BillH2121

joe - that's very nice.

"Nothing will wear a record our FASTER than tracking at TOO LIGHT a weight for the cartrdige. 3-4 grams tracking weight will wear a record out no faster than 1.75 grams--all other things being equal." I have to agree with Allan, my understanding has always been that tracking at too light a weight allows the stylus to "bounce" around in the groove causing degradation over a period of time. My experience has been that the better my table and cart, the more I was aware of extraneous surface noise in softer passages, not merely pops and clicks. As Gary mentioned, this problem is mainly noticed with classical music, not other forms where the volume is somewhat higher and more constant. I really like the looks of the that clear TT - I would backlight it for dramatic effect:)

"If your butt does or does not look fat in those jeans = opinion. (One best kept to oneself)" Amen. Wife: "Honey, do these jeans make my butt look big? Husband: "No, I'm pretty sure its just that big butt of yours, not the jeans." = dead man walking

I like the part where Jack Nicholson says to Cruise: " Telling the truth about audio equipment saves lives!" Wow, I didn't remember how cheesy some of that movie was (mostly Cruise). OT - people on a dicussion board have no obligation to respond to questions of any kind - if you choose to respond, give an honest opinion and it is then the responsibility of the person requesting the information to conduct his due diligence and make a decision how much weight to give any response. Primarily, we're tallking about subjective opinions here - not objective facts. If someone provides a response in the form of a "fact", the person asking the question should ask for the supporting data as well as the conclusion. No data, no fact.

Bill - yeah, I totally agree that if someone is satisfied with a product, they should enjoy it and not allow others to ruin their enjoyment of that product. If that's all they're saying, then I'm on board with that. But, people who drive Yugos can't tell Porsche drivers that they wasted their money because the Yugo drives as well simply because they think it does. Hey, I'm one of those people with the not so high end equipment - Look at Ivan's stuff over on AK and all of us are humbled.

"If I think my Yugo/Vega/Gremlin/Pinto drives good, then it drives good, and I wouldn't need someone to tell me because I didn't spend XXXX amount of dollars, it can't drive good.........that's all I'm saying............" Sorry, I have to disagree with this line of proposition. To keep the analogy constant re cars - You may be satisfied with the way your Vega drives based on your knowledge and experience, but that doesn't mean that it drives well. In fact, because of certain design elements constrained by cost, it doesn't drive well compared to other cars with more sophisticated designs. There are certain objective measures that can apply to almost any consideration of performance. I'll give you though that things like audio equipment wihch must be perceived primarily through our senses provide more opportunity for subjective criteria. There are many people that are satisfied with their equipment - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that their equipment actually sounds better than X's equipment. It simply means they either think it does or are satisfied with it even if it doesn't.

"I've yet to figure out how to do anything that appears meaningful by twisting the wires to apply anti-skate. That said, I've never heard better LP sound." Dave - I too have a Scout and found that the HI-FI test record was very helpful in adjusting the anti-skate. Twisting wires is a strange way to adjust anti-skate, but is actually more effective than I originally thought it would be. I'm one of those people who prefer vinyl over cds, but unfortunately I can't stand "clicks", "pops", and other surface noise. Its distracting to me. I can listen to noisy records for "business" - to appreciate historical or theoretical/compostitional attributes, but for pure pleasurable listening, I have to have a record without pops or surface noise. And, welcome back!

"CDs sound spectacular and unreal. It's the unreal part that keeps me playing scratchy old vinyl." Mark - I agree with everything you say in your two posts above. And I too prefer vinyl to cds. However, its the "scratchy" in the "scratchy old vinyl" that I can't handle. Surface noise and assorted "pops, clicks, and ticks" distract me and lessen my enjoyment. That's why I've compromised somewhat and purchased a cd player that sounds more analog to me than my former cdp. I no longer have a source for used records in my city and the hassle of ordering records on line and sending them back when they have imperfections is too much. I have a collection of lps that I will listen to over and over but I also now purchase cds. I agree that cds can sound unnatural, but there are some horrendously recorded lps out there also. My new cd player cost 6 times more than my old player and it definately does not sound 6 times better - but it does sound quite a bit better to my ear and is worth the cost to me for being able to enjoy the convenience of purchasing cds.

Ki - you make a good point that the end product of this maddness should be the enjoyment of music, not the enjoyment of equipment (although I realize that the two are, to an extent, inherently linked). A few years ago when I decided that I should upgrade from my 30 year old McIntosh set up, I caught a fever that I have not been able to fully shake. With each new piece of equipment, my focus immediately turned to the next upgrade and I don't think I took the time to relax and enjoy the music as much as I should. I recently purchased a McIntosh cd player and have realized that I'm not restricted to just vinyl as I had previously convinced myself. Its nice now to be able to go to the local shop and buy a cd - so many titles readily accessible - no more visiting the used record shop and hoping someone had brought in something that week that was in good condition. Back on topic - I still think in the right room with the right equipment, the 802ds can sound pretty nice.

