Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound, very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it.
We checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we
hooked it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded.
Saved them quite a bit of $$.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Technology Updates
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one of
our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable, because
what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything like the
Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal notes
sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Pipe organ will show up lack of low frequency quicker than anything else.
The low sounds are below human hearing, so they are more felt, than heard.
Had a friend in the 1960's who played pipe organs at a few venues in San
Francisco as a side hobby to programming.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 1:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one of
our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable, because
what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything like the
Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal notes
sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Pipe organ will show up lack of low frequency quicker than anything else.
The low sounds are below human hearing, so they are more felt, than heard.
Had a friend in the 1960's who played pipe organs at a few venues in San
Francisco as a side hobby to programming.


Indeed. One of my relatives down south has a Bose system he uses to play
what many would call "easy listening" music, and as an outlet for TV
surround sound. The system seems adequate for that. I am not knocking
what many people think is good sound as much as I am critical of the
prices Bose asks for its goods. There are better speaker systems out
there for significantly less $$$.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 1:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter
sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)




The performance stage I built last winter has a JBL sound system
consisting of two 650 watt powered speakers and two, JBL 18 inch
subwoofers. It sounds great but there's no way in hell it could
reproduce the overall sound quality of a pipe organ, especially the lows.

The human ear and mind are very forgiving sonic devices though. Unless
you are actually comparing sound sources in real time, your mind tends
to fill in what you don't hear ... or at least adapt for the decreased
fidelity. It's the reason most people can listen to music on an iPhone
or something and get some sort of enjoyment from it. I can't.

I've told some of this story before about Bose, but it's related to this
topic and since you brought up pipe organs:

At one point years ago we were boat shopping and went to check out an
Albin that was advertised. The seller turned out to be a retired sound
and recording engineer who had worked for the Boston Symphony Orchestra
back in the Arthur Fiedler days. The subject turned to music and
recording and he showed me the collection of very expensive microphones
that he had.

At one point I noticed a pair of older Bose 901s set up in his
"listening" room. I asked about them and he offered to let me hear them.

He played some recordings he had mastered, played on an ancient reel to
reel tape deck. The recordings including the massive, Aeolian-Skinner
pipe organ located in Boston's Symphony Hall. I've been there several
times in my life and have heard it being played live twice.

The sound of the organ in his listening room was simply amazing. Lows
were being produced that reminded me of hearing it live and they shook
the room. I didn't believe the Bose 901s could do that and I questioned
him on it. He just smiled and led me to a place in the floor that he
had modified and had installed a custom built, 18" sub woofer driver
with it's own dedicated, 3000 watt amplifier. That was the source of
all the lows. He had also modified the equalizer for the 901s so they
only produced frequencies from about 150Hz and up.

Right now my sound system has a 15" Velodyne servo driven sub woofer.
I've had and tried many and I think the Velodyne, especially the 15 inch
version, produces the most natural sounding bass from a musical
perspective of all I've tried. I also had an 18" Velodyne sub that
produced ground shaking THX effects for home theater applications but it
was not as musically accurate as the 15" version.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 2:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 1:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips
;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I
don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics,
about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with
very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The
West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter
sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me,
the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)




The performance stage I built last winter has a JBL sound system
consisting of two 650 watt powered speakers and two, JBL 18 inch
subwoofers. It sounds great but there's no way in hell it could
reproduce the overall sound quality of a pipe organ, especially the lows.

The human ear and mind are very forgiving sonic devices though. Unless
you are actually comparing sound sources in real time, your mind tends
to fill in what you don't hear ... or at least adapt for the decreased
fidelity. It's the reason most people can listen to music on an iPhone
or something and get some sort of enjoyment from it. I can't.

I've told some of this story before about Bose, but it's related to this
topic and since you brought up pipe organs:

At one point years ago we were boat shopping and went to check out an
Albin that was advertised. The seller turned out to be a retired sound
and recording engineer who had worked for the Boston Symphony Orchestra
back in the Arthur Fiedler days. The subject turned to music and
recording and he showed me the collection of very expensive microphones
that he had.

At one point I noticed a pair of older Bose 901s set up in his
"listening" room. I asked about them and he offered to let me hear them.

He played some recordings he had mastered, played on an ancient reel to
reel tape deck. The recordings including the massive, Aeolian-Skinner
pipe organ located in Boston's Symphony Hall. I've been there several
times in my life and have heard it being played live twice.

The sound of the organ in his listening room was simply amazing. Lows
were being produced that reminded me of hearing it live and they shook
the room. I didn't believe the Bose 901s could do that and I questioned
him on it. He just smiled and led me to a place in the floor that he
had modified and had installed a custom built, 18" sub woofer driver
with it's own dedicated, 3000 watt amplifier. That was the source of
all the lows. He had also modified the equalizer for the 901s so they
only produced frequencies from about 150Hz and up.

Right now my sound system has a 15" Velodyne servo driven sub woofer.
I've had and tried many and I think the Velodyne, especially the 15 inch
version, produces the most natural sounding bass from a musical
perspective of all I've tried. I also had an 18" Velodyne sub that
produced ground shaking THX effects for home theater applications but it
was not as musically accurate as the 15" version.



I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Technology Updates
 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound, but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole magna-planars.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound, but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)

I had a pair of the original Martin Logan SL3 electrostatics that also
had a small "sub" in the lower section. Electrostatic speakers have a
transparent, semi-conductive thin film deposited on the mylar (rather
than having thin wires attached to it). I am quite sure the thin film
is indium tin oxide which is commonly used to form the transparent
matrix on touch screens like smart phones and other touch screen
displays. The Martin Logan design includes a high voltage static charge
on the mylar that "suspends" it. The audio signal is applied to the
transparent thin film coating, causing the mