Deang Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Of course, Dodge just dropped the HEMI back into one of their trucks. I have to admit -- that's pretty darn cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 STUDEBAKER PICKUPS RULE!!! Give me a Stude pickup with a V-8, Borg Warner T-85 and a Dana 44 ANY day! Brand-X pickups ALL suck when compared with the mighty Studebaker! (my wife drives a '55 Stude pickup as every-day transportation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 forgot the hemi... (I don't really have any chevy's anyway...but my bimmer will kick all your asses...lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 What model do you have, Tony? Old vintage or new? I have owned a few 72 BMWs and they ranked as some of my favorite cars. This preceeded the "yuppie" connotations attached in the 80s... It's a great marque despite a few ups and downs. That original 6 of theres was an all time great engine. My two sh!tboxes.... http://www.progressive-engineering.com/klipsch/stable.jpg kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtaylor Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 So Craig, have you tested your MKIII's yet? Kinda curious being the owner of one myself. Jazman is a very angry man about something. I hope he gets better. Randy ps,saw your other post,MKIII's look good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 new....330i...it was my mother-in-law's...she thought it too much to handle so...I had to take it off her hands...lol, nice ride...though down here you are much better off with 4X4 SUVs, I use the Pathfinder most of hte time and the bimmer for a sunday cruise around town...tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 The audiophile version of the car issue: I don't care how many seconds it takes to accelerate from 0 to 60, my magic XYZ model feels faster than that to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Oh no, that's a terrible idea. I suggest someone send in a "good" sounding one instead. Test it, compare to the other, and post the results. Paul, if it "feels" faster, then it "is" faster. Perception is everything, and probably doesn't just involve the ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leok Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 If you remove the upper harmonics from a square wave, with no phase skew or amplitude degradation of the remaining harmonics, you get something that looks like overshoot at the start and end of each pulse, and some ripples in between. A smooth, no-overshoot approach at each transition, is indicative of phase and amplitude deviations of the upper harmonics included. If your amp is good out to 100KHz, maybe that doesn't matter. Still, smooth, no-overshoot approach at each transition makes a good time-domain picture, and is also good for video transitions, but in a bandwidth limited situation, such as a transformer-coupled amplifier, it may not be as good as it looks. The nature of impact that analog electrical components have on a time domain signal is called "causal." That means they take place only after an event (such as a voltage transition) has taken place. A causal system cannot produce a perfect bandpassed square wave. However, one with some wide bandwidth overshoot (possibly critically damped) may make more sense in the frequency domain (where we hear) than one that is overdamped as the smooth approach is technically called. A nice overdamped amplifier is a technical achievement, and if it has a very wide bandwidth, it probably sounds great. However, in a more bandwidth limited situation, I would bet that people would find some overshoot sounds more natural .. and I think it is technically reasonable. By the way, digital systems can implement non-causal systems (filters that impact the sound before it happens), and most cd players implement them. It's done with a pipeline structure that has half of its elements in what is technically negative time. Such a filter will produce a square wave that has what looks like overshoot at the start and end of each pulse, and some ripples in between. no easy answers folks. leok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 ---------------- On 11/6/2003 11:56:07 AM mdeneen wrote: I'm a bit surprised at the negativity expressed toward Craig for posting this "data." Well, more than surprised, it bewilders me. I'm always a bit non-plussed when people involved in a highly technical pursuit (depending wholly on the proper operation of physics) get defensive about 'data." The best thing that could happen now, is for some of the EICO afficiandos, who know the sound of these units inside and out, to listen to THIS unit and report back whether it is one of the "good" sounding ones, or the "bad" sounding ones. This would allow for some crucial understanding of those sonic preferences. I doubt this will happen though. mdeneen ---------------- Not too sure if you are refering to me here... In case it's me I think I summerized earlier in this thread in some lines what you wrote in a much more detailed fashion. At no point I did say measurements were useless, only that they do not tell the whole story. I prefer to come up with a simpler "in case of inconsistencies between what you see and what you hear, trust your ears over the scope". Other will choose to come up with some esoteric explanations like the MSc Thesis I once posted a link to trying to explain why SET are superior to PP amps. This kind of "measurement twisting" in order to prove a pet theory is not helping objectivity in amp measurement (besides I just do not buy the concept than one topology is inherently superior to another). And this for me is much more "fairy dust" than a simple "I don't know but sit here and listen". As for the Eico measurement project. Craig and Ryan are the best person to do it. I personally do not recommend any vintage amps to my immediate entourage as they always lend on my bench for repair before these can be used. I just don't have the patience to work with these old things. Craig and Ryan should see enough of them to gather a meaningful and useful database on Eico, Scott, etc. (measured as is, after parts replacement and after tuning). