whell

I laughed my a** off with this one. Thanks for sharing!

Looks like I'll have to keep my eye out for another unit. Can't believe that someone paid that much for it! Once can get a decent used Jolida for only a hundred and a half more!

Agreed on the BIN price. I'm going to watch the bidding and see what happens. My suspicion is the item is over-valued by the seller, in which case he might relist if the reserve is not met. I can be patient, if that is the case.....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3014102548&category=3280 OK, so I might be willing to try this "tube thing". This just popped up last night, right near me in Detroit. Looks like its in great cosmetic shape, but the description of the tubes concerns me (doesn't look like its stocked with the ones you tubies usually mention here on the forum). Of course, I also think that he's living in dream land with the $499 "Buy it Now" price. Your thoughts?

Proud owner of a Marantz SR-19 EX. Love it. Tried the Denon first, but took it back, tried the Marantz and kept it. Almost 2 years and no desire to upgrade. Music sounds wonderful and movies are as realistic as it gets.

S**T! You're killing me! I just negotiated a deal to buy at $260! Z I guess that I'm not getting a horrible deal for $52 more, and if I look and don't like them I can walk away w/o bad feedback on Ebay. Good for you, Andy, and I hope they are in perfect shape. (But I would have like to have saved the money!)

Having been the former owner of Monitor Audio Silver 5i's, smaller but quite similar sounding to the 8i's (I also auditioned the 8i's), I have to tell you that I sold the Monitor's and bought my Klipsch set up, and never looked back. I have to say that the Monitors are a great sounding speaker for the price, and a great value, and sounded super in the dealer's listening room, but whether its my ear or my listening room, I never adjusted to them after I got them home. I sold them after I heard the RB-5's, and the Monitors were instantly demoted to my 2nd system, and later sold. The Klipsch brought music and movies to life in my listening room. And if you didn't like the build quality of the Klipsch, I am absolutely non-plussed as to why you would like the Monitors. If there was any knock I had against the Monitors, it was the minimalist approach to their contruction and internal bracing. The cabinets, in their stock form, really have significant resonance issues (the manufacturer all but begs the buyer to mass load the speakers for best performance). There are plenty of posts on other forums that discuss aftermarket solutions to Monitor Audio speakers design/build quality challenges.

Ray: Thanks for the heads up on the surrounds. I'll check them out. Doug: Why no interest in tubes at this time? I might be right on, or I might be misinformed. However, both of my systems are seeing alot of wife usage right now. She likes the use of the remote (she has mastered the Marantz RC-18 remote fairly well), and wants to just sit down, turn it on, and go. Thus, SS equipment, for the "instant on" value, has appeal right now. Also, with a 18 month old special needs daughter, its all I can do to maintain the scant attention I am able to pay to my hobby now, without trying to learn the new language of tubes. I must admit that it is tempting to try tube equipment, given all the lofty praise that such equipment gets from the tube maivens here in this forum and elsewhere. However, I'm quite sure that its beyond my ability right now devote the time necessary to "get it right" with tube gear. Maybe someday........ :-)

Just a footnote. Seller has agreed to let them go for $260. I should be able to pick them up next week. Any thoughts on what to power these with? For starters, I'll probably be powering them with my venerable Sansui 9090. I've always liked the sound of that unit, but never had it hooked up to Klipsch. The thought of hooking up a Klipsch to an old SS Sansui is probably making some of your skins crawl. I might consider selling the Sansui (I think I could get a decent $ selling it, as it truly is in near mint shape) and powering the Klipsch with a decent integrated amp. I'd appreciate any suggestions, though I am still not partial to tube equipment at this point. Thanks!

LOL Fini. Really, though. Could the components be in prime shape after sitting in a box for 35 years? Wouldn't the physical law of entropy have some impact here and suggest that the item be in need of evaluation/repair/update? Also, even if it has been sitting in a box, the box is not airtight and that English salt air could have impacted the cosmetics, undetected by the x-rays. Even though this is a novel form of presentation, I'd rather he had opened the boxes on at least one of the units.

Have a chance to pick upa pair of KG-4's from a local seller to replace some older Infinity's in my 2 channel system. This system will largely be used to listen to vinyl and CD's, and occasionally TV through a stereo vcr. They'll be powered by a Sansui 9090 for now, though I'm looking for a newer intergrated amp to use. Mostly jazz and classic rock, and limited classical. He wants $275 and they are in very good condition. I can pick them up locally, no shipping. Anyone think this is a decent deal for the KG-4's?

I've gotten back into vinyl as well with the garage sale purchase of my old Dual 502. I've have heard these things need to be lubed occasionally, though. Never got a manual with mine. Any suggestions from someone familiar with this model on how to keep it lubed?

This is getting as bad as the rant exchange in the thread" "My Daughter was Deployed....". Like that thread, it started out with the best of intentions, but degenerated quickly. I'm sorry to say I was a part of that Can't we all just get along?