My problem with the needle trick described above is that if an LP was scratched bad enough that it actually skipped, that even if the skip was fixed there would be still be so much surface noice associated with the scratch that the LP would be unlistenable anyway. I can't stand to listen to LPs that have surface noise or other pops and clicks - it ruins the listening experience for me. I certainly prefer vinyl, but I have become a lot more tolerant toward cds since I got my Mac cd player - it sounds very analog to me. This is a good thing for me because the only place in my city to get used records closed recently. I love the ritual of playing vinyl as well as the sound, but I have to admit that a well recorded cd can sound glorious and I'm certainly not the vinyl snob I used to be.

I know there is a lot of debate among forum members about the use of a sub with KHorns and RF7s. I recently hooked up the sub from my HT system to my two-channel system (using RF7s) and think it made an incredible positive difference in the sound. I'm still experimenting with exact settings but have the sub located between the RF7s, crossover at 40, and volume turned fairly low. Now a bass drum has that "kick" that I'm used to in live performance and double bass in orchestral pieces have more presence. I know others will take me to task for this, but I think it perhaps made the biggest improvement in overall sound of any recent upgrade I've made. I'm looking to obtain an RSW 15 for permanent use when finances allow.

OMG!!! Exhibit #1 regarding the difficulty in balancing artistic relevance and popularity and the inherent tension between the two.... Has anyone heard this LP - maybe its good stuff, but that cover is enough to make you wonder.

Ahhhh - Country Jazz! The most important artistic fusion of all. Don't forget "Miles Davis Hoe Down" and "John Coltrane Plays Boots Randolph"! Seminal works by both artists.

I think a lot of people are somewhat confused by Armstrong because they primarily remember him on television singing something like "Hello Dolly" and merely holding his trumpet. You've got to hear him in the 30's and 40's playing trumpet to understand how he altered the course of jazz in general and trumpet playing specifically. Allan can probably direct us to some particlar albums that would emphsis Armstrong's contributions.

I listened to 802ds for 10-12 minutes powered by Mac MC2102 and playing Mac MCD201 - I was intrigued by the smooth response and neutral sound. But, when I got home I thought my RF7s sounded pretty close when using a sub. I'm afraid the 802s would not only involve the additional expense of the speakers by also another 2102 to monoblock so as to provide the power these speakers probably need to excel.

Mike - I think you make my point. My point is not that anyone is intellectually inferior or incapable of enjoying certain art forms without specialized knowledge. The lack of a music education or experience playing an instrument does not necessarily lessen the aesthetic experience involved with listening to great music. That enjoyment focuses on your subjective experience regarding the music, it is not focused on the intent of the musician or composer. All I'm saying is that specialized experience adds greater understanding of what the musician is doing, not that it necessarily make the aesthetic experience any greater or lesser. One can love a great painting without being able to paint - they just can't understand fully how the painting was created. My primary point though is that musicians like John Coltrane do not play or compose for the masses - if they were truly interested in pleasing the most people, they would not choose to perform jazz, they would play "pop" music - "pop" being short for popular. I just have a feeling that when Coltrane recorded some of his later pieces (any of his pieces), he wasn't worried whether they would rocket to #1 on the hit parade or be fully appreciated by Joe Blow whose musical experience is limited to listening to the local pop station on am radio.

Sorry that I have to disagree. To say that jazz was meant to gotten by anyone other than the people playing it is downright absurd. To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is a joke. Insert Rap for Jazz in your post and you will see how false your premise is. You could defend either one from an I understand it and you dont standpoint and you would be wrong in both cases. Josh Sorry that I have to double disagree. Fundamentally, to say that jazz is not "meant to be gotten" by anyone other than the people playing it is downright close to the truth. Many who enjoy it without playing it can learn to appreciate it in a sense similar to the way the players do, but the creative center of jazz is almost entirely within the performing musicians and to a small extent the listening audience. For many forms of popular performance there is a feedback loop that includes the audience - in jazz this loop is much tighter and stays up with the players - when they are flying they don't even know the audience is there... To suggest that somehow you need to have certain knowledge to understand it is true. You don't need a music degree, don't need to know music theory, don't need to know how to read music notation, and don't even need to have ever played any instruments (it helps if you are a musician or have followed jazz intently for a long time). That egalitarian position that anyone is able to understand it is the joke - it assumes that all music is the same, but it is not (see my long post earlier in this thread about the progressive complexity of the popular forms) - it is as incorrect to think that we all receive the same understanding of jazz as it is to assert that we all have the same understanding of anything else - our individual backgrounds, experience, training, and many other more subtle influences very much determine how one will encounter something like jazz, what one will hear in it, what one will overlook, what one will call "quality", and what one will accept, understand, appreciate, and cherish. The easiest way to demonstrate this truth to yourself is to stop by a pawn shop and pick up an alto horn, trumpet, guitar, whatever; and see how long it takes you to play jazz with others. It took me 15 years and in the 15 years since then I am still "getting it" little by little as best I can. I triple disagree. I dont need to stop into a pawnshop and pick up an instrument to understand how hard it is to play with other folks. For the record my instrument collection includes a 610 schimmel grand piano ( and yes I can play it and yes I have played with other people. Ill let others judge how well) a 1968 Fender Tele, a 69 Martin D 28, and two Taylors that I never felt the need to learn the model numbers of. I studied piano and sax as a child and have been playing the piano for over 40 years, guitar for 25. I have played with some musicians of note. The late great Vernon Alley being the most notable. People have paid money to see me play. I cannot say they were happy about it but I did make spare change for more than a few years through music. Needless to say, but I do have a working understanding of music theory. I think your perspective on jazz is much like everyone in the court of the emperor with no clothes. BillH2121's reply: The purpose of my comments was to convey my belief that most artists (jazz musicians, painters, sculpters, etc) that seek to push the limits of their art forms' status quo are not doing so for the enjoyment of the masses, because the masses will neither understand nor probably enjoy that art. They do so to further the art form and usually without the support of the masses. It is not difficult to look back over 400 years of music and realize that very few composers that we now consider relevant were not fully appreciated, or were actually ignored, during their lifetimes. Bach's composing sons were more popular than he during the time immediately following his death, Mozart died in a penniless state, many even now believe that Coltrane was just making "noise" in his later years. To think that a non-musician can fully understand the technique required to play jazz or classical music, or that someone who doesn't paint can actually understand the technique and related challenges involved in painting, etc, etc, defies logic. This is true of almost any craft or specialized endeavor - carpentry, tennis, football, cooking. One can surely appreciate the aesthetic appeal of the "thing" produced and can enjoy that "thing" but they cannot, without the specialized knowledge or experience, fully understand the technique and related challenges that accompany the creation of that "thing". I performed music professionally since the age of 15, taught for several years, and was a doctoral student in music and I would never profess to say that I fully understand what and how great musicans do what they do. I have a great appreciation and understanding for the difficulty of what they are doing, I can enjoy the experience of listening to what they do, but I rarely can say that I fully understand exactly what they are doing. If you believe that you fully understand how its done without ever picking up an instrument, you are fooling yourself. That is not to say you cannot enjoy what they do and become more educated as to the stylistic considerations of the art form, but unless you are one of those boundary-pushing artists, you cannot fully "get it".

