analogman

---------------- On 1/28/2005 7:33:15 PM edwinr wrote: ---------------- On 1/28/2005 1:09:53 PM jpm wrote: ...we're at the mercy of the dude that mixed the music we listen to. Somehow it just doesn't seem fair. ---------------- We ARE at the mercy of these 'dudes'. I wouldn't say 2/3 of my collection is unplayable on my Klipschorns. But I would say 15 to 20%. After I bought my Klipschorns I realised how bad the recording quality was on many CD's I owned. These CD's now reside with my upstairs system. Don't despair. CD recording quality is improving out of sight. Now probably 1 out of 5 of my CD purchases are ordinary. In the past the ratio was much higher. ---------------- Right you are, "They" are currently doing about 85% of all production work in the ANALOG domain using antiquated tape machines updated by totally ZANY, KNOW NOTHING guys like Tim de Paravicini! Regards, Analogman

---------------- On 1/28/2005 9:17:07 PM MrMcGoo wrote: I agree that some CDs are of poor quality. There are lots of high quality CDs that provide excellent sound from good systems. The CD would not be dominant, if it were ipso facto inferior. There are many inferior technologies that have died such as the eight track tape. The CD will be here for a long time to come because it does the job. Bill ---------------- You mean like Beta and reel to reel? In need of Enlightenment, Analogman

...or, ---------------- On 1/28/2005 8:49:38 PM Olorin wrote: All generalizations are false, too. ---------------- Really? Trying to understand, Analogman

---------------- On 1/28/2005 8:49:38 PM Olorin wrote: All generalizations are false, too. ---------------- How's this: A great deal of people here take themselves far too seriously. Generally speaking, Analogman

LP=Making Love CeeDee=Aural Pornography Crap=Crap Yours truly, Analogman

You guys crack me up! Your friend, Analogman

WOW! Only two thirds of your CeeDees sound like crap? Consider yourself lucky. If a CeeDee DOESN'T sound like crap then it's an apparition or, at best, an accident. 100% of my CeeDees sound like CRAP when, where, and on whatever I've played them. My 15 year old Son knows this too, that's why at the tender age of 5 or 6 he said "Daddy, do you think Santa Claus might bring me a record player like yours, this Christmas, 'cause all my CeeDees you gave me sound like crap". Needless to say, Santa came through. Funny, my Beautiful Daughter has never lodged that complaint, but she only listens to girl singers under the age of 19. Go figure. Well anyway, CeeDees sound like CRAP because they are CRAP, it's the nature of the Beast. Even CHILDREN know that. Out of the mouths of Babes, Analogman

I'm sorry, the ATTEMPTED MURDER and UNJUST MAIMING Analogman

You don't have to assume the passive role. The one thing ALL formats share is that they are closely watched by the "record" companies with regard to their ECONOMIC viability. As long as "we" "vote with our wallets" vinyl will be available. It may not be as readily ACCESSIBLE as the competing formats, but available none the less to the determined. Consumer's facilitated the MURDER of the LP with their lemming like embrace of the marketing hype "perfect sound forever". This claim has already been proven absurd after only 20 years or so. Witness the current discussion. The "phonograph" as expressed and defined by the "Berliner" record has survived for nearly 100 years. It will only perish if "we" turn a blind and foolish eye, and allow it. Obviously and always, Analogman

"Collectors don't covet mold and dirt" If you read carefully, I did not say that they all did. I also AGREED with you and others regarding the decline in sevice in todays world. BUT When the seller says "I'll take them back" and a person still has to complain, that is WHIMPERING. I'm not saying that sending out dirty goods is a sound practice, but when there is a remedy made available by the seller, what's the issue? Someone pointed out that they did not feel that this was typical practice from "Ned", so why make such a big deal over it until a pattern is established? How much money a person has, or has spent, has nothing to do with being "cheap". There's a whole lot of "cheap" millionaires in "Dixie". I don't think "Ned's" dirty tubes are a barometer of the decline of Western civilization and sevice, I'd be willing to bet things like this happened back in the "old" days too. Your memories and my age have nothing to do with it. And yes, I'm old enough to remember when things were different, for what that's worth. Sorry about the dirty tubes hubbub, hope you recover soon, Analogman