Speaking of garage sales, that's exactly where my turntable came from. I was looking to get back into vinyl after seeing various comments on this forum Happened past a garage sale where I found an old Dual 502. Needed cleaning up, a new belt, and I found a dust cover from another junk TT that fits it fine (just to set over it). Dropped $55 bucks for a decent Grado Prestige Blue cartridge, hooked it up to my old Yamaha integrated amp, and I'm off to the races. Sounds great!

TBrennan: "If you think you can give me a history lesson I'm all ears. Though as Watkins pointed out you missed my point completely here. I'm pretty good on history, have over 1000 books on the subject. I'm eager to hear your defenses of property qualifications for voting and The Fugitive Slave Act. :-)" Didn't miss your point at all. Again - Jim Crow laws were more about geographic politics than liberalism or conservatism. They certainly were not "conservative" in nature. Fugutive Slave Act? OK, I'll bite. The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the group of laws referred to as the "Compromise of 1850." On January 29, 1850, 70-year-old Henry Clay, who also had a hand in another bill that helped to curtail the spread of slavery, presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress. In this compromise, the antislavery advocates gained the admission of California as a free state, and the prohibition of slave-trading in the District of Columbia. The slavery party received concessions with regard to slaveholding in Texas and the passage of this law. Passage of this law was so hated by abolitionists, however, that its existence played a role in the end of slavery a little more than a dozen years later. This law also spurred the continued operation of the fabled Undergound Railroad, a network of over 3,000 homes and other "stations" that helped escaping slaves travel from the southern slave-holding states to the northern states and Canada. By the way, abolitionists included a number of individuals who one might call "conservative". For instance, the Pennsylvania Abolition society members included George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine. You want to look at history through the eyes of the 21 century and judge it based on today's standards of morality. No doubt that such a view would produce an abohorent view of such laws, and rightly so. However, at that time, those who desired to curtail the spread of slavery in the expanding US terrories beleived that a series of compromises was the best way to achieve their goals. Obviously, their efforts only further exacerbated the divisions between north and south, and ultimately contributed to the start of the Civil War. However, their intentions (containing the spread of slavery), though misguided in their application, we at their core, possibly noble.

Henry: The intent of my post was not to focus on Republican versus conservative. In fact, I did state at the end that is was more about politics (geographical politics) more than it was about liberal versus conservative. Sorry if that was not clear.

Tom: You truly need a history lesson here: JIm Crow laws: "The Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act in 1875, making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, but there was a national backlash against civil rights that led to the Supreme Court's nullification of the Civil Rights Act in 1883. North and south began a period of reconciliation, characterized by acquiescence on the part of Northern liberals and government officials to the desires of the white south to institutionalize its discriminatory and racist beliefs. During the early years of the Wilson administration (1913-1917), the Democratic Representatives submitted more racist legislation than had been introduced to any previous Congress. Disfranchised and demoralized, few blacks voted during these years, leading to an even greater indifference of both parties to the black vote. The Republicans did not need black votes to control Congress, and Democrats did not care about a black constituency. When legislation was introduced to protect blacks, Democrats convinced Republicans to join them in their disregard for civil rights and suffrage for blacks. Congressman L.C. Dyer of St. Louis submitted an anti-lynching bill in 1922 that was shelved when Southern Democrats threatened a filibuster in the Senate. Southern Democrats regularly blocked the efforts of a few liberal Congressmen to pass protective legislation for blacks. Republicans continually gave in to the demands of the Southern Democrats, and President Harding (1921-1924) did nothing to interfere, nor did his successors, until the late 1930s. " from PBS.org. In other words, it wasn't about conservative or liberal, it was about politics. As far as your other "examples", don't have time to poke holes in them right now, but I'll be back later.

I would love to see sometime, from someone who has both units (or I'll do it, if someone wants to lend me their H/K 430!), a comparison of the H/K and a low power Marantz vintage, such as the 2220B. I've got my 2220B singing away behind me right now (in the office on a Sunday AM !) and it sounds just great to my ears.

Deang: "I repeat: The chances of Hussein and the secular Baath Party doing ANYTHING to help out the Wahhabis, or that the Wahhabis would take anything from Hussein -- is about 0%" I've posted docuemntation to the contrary earlier in this thread (approx page 10). Osama himself is a Wahhibi, and himself called for unity with the Iraqi people, though he was careful not to tie himself to Hussein. The relevance of that is to underscore Bin Laden's ideal that the cause of Islam is a common goal. And, there is still the matter of Islamic terrorist groups finding save haven for training and propogation within Iraq. Your comments not withstanding, I think the evidence supports the contention that religion, and politics, make strange bedfellows.

