Jabez Scratch

I have the original Quintet system and it came w/ a 10" sub (and a pretty good one, at that, for the price range). My understanding was that the system only came w/ a 10" (not an optional 8") sub.

Thanks for the input so far. It's very helpful. I suppose the hardwood serves more as a reflective surface. We are planning on laying area rugs and there will be furniture and a gas fireplace on the side wall. IF we do go w/ carpeting, it will be relatively thick (40 ounce).

I am building a home and my great room will be about 20' x 17'. We're thinking of putting in oak hardwood flooring, but may go w/ carpet (40 ounce carpet if that makes any difference). Acoustically speaking, is it better to go with carpeting? My brother has hardwood floors in his main TV room and it produces a displeasing echo. I should note that he does not use external speakers, i.e., he uses the TV's speakers. I have a 5.1 surround system (w/ the possible expansion to 7.1 in the future). Thanks.

I've met: Prince Charles and Lady Di: they visited my university for its 150th anniversary and I shook his hand as they walked along through the campus. David Duchovny: on a street in Toronto. Night Ranger: yes, as in "Sister Christian." The band was staying at the same hotel as my family when we were vacationing in Florida. My brother and I went to the arcade and they were playing games in there. My brother ran back to the hotel room, got a guitar magazine b/c they were on the cover, and got them to sign it. Currently residing in the where are they now file ... Roddy Piper: staying in same hotel. Tony Bennett: walking around a hotel (he's about 5'1"!).

Looks very good. Download time is somewhat lengthy, even w/ high speed. Good colour scheme and layout. Movie was cool. Good work.

Re: aspect ratios, namely 4:3 and 16:9, mathematically speaking, aren't they the same when reduced to their common denominators, i.e., 16:9 is really 4:3? I have to stress that I am not strong in math so many readers are probably already laughing at my noob error. I realize that 16:9, technically, is at its lowest common denominator, but something seemed weird when I suddenly thought about it. I don't know ... it's late afternoon and the synapsis are not at full efficiency.

That's too funny ... and too real: I was thinking of forwarding the photo to my fiancee, but I'm not sure whether she'd laugh or cry.

---------------- On 2/11/2005 11:34:33 AM kenratboy wrote: No, no, thats fine. This is a debate about physics. Here is what I am saying: If you but a Bose and JBL, Klipsch, EV, Peavey, Carvin, etc. speaker on a stage, and played a 90 dB. signal (measured at the same distance) thru each one - will the sound not deteriorate at the same speed? I don't see how a speaker could 'lose SPL' faster than another. The speed of sound is the speed of sound, and if the sound starts off at the same volume, it will taper off at the same volume, correct? ---------------- You're right -- I am no phycists, but even I know that this thing won't work in the manner Bose is claiming it will.

I have a pair of JBL bookshelf speakers coupled w/ a Klipsch sub on a third TV setup and, I must say, it sounds pretty darned good. The workmanship on these JBLs is good: solid and well-made. The Klipsch sub works well w/ them.

1) Rush - Signals 2) Yes - 90125 3) Rush - Moving Pictures 4) The Police - Synchronicity 5) Rush - Permanent Waves 6) David Bowie - Let's Dance 7) Genesis - Genesis 8) Asia - Asia 9) Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms 10) Genesis - Duke 11) The Police - Zenyatta Mondatta 12) Queen - A Kind of Magic 13) Def Leppard - Pyromania 14) Deep Purple - Perfect Strangers 15) Peter Gabriel - So

For my own immediate purposes, I'd like to know which delivers better sound? I've been on digital cable for a while and I hear that satellite beats cable hands down for both audio and video. Any comments on cable vs. satellite re: audio quality?

---------------- On 1/12/2005 2:00:07 PM Drew in the desert wrote: My first questions would be: 1. What type of connection are you using? (optical or digital coax?) 2. What input mode is selected in your receiver when listening to the TV? (Digital or Analog?) ---------------- 1. High end connections -- S-Video and digital audio cable 2. Digital and analog -- they toggle b/n the digital and non-digital channels. The problem seems to be that there is a clear lack of stereo/surround separation -- almost all of the sound comes from the center channel. And yes I know enough to switch the settings from mono/stereo to surround. I've tried just about everything and been in contact w/ tech support many times and I'm at my wits end. Just wanted to see if anyone has experienced this.

For those readers in the Ontario region that use Cogeco cable service (or Rogers too, I suppose), I am renting from Cogeco a Motorola digital receiver. It's the latest DCT2500 model w/ 5.1 Dolby surroud capability. I picked up this latest model in December, `04. Since hooking it up, the sound has been muffled and I have to crank the volume up. I've tried changing all kinds of settings on the cable receiver and my a/v receiver and spoken w/ tech support, but to no avail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? If so, any suggestions?

---------------- On 12/14/2004 2:07:05 PM m00n wrote: ---------------- I lost all faith with those to mags when one of them had White Stripes guitarest at something like 17 and Eddy Van Halen at 70 something... There IS NO credibility in those two mags if you ask me. My bet is that it's a few snot nosed fresh out of college kids that wouldn't know their *** from a hole in the ground writing up those lists... Most likely never even heard of Eddy Van Halen.... ---------------- I was a bit thrown by the relatively low placement of Eddy Van Halen. My guitarist friends who don't even like Van Halen's music much even say that he is undoubtedly top three. But you know that Rolling Stone magazine has to pander to the Britney Spears crowd.