---------------- On 1/25/2005 12:36:22 AM LonestarBlues wrote: This is my second tube purchase from Uncle Ned at Triode Electronics. I was happy with my first purchase. I am not a happy camper with my second purchase. I bought 4 GE NOS 6AV5 tubes for my Dehavilland Aries 845 monoblock amps. I needed some spare backup tubes. The 6AV5 tubes are not expensive-$5.95 a tube. Fedex delivered the tubes. I opened the box and 3 of the tube boxes had mold splotches on one end inside and outside of the tube boxes. Opened up all the boxes & pulled the tubes. Two tubes have mold/dirt on them- on both the plastic base & glass tube. The filthiest tube has some rusted/ corroded tube pins. The third tube is slightly dirty. The fourth tube is clean. I sent a nice email to Ned stating I was not happy with the moldy/ dirty tubes. Asked if the tubes were checked out before they were shipped to me. And if used tubes were possibly sent by mistake. Ned replied that this tube type has not been manufactured in 25 years, there's a limit as how picky we can be be about the cosmetics and still stock them & sell them for $5 a piece. The one's you got are probably 40 years old, so sure, they might look like they've sat in a dusty warehouse for 40 years. And no to sending me used tubes by mistake. I also asked if the tubes were tested prior to shipping. Ned replied Yes, we also guarantee them, if you have any problems with them we have others we can replace them any bad ones with. I sent a reply email to Ned's reply to me. Hello Ned. How much effort would it have been to clean the tubes prior to shipping & replacing moldy tube boxes? Two tubes look like there is mold on the tubes & one has some rusted/ corroded tube pins. Definitely mold inside & outside of the boxes. Selling tubes in this condition & expecting the customer to clean them up is b.s. and bad business practice in my humble opinion. Regards,M.D. I really have to question whether the tubes were actually checked out & tested. I would be ashamed to sell someone tubes in this condition. Waiting for a reply from Uncle Ned. Regards, Mike ---------------- I agree with the many remarks made regarding the decline in the quality of customer service in today's world, and I too, find it to be a sad and disappointing condition. I also feel compelled to point out that in this instance I don't think these concerns are applicable. In a hobby where views, opinions, and even the approach to design are so plentiful and often seemingly incompatible, that an individual would elect to attempt to serve the needs of so diverse a "niche" (with honest pricing) is commendable. For example many "old timers" find the prospect of anything more than "zip" cord for speaker hookup to be laughable. By the same measure, what the hell, it's a little dirt, WIPE it off. Another less narcissistic point to consider is that SOME collectors/audiophiles do in fact COVET original boxes REGARDLESS of condition, and would be equally disappointed if their NOS tubes had been reboxed in generic white ones. If the "Uncle Neds" of this world were to try and satisfy every individual's needs and idiosyncrasies on everything ranging from aesthetics to pricing, they would soon be out of business. Any doubt as to whether the tubes in question were really tested or not is negated by the fact that you were extended the guaranty that he would exchange them if any were problematic. The only real issue I see here is that you seem to be more fastidious than "Ned". How would you be feeling right now if "Ned" had sold you two NOS W.E.300Bs for $100.00 each, BUT they were covered with dirt and mold and required a little cleaning? You'd be praising him to "High Heaven". Wipe the dirt off or send them back, I'm sure "Ned" won't mind. You're just cheap. Stop whimpering. As always, Analogman

---------------- On 1/27/2005 3:42:09 PM popbumper wrote: Ah yes, the various merits of methods are always topical, and not always applicable; I guess it's "picking bones" at this point. I was referring to wasted material as "that which has dried and would now be removed/remain", where you meant "that which is sprayed and unrecovered". Gotcha. Spray cans are a fine alternative to those who do not have the ability and/or specialized tools to do otherwise. Ideal? Certainly not - but I'd rather lose material from overspray than deal with bubbles from using a roller. Yecch! Popbumper ---------------- Thank you much for READING my words and for the INTELLIGENT responses. Regards, Analogman

---------------- On 1/27/2005 2:17:49 PM michael hurd wrote: You could send them to me, but I am way up north. Too much $$ shipping. OTOH, you could seek out the resources of a cabinet finishing shop, or an auto body shop. That would be the most efficent way of finishing them. Fyi analogman, with a high pressure dinosaur spray gun > 50-55 psi, over 75% of the material is lost as over and off spray. Out of every gallon sprayed, only a quart ends up on what you spray. I have an HVLP sata jet, which has a transfer efficiency closer to 78%, which means that I get a lot more paint on, with a lot less overspray. What do you want to kill next? Strike a stake through the heart of the evil 2-stroke weed whackers? Does your wife use hairspray? If she does, then we might have to call the EPA. Regardless of the vehicle, solvents still end up in the atmosphere. ---------------- You should really work on your reading comprehension skills. Thanks for reiterating my point on overspray. I think you need to change the cartridge in your respirator as well. Binks and DeVilbiss, Analogman