Deang: "He may be a comedian by profession, but he has a point. I don't think it is indended to be 'serious', but is simply using humor to illustrate the problem with the logic the Bush Administration is applying." OK - I'll bite. Lets use some of his same logic to illustrate why he's wrong. Lets say that those same neighbors, who he says "haven't done anything wrong", were actually providing a safe haven to some nasty folks who blew up his brother's house (a metaphore for teh WTC). And lets also say that while he was providing them safe haven, he was also providing them with funds, supplies, and other key materiel to go out and blow up someone else's house. Would he then not have a cause for action? Especially if he knew that the police (a metaphor for the UN) we're content to do nothing but send over occasional building inspectors (Han's Blix and company), who couldn't find sand on a beach if they tried?

Deam: have you considered therapy?

Deang "Hussein has WOMD -- what the hell are we doing sending anybody in there? You don't think this clown is going to use them? We back him into a corner and this is going to get ugly fast. You think Israel is going to sit this one out after he launches an Anthrax laced scud into Jerusalem? Think Syria is sleepwalking through this? Turkey, Greece, and Saudi Arabia? Can you say dubya dubay dubya III?" Are you serious? It is precisely because he has them that we are going in there. There was a war in 1991, following which he promised to disarm and destroy his WOMD capability. He did not. We sent in inspectors. He still did not. We passed UN resolution 1441 and sent in more inspectors. He still did not. In the meantime, he has been developing relationships with a host of unsavory characters who have the desire to see the United States cease to exist, or at least casue us great harm. These relationships are designed to enable these groups to operate with impunity and carry out their plans to create murder and mayhem on a global scale, including the potential use of WOMD. We are going in there to force required disarmamemnt (and mdeneen, here is the "authority" you were looking for) as intended by UN Resolution 1441. This is the will of the world via the UN Security Council, not just "dubya". Why do these individuals wish to see harm done to the United States? I've heard alot of anti-US rhetoric on this point. I think the best and most concise assessment I've heard comes from former Clinton advisor Dick Morris. They hate the US and what it represents for 4 key reasons: 1. Our freedom of religion 2. Our freedom of speech 3. Our treatment of women as something more than a sex object 4. Our nation as a haven for members of the Jewish community Thus, we are a target. We best get on with the task of pre-emptive strikes, or we will see more 9/11 type attacks. Maybe not all on that grand scale, but ONE loss of American life within our borders at the hands of terrorists is worth ANY investment in time, equipment and resources to prevent it, IMHO. A great precedent in my opinion, for US/UN intervention in Iraq is the Isreali attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981, just before it went on-line. We now know for certain that Saddam Hussein's plans to build a French-supplied reactor at his nuclear research center at Tuwaitha, about 20 kilometers from Baghdad, were designed to produce militarily significant amounts of plutonium. There was no other purpose. The Iraqi objective was "simply" to manufacture nuclear weapons that could provide Saddam with regional dominance and - if necessary - with the implements of atomic warfighting. Iraq's objectives have not changes one iota since 1981, by the way.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html For those of you still skeptical about Iraq's ability to mass produce and deliver WOMD, feel free to visit the above site. Plently of documentation here of Iraq's capabilities, as verified by the UN inspection teams following the Gulf War, and US and British intelligence. No "could's, might's, or maybe's" here, folks. The weapons are there. They have used them previously, they have the capability to mass produce and deliver, and their ties and support of terrorists who have involvement in previous attacks on Western targets is also documented in the following locations: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/abunidal.html Will post other documentation shortly.

From the London Financial Times: Headline - "Iraq Reveals Bomb With Potential Biological Use: By Roula Khalaf in Baghdad and Mark Turner at the United NationsPublished: February 25 2003 21:38 / Last Updated: February 26 2003 0:56 United Nations inspectors said on Tuesday Baghdad had begun to provide new information on its weapons of mass destruction, including a bomb that could contain biological agents. Advertisement They described the development as a sign of co-operation with their efforts to oversee disarmament, but it remained unclear whether Iraq would comply with a critical order to begin destroying proscribed missiles by the weekend." ALSO, from FOX News: "WASHINGTON Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence. The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened. Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month." So, Iraq DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WOMD), DOES have means of delivering them to points in the Mid-East including Isreal, DOES likely have plans, capability and methodology curretnly unknown, to deliver WOMD to the United States. So, tell me mdeneen and others who have insisted that Iraq has no such capability, now that the evidence is mounting that Iraq has such weapons and capability, are you ready to change your tune?

All right, all right. I've got to try one of these. I'm still experimenting with a second system upstairs in the bedroom, and have limited space, so I'm interesting in trying the 430, or its bigger brother the 730. One key question: can any of you who own one or either of these units comment on its FM performance? My wife and I like to listen to Jazz at night after we get our little girl tucked in for the night. We enjoy CBC (Canadian) radio's evening classical and jazz programming, and also jazz on a local NPR station. I'm not expecting performance equivalent to my Yamaha T-85 in terms of sensitivity, but would hope that it will pull these local stations in respectably with good tonal quality. I plan to eventually pair it with some RB-5 bookshelfs, currently doing their duty as surrounds in my HT system. Thanks!