---------------- On 12/14/2004 1:44:21 PM TBrennan wrote: My top drummers DJ Fontana Ron Tutt Ringo Watts Brian Downey (Thin Lizzy) The guy from REO Tommy Ramone (best minimalist, when I first saw them in 77 I stripped my kit down to 4 pieces from 7 and simplified my playing, an epthany as they say) Peart Al Jackson Grimes, I forget his first name, Howard? Played on the Al Green stuff. Don Stevenson (Moby Grape) Bonham The guy from Talking Heads Anybody from Motown, back in the day they used 3 drummers as I recall. Mitch Mitchell Carmen Appice ---------------- Good list. Ron Tutt is a very underated drummer. I like Ringo Starr, but his playing will never be confused w/ that of Billy Cobham or Bill Bruford. Mitch Mitchell is a forgotten favourite. Glad to see Carmen Appice in the list -- he's very good.

---------------- On 12/14/2004 1:11:28 PM m00n wrote: Rush is (in my opinion) one of the top 3 bands of all time. There never has been nor will be another trio with as much force and power as Rush. The fact that three is so much tallent in 1 band is truely amaizing. However, I never cared for the direction they went after Moving Pictures.... Signals was good, but it was definitly the beginning of where they started moving away from their traditional roots. ---------------- Agreed. I think they lost something after Moving Pictures. But, I have to say, I think Signals is a work of genius. For some reason, I can keep listening to it over and over. It is my favourite Rush album, believe it or not. Rush never was or will be a popular favourite. Rolling Stone magazine just released its list of the top 50 guitarists of all time. I'm not saying Alex Lifeson should have been anywhere near the top, but he wasn't even included. But you just knew that Rolling Stone was not going to include him. They had to make room for the guy from White Stripes. And some other magazine (name escapes me) put that female "drummer" from White Stripes ahead of Neil Peart, Phil Collins, and Carl Palmer in its list of the greatest rock drummers. I've been drumming for over twenty years, and I can tell you that that is a cruel joke.

Do the following really deserve to be in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame before Rush (and let it be known that I admire a lot of the names listed below)? The Animals Otis Redding The Supremes The Drifters Smokey Robinson Roy Orbison Marvin Gaye The Coasters Lovin' Spoonful The Ramones (don't get me going -- they weren't that good) Traffic The Bee Gees (!) Jackson Brown The Pretenders ZZ Top Velvet Underground (and please don't tell me how fricking ground-breaking they were b/c they weren't) I'm sure I've already offended many w/ this list, but no offence is intended -- I'm just trying to make the point that Rush has never gotten the respect it has deserved in the grand history of rock. I love a lot of the above-listed performers, but, again, I don't see the justification in inducting them before Rush. Although, Rush did get nominated for a Grammy this year (best instrumental). LOL -- the Grammys carry so little credibility in my mind though!

My two cents: if it is a non-audio/video related question, it probably should be kept to General Questions. I agree that this is a broad community in which off-topic discussions should be welcome.

I don't care what changes RS makes, they are still going to scare me. It's still too geeky. And how can that chain stay afloat when their staple products are batteries and remote-controlled dune buggies?

Thanks -- older Genesis is righteous. I also liked them, but I never realized how much of a quality musical group they are (were?). I've been drumming since I was ten years old (so, for almost twenty years) and have always admired Phil Collins as a drummer. In fact, I think he is one of the most underrated rock drummers (although those in the know do consider him one of the best).

Thanks -- I'll check those ones out -- my understanding is that they are only available as imports (here in North America).

I've always liked Genesis, but now I'm really getting into them, especially the older (but not old like Peter Gabriel era) work. What concert DVD(s) would you recommend? I know they have quite a few out now.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this go: I always thought of "Mr. Tambourine Man" as one of those happy, hippy 60s songs, but Shatner sounds like he is literally angry at Mr. Tambourine Man -- he yells at the top of his lungs at the end of the song. Oh, man, if you need an especially good laugh, makes sure you listen to the end of the song and Shatner's yelling.

---------------- On 10/9/2004 1:21:42 PM kenratboy wrote: At work, we listened to 'Common People' on Raphsody (sp?) and it was a ******* JOKE!!! I honestly didn't understand. He was not singing, but TALKING THE SONG! ---------------- You are so right: Shatner TALKS the songs, not sings them. I've listened to the songs again and they are so damned funny. He actually starts yelling at the end of "Mr. Tambourine Man." And "Rocket Man" is positively hilarious. He's performing it at some 1970s sci-fi award ceremony. William Shakespeare/William Shatner ... coincidence? Hmmm ...

If you haven't heard William Shatner (aka Capt. Kirk) sing, go download his versions of "Rocket Man" and "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds." Listening to the songs is a positively surreal experience. I cannot put into words how frighteningly bad, how surrealistically bizarre the songs sound. You will laugh humourlessly, nervously at first, then you will rub your eyes, pinch yourself, and re-establish your presence in what you think is the normal universe where you belong. You will start asking yourself philosophical and existential questions like: how can something so bad exist in the universe that I have come to understand and, more pragmatically, what the hell was Shatner thinking (read: smoking). I didn't know whether the tears pouring from my eyes when listening to "Rocket Man" were from the laughter or from some gut-wrenching reflex in the pit of my stomach that is triggered by horribly bad art. Listen with caution.