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

Amen, oldtimer. I started a thread a few weeks ago on AK re a somewhat unenjoyable experience I had recently at a local McIntosh dealer. I also recalled that same store location selling Mac in the 70's and a great salesman that took the time to treat a bunch of broke college student's (me and my friends) with kindness and respect and helping us cobble together our first Mac system (used, of course). Funny thing was, another AK member remembered the same salesman and frequented the store at that time. Small world, but things have definately changed. To the topic though, I have been a member here for a couple years and I have never noticed any thread that I thought was so horrible that grown men and women couldn't handle it. But, then I'm an attorney so I guess I'm used to rude uncivil behavior =). And yes, like Max, I would love to be "policed" by Amy!

I am somewhat hestitant to call myself an "audiophile" because I'm not sure that I have the experience or the discerning ear to make myself an authority on anything other than what pleases me. I listened to my Mac 2125 and C26 for almost 30 years before recently upgrading to newer equipment. I have not regularly visited the local audio stores to listen to different components by different companies and have little understanding of the technical aspect of this maddening hobby. I do have a couple of degrees in music and spent some 16 years as a professional musician. What I listen for and what I strive to obtain through equipment purchase is a reproduction of sound as I remember it while sitting in the orchestra or in a small jazz group or my early rock bands. The complicating matter in all of this for me, and I suspect most others, is that I have limited funds to buy the latest and greatest gear. Therefore, I buy used equipment, not because I believe it is necessarily the "smarter" buy, but because it allows me to obtain a piece of equipment that I might otherwise not be able to afford. I also believe that in many things, automobiles and audio equipment as example, there is a direct correlation between cost and quality and performance. I want to believe that the RF7s that I own and love sound and look as good as the B&W 802ds I heard recently - they don't. However, the difference between $1,500 and $12,000 is not unsubstantial and the sound produced by the RF7s is surprisingly good compared to the B&Ws at a fraction of the cost. If I had the money, I would own the B&Ws and I would not be embarrased to say that I thought the more expensive speaker sounds better than the RF7 and looks a million times better - I would not consider such a purchase conspicuous consumerism, I would consider it an attempt to capture the finest sound for what I could afford at that time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of a lower-cost system that represents the best one can do at a given time, but it is foolish to think in this hobby that more money doesn't produce greater results. Of course, there must be some point where additional spending produces negligible improvement, but I think in this hobby that number is pretty high.

I guess my worry was that the RSW 15 was made more for an HT application of producing big rumbling effects but might not be truly "musical".

Is anyone using a RSW 15 with their 2 channel set-up. Is it responsive enough to use in that application? I would use it with my HT system and a dedicated 2 channel system. Would the RSW 12 be a better fit with RF-7s and 2-channel use? Thanks for any opinions (yes, I know that many don't think the RF7s need a sub - I'm not stirring that pot again - just assume I've already decided that issue).

edwinr - Was that photo taken in your home? I just wanted to comment on the beautiful carpet....

What is the only creature other than man that gets Leprosy? A: the armadillo - in this part of the country its also know as the "other white meat"

Nevermind - turned out to be a bad cable box - drove me completely batty for two days.