---------------- On 1/27/2005 9:16:39 AM popbumper wrote: Analogman man asked: "Why waste money on spray cans when you're going to sand between coats?" 1) Spray cans are user friendly. They take up little room, need no special equipment/mixing, are inexpensive, less material is wasted, and anyone with a forefinger can use them. 2) Sanding, especially with fine grits, does not remove an appreciable amount of material (as you noted - they SMOOTH rather than CUT), so you are not going to "waste" much anyway. Not sure why you would ask that? Popbumper Michael: This may not be the best "filler", agreed, BUT, once the initial films adhere to the surface and dry, the base material will quit "soaking up" the spray. Primer would probably be the best option. I guess the greater lesson here is that there are at least a few ways to do this. Popbumper ---------------- Good post. I still have a problem with the statement "little material is wasted". That is so untrue, hence the term "overspray". Auto manufacturers spent millions developing systems to limit, capture, and recycle overspray and at the time, as now, they were working in the ultimate environment. Even more sophisticated systems have been developed since. I have never had an overspray problem with brushes or rollers. I understand the obvious virtues of spraying vs. mechanical application of coatings, but nothing changes the fact that it is also the most expensive choice, except with regard to total labor costs. A lot of DIYs have to do some of their work outdoors, few have access to a dedicated booth. I would venture as much as 25% total volume is lost in one way or another to overspray, and unless you're doing your work in Detroit you ain't getting it back. I also made the suggestions I did because cleanup and workspace are less of an issue. Regards, Analogman

Now you've confused me. If the adjective "best" is objective then who do I believe? I always thought "best" was in the eye of the beholder. But what do I know, that's why they call me, Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 11:48:13 PM popbumper wrote: Analogman: ...nor did I wish it to be a debate, I just wanted this guy to hear all sides/details for his benefit. Some additional notes: 1) ALL the application I have done is using water based material in spray cans. I have never had an issue with bubbles, but HAVE had with dust (it's almost impossible to avoid). This was also in a non-humidity controlled environment, though I did make sure the air was not moving (no fans on), and I was wearing a respirator mask. 2) I never assumed he had a spray gun. When using cans (which is easiest), spray a nice WET, thick coat so that when the light hits it, the whole surface looks like water (wet/deep). It will shrink back into the surface and film as the water evaporates. 3) Water based Varathane application/prep IS easy, IMHO. You just can't hurry it - it takes a few days to apply enough coats, and then it needs to cure for at least two weeks before you coat it. You can teel it is dry when the faint odor of ammonia disappears entirely. Not having heard from the original poster for a while, I hope between all of us he is taking notes/learning something!! Popbumper ---------------- I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking spray cans when I mentioned rollers. Why waste money on spray cans when you're going to sand between coats? Regards, Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:16:24 PM minn_male42 wrote: ---------------- On 1/26/2005 8:43:09 PM analogman wrote: I beg your pardon but you are in error. Please see below: DVD's, Music and Movies Chat about DVD's Movies or Music here. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Klipsch Forum subjects menu, before you lecture others with regards to your own mistakes. Hope you find this helpful, Analogman ---------------- "DVD's Music and Movies" i guess that you really don't understand the difference between the lower resolution movie sound formats of Dolby Digital and DTS and the High Resolution surround sound formats of SACD and DVD-audio perhaps if you do a little more reading you can learn the differences and then come back to this discussion with some intelligent responses.... but then again - perhaps a discussion of digital formats is beyond your comprehension "analogman" ---------------- You're probably correct. I was merely trying to be helpful as you obviously didn't know or weren't aware of, for whatever the reason, that you were mistaken. You said: this thread DOES belong in this forum because the main part of the discussion was centered on MUSIC... the home theater forum discusses movies and reproducing the movie experience in your home - (BTW - concert DVD's are NOT multi-channel music!) and all I did was attempt to direct you to the appropriate place to enjoy the your stated objective: the 2 channel forum might be better titled as the "MUSIC FORUM" I beg to differ as I feel "<2>Channel" DOES imply some degree of exclusivity and specificity DVD's, Music and Movies Chat about DVD's Movies or Music here. Enjoy the Music! Analogman