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazman Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 ---------------- On 11/6/2003 11:36:01 AM rtaylor wrote: .... Jazman is a very angry man about something. I hope he gets better. Randy ---------------- Randy, Are you having a hard time with the truth? Craig's past remarks in his continuing "Scott is beter than Eico" pursuits, and the comment I cited from the other post is what started this post by him. As usual, his agenda is very transparent. I don't know where you get anything "angry" from my post. It's simply amazing to me that when BS is being spread around by him, people like you can't smell it, or just don't want to. I do not gain one penny if a person buys a Scott or buys an Eico. It's simply time for Craig to stop pushing his cash cows, and if someone finds an Eico's sonics superior to a Scott, so be it. The same goes for someone who prefers a Scott over an Eico. There seem to be enough who like them that he does not need to go through these measurement gymnastics. Measurements in audio can be indicators, but not the final word in how something sounds. I can think of at least one European mag that doesn't publish measurements with it reviews. And Randy, Have a nice day. Klipsch out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 "At no point I did say measurements were useless, only that they do not tell the whole story." Duh! Why does this OBVIOUS point have to even be made over and over and over by so many here. It is obvious that those who look at the physics also have ears, they are ADDING this information to what EVERYONE including themselves can experience in their own subjective way. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING and only belies some insecurity that some hardcore "mystics" have about their traumas in school with math and science. Give it a rest, we all know that numbers don't absolutely predict subjective response, it doesnt need to be said anymore and the implication that those who can handle numbers are somehow deficient in the subjective area is totally bogus and insulting. Facts are uselful in audio and politics. C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 And in sex and religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I have noticed many participants in this forum who have what might be interpreted as "vested" interests possibly connected to some aspect of their livlihood. Personally I have absolutely no problem wlith this. I was grateful to have my "bad" Eico HF-81 converted into a "good" one by Craig, learned a bunch about crossovers from Al, and have been led to numerous informative websites designed by others who participate here. I have seen many grab some good deals offered by sellers of equipment. I don't see any problem really, given that we all can decide for ourselves of what to partake . I don't see anyone in this regard any more "transparent" than anyone else. By far the most useless and energy draining is flaming those we disagree with, but we are all human and this seems to be inevitble occasionally, and have been guilty myself, when I forget to take the meds. Or is it when I do take the meds....I forget.... Just my opinion. C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 Well I think Tom Lacourte said it best You guys crack me up, you're all so predictable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 sex and religion.....yes....this is true...... I remember well who taught me...... hmmm.....this could become a "priest" joke all too easily.... I was thinking of someone else though.....ah yes..... C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 predictable....how true. It is enough to give one a sense of humor..... what's fini doing today..... C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtaylor Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hi Jazman, Here is hoping you're having a good day also. No, I believe that the truth is self evident. Some people have an axe to grind and maybe you are one of them. I'm not a shrink and don't profess to be but your words do lead me to believe that you are angry about something. You seem to go off for no apparent reason alot. Again, just my opinion and sorry if I have offended you somehow. Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 ---------------- On 11/6/2003 2:39:50 PM Clipped and Shorn wrote: Duh! Why does this OBVIOUS point have to even be made over and over and over by so many here. It is obvious that those who look at the physics also have ears, they are ADDING this information to what EVERYONE including themselves can experience in their own subjective way. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING and only belies some insecurity that some hardcore "mystics" have about their traumas in school with math and science. Give it a rest, we all know that numbers don't absolutely predict subjective response, it doesnt need to be said anymore and the implication that those who can handle numbers are somehow deficient in the subjective area is totally bogus and insulting. Facts are uselful in audio and politics. ---------------- For your information, I just finished writing my PhD thesis draft on discrete numerical modelling of gravity flow in ore passes. Mathematics and physics are not much of an enormous problem for me. Though I'll confess Laplace transformations and Fuzzy sets always got me in trouble trouble in my maths courses. I think what is deficient here is your ability to read (or my english is that poor). Where the heck did I say that anything that implies that "those who can handle numbers are somehow deficient in the subjective area". Don't put words I haven't said into my mouth. Having a bad day at the job or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 ---------------- On 11/6/2003 3:08:05 PM Clipped and Shorn wrote: what's fini doing today..... C&S ---------------- Trying to cram another console into my garage... fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.