the use of fossil fuels. The acidity of the ocean will continue to rise, as a million pounds a day are currently being absorbed by the oceans from CO2 emissions. This is independent of the "warming" debate. There is no question that it is increasing, that it continues to increase, and that it is a result of the burning of fossil fuels. What is being sorted out now is what the effect will be on the fisheries, etc. This is happening now, not maybe in 30 years, but now. I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him, I am most haapy to look at what he's got. Travis Edited.

I wouldn't cut em, yet. What did you use to hook them up with on the long wall when you got them? If you are happy with that I would sell the Kimbers and buy more music, or you could buy those little ceramic bridges that keep your cables off the floor. If you cut em oxygen will leak into the OFC and then have got a big mess on your hands that may only be rectified by ultrasonic or cryogenic treatments. . Seriously, if you are using basic wire now, I would listen to that for at least ten hours before even looking at a minor tweaK like cables. The problem is if you cut em and like em better than zip wire you will cause a major paradigm shift in both wire camps of a magnitude along the lines of general relativity. It would cause high dollar cable owners everywhere to splice in zip cord, and zip cord users to splice in high dollar cable. The length to use, type, and manner of splice would be the subject oh heated debates on here for years to come, possibly even resulting in the creation of added forum subcategories. If you cut the cables and report on them you are jumping into the abyss from which there is no return. What I really want to know is if you are running spades or bananas on the end, because that will make all the difference right there.

Those must sound awesome. Congratulations.

Saw it last night. I thought the story was excellent, and the individual, CPO Kyle, a true hero. I wasn't to thrilled with the production. I didn't think it was all that great. Fake baby shots were obvious as well as the prosthetics. Certainly not to the level of Mystic River or J. Edgar. The press said that Spielberg turned down the project because of budget constraints at Warners would not allow him to do the quality of picture he felt the story deserved, and to me it looks like he was right.

I suspect that there are at least two issues that worked for Edison: Since people hadn't heard a recording they didn't know what one sounded like, and also I suspect that the device and the musician were behind less than acoustically transparent curtains. Just guessing, but not unreasonable. Love to read a full description of a setup for this or see a photograph. Must have been some photos made. Dave The book addresses all of that. The singer's said they adjusted their voice and level to match the Gramaphone (or whatever it was on stage). He also talks about recording and mixing like people like Steve Albini (Surfer Rosa, portions of original In Uetero, the full remastered version) and there much different philosophy about recording, mixing, compression, etc. I went back and looked at a couple of sections of the book last night after reading some of Mark's excerpts and summary. What is great about this book is it is a stark reminder that recording is part of the music BUSINESS, and it is a business. They record for the masses, they mix for the masses, they Eq for the masses, they apply compression for the masses. Everyone gets caught up in it. Albini was quoted that he has never been able to record an lp that he believes didn't need changing. He said with every one it turned into "I want a hit record." It is not just the record company executives, it is the artists also who say they want a louder record or whatever else they think they need to have a hit. The story in the book on the recordings for Nebraska were quite interesting. Fortunately, the ultimate determination of what the quality of something should be is with the consumer (although that is troubling after seeing what Apple's profit was, we may be with MP3 and headphones for quite sometime as the ideal listening situation). There are numerous examples in the book that exemplify the conflicts between the artistry and the BUSINESS of music.