Very sad. The past three years have not been good, lost a lot of giants. Puts the value of recording in it's most appropriate and meaningful perspective, Music. Thank you Mr. Edison. Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:35:26 PM michael hurd wrote: Automotive primer won't flow? Geez, either you don't know how to reduce the material, have the wrong spray gun, or incorrect pressures. I refinish automobiles, and primered quite a bit of mdf with a two-component urethane primer surfacer. You can lay it down just as nice on mdf, so smooth that you just have to knock it down with 600 grit before finishing with a urethane topcoat. ---------------- Why don't you read my posts with some attempt on your part for accuracy and comprehension. I was addressing the specifics of his question, not attempting to write a treatise on all the possible finishing methods available to Mankind. I'm sure automotive finishes are not supplied with specific reduction ratios for use on MDF,so what you are alluding to is purely anecdotal at best. Are you willing to call this guy up and walk him through what you've learned by trial and error and experience? I gave him PRACTICAL advice. The question was not "who knows the most about finishes" or "whose finishing methods are best". I've been in the auto industry for nearly thirty years and can say with certainty that 95% of all "body men" are hacks. With regards, Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:37:18 PM Piranha wrote: What is the best bang for buck for under, let's say $1500? I mainly listen to redbook in 2-Channel, but I will ocassionally throw on an SACD. I currently use a Sony 333ES and a Sony 222ES (sacdmods.com). Can I get noticeably better souund quality with a new player under 1.5 large? Or am I just wasting $$? ---------------- What does "best" mean. When I know, then I can tell you what to buy. Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:49:38 PM 3dzapper wrote: That reminds me of the seventies. I was in the diner and this acid freak was stuffing his mouth with mashed potatos and then squeezing his cheeks with his hands. The waitress asked him "What are you doing?" he said "Man I'm a pimple!" Rick You can stop groaning now it's an old joke suitable for mixed company. ---------------- You saw "Animal House" in a diner? I am curious yellow, Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:37:17 PM Gilbert wrote: The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain, and I've got a zit on my neck. ---------------- That's not a "zit", it's your head! JUST KIDDING, Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:23:16 PM popbumper wrote: The rationale for using 600 grit is based on the fact that the finished/dry coats are very thin, and you want to take off the least material possible. I have used this product on a number of pinball playfields (which are nothing more than silkscreened plywood), and have never witnessed this "pimpling" you are referring to (on ten different playfields, with a maximum thickness of 9 coats of Varathane). Alternatively, he may want to build a few initial coats first before sanding, though I would NOT suggest anything less than a 400 grit wet and dry at MINIMUM (for the initial sand, followed by finer grits before topcoat). 220 is far too rough, and will create small scratches that will not reveal themseves until the nice glossy topcoat reveals them. I've seen it happen too many times, and going "backwards" is a real pain. Popbumper ---------------- You obviously have experience and I'm not debating you. WATER based polyurethanes WILL produce tiny bubbles when applied, to what degree depends on how you do it. You also assume that he has a spray gun, he said in his first post that he was using spray cans. He also asked for the "quickest and easiest". Oil based Varathane and topcoat prep with 400&600 is neither "quick" nor "easy". I also agreed that the final couple of sandings could/should be done with the 600 as you suggested. Regards, Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 9:02:36 PM minn_male42 wrote: ---------------- On 1/26/2005 8:33:35 PM Allan Songer wrote: Again, I am sorry for upsetting you. I will refrain from making any comments in any thread that has "SACD" or "Multi Channel" or "5.1" or "7.1" or "10.1" in the title. That way you can enter the thread knowing I haven't ruined it for you! I am curious about something--do you listen only to recently recorded music? Just wondering. ---------------- i listen to music that interests me... some of that is older music on vinyl - although none of my vinyl is mono.... i have recorded most of my vinyl recordings onto DAT to preserve my vinyl.... but for purchasing new recordings, i do not even consider buying vinyl.... new CD recordings as well as high quality SACD are my choice... it's really a shame that you are cutting yourself off from the all of the very high quality SACD recordings that are out there.... whether or not this media survives long-term, i have an adequate SACD player and some very excellent recordings that i can listen to and enjoy! ---------------- minn_male42, Thanks for sharing your format preferences and opinions on them here in 2-channel! The only problem is that now I feel so unclean, why I never realized what an LP supremist bigot I was. Analogman

---------------- On 1/26/2005 8:58:22 PM bclarke421 wrote: ---------------- On 1/26/2005 8:56:33 PM analogman wrote: ---------------- On 1/26/2005 8:44:55 PM bclarke421 wrote: Not me. This place would be boring and sterile were that the case. ---------------- You're going to have to make up your mind: Thread hijacking is a proud tradition here. Some of the best threads end up going on for pages after the original subject has been deserted. Most of us can have a conversation without clear demarcations of subject. It's not your thread anyway. Your words, not mine. Have a happy day! http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif"> Analogman ---------------- Those two statements aren't contradictory in any way. ---------------- Maybe not if you used the term thread "enrichment" or thread "diversity" rather than "hijack". Just my opinion, you did say this was a poll didn't you? You've got a friend in California, Analogman