While I think the example in the book about the politics between the producer and the band is a great one, having dealt with journalists enough myself, I know that you have to look at their sources for quotes with some skepticism. It is no different here and there is some dispute about Bongiovi's claims starting in 2009 when the book was released. Ed Stasium was the recording engineer on that album and when he heard about Bongiovi's claims in the book he responded as follows: "A pal of mine informed me of this discussion.... This will be brief...I want to set the record straight about Tina playing on TH77. At the sessions Bongiovi would show up once in a while and when he did he would proceed to the lounge and read airplane magazines. Lance was there most of the time, I was the only person involved in the recording of the project who was there for every minute of the process. Tina played bass on the ENTIRE LP, Bob Babbitt did come in and overdub on one or maybe two songs but at the mixing stage I did not put Babbitt's bass up in the mix and the "producers" knew none the better! I seem to recall that I may have "Ghosted" Bob on the chorus (for effect) of "Love Has Come To Town" under Tina's bass for alas, I was WAY on the band's side. David could not stand Bongiovi and did not want him present whilst he recorded vocals, David informed me of this and I was the one who broke the news to Bongiovi (who did not care). Jerry has since remixed all of the Band's LPs for 5.1 etc. and he would be the one to know (from the track sheets) which of the tracks Bob played on. But geez, it's been 32 years....c'mon! Oh... and as for the Bongiovi quotes in Greg Milner's "History" My lovely wife Amy found the book and the first thing she did was read me several paragraphs and I choked on the tremendous amount of BULLSHIT squatted out by Bongiovi! Mr. Milner should get a truthful source for the addendum that should be added to that chapter. I manned any razor blade that was wielded on "Psycho Killer" (at the band's request), and there are no ******* TYMPANI on "Sheena". The only person who did not know what was going on during those sessions was Bongiovi himself.......I suppose I could go on but I must prepare dinner! Drinks for my friends!.....cheers.....ed" Like all things, the truth is probably in the middle. Regardless of what really happened, Milner's point in the book is valid, there is frequently a battle between the producer's concept of what the music should be and what the band wants to do.

"But they are picky on the associated equipment. They are one inch thick MDF, ridiculously internally braced with no parallel surfaces for minimal coloration." What amp preamp combo have you found works the best with them?

His web page on his phone preamp, which I obviously forgot to post says he can offer step ups. http://www.transcendentsound.com/Transcendent/Transcendent_Sound_Phono_Preamp.html From his webpage: Total Performance: These design features produce a noise figure of at least 75 dbA. This is outstanding for a tube phono preamp and exceeds conventional designs by at least 10 dbA if not 15. Gain is a whopping 52 dB. Consequently, the preamp can be driven by all but very low output moving coil cartridges. Step-up transformers can be added for these types of cartridges. Contact us for details as moving coil cartridges require special consideration when mated to a transformer. Connecting the Phono Preamp to the Grounded Grid Preamp creates a combined gain of 64 dB of very low noise amplification. By the way, the thing sounds pretty darn good. Easy Assembly: The circuitry is contained on two circuit boards, one for the power supply and one for the preamp. Very little point-to-point wiring is required. Assembly time should be less than 6 hours. Power Requirements Specifications: Signal to Noise Ratio: Greater than 75 dBA. Gain: 52 dB. Max Signal Out: 20 volts RMS. Output Impedance: 1000 ohms. Input Impedance: 47 k Ohms. Tube Compliment: 4-6C45Pi, 2-12AX7A Dimensions Overall: 15'W by 11'D by 4 1/4'H. 115V or 230V, 50-60Hz, 30 watts. Weight: 10 pounds.

Now if it were the Raiders it would be a different story !.....There would be Del Taco at the party. Im with you there Dtel

"The people who helped me, in order, were: dtel pzannucci russ69 Garyrc Coytee Crown1 CECAA850 and finally the forum member formerly known as speakerfritz" That is not at all surprising.

I went and read that thread, how great. What happened to Speakerdritz? Guess he is one listed as "guest." What speakers are you running in the shop now?

What cartridge will you be using? Here is a link to the Transcendent page with specs. Travis

Some great suggestions on here, as usual. I actually had this issue with some mono blocks, tired the usual troubleshooting, cheeter, plugs, etc. One you could hear slightly from 5' away. The othwr was dead quiet. I finally called Craig and he had me try a couple of things, nothing, and then he had me swap the amps connections at back of preamp and I was doing that and felt slight amount of juice through the IC and he said, "remove the bottom plate and I will have you look for some things." I said "no way B+ and I don't mix they are on the way to you, let me know." Long story short, there was a cold solder joint of a wire that tied to ground. He couldn't believe that it was that it wasn't screaming hum because it did when he hooked it up to his speaker. I was running it through power conditioner on an isolated line, so I may have help on that. I would have never found and it would have driven me crazy. Craig sent it back "no charge." Sometimes it is the equipment, I admire the guys here that know enough on how to figure that out. Several people had hum problems with DX 38s and a "patch" was finally developed for that after more than two or three people were experiencing the same thing. I hopes yours is a simple and easy solution.

Happy Birthday to the two of you. Looking forward to seeing you again soon DD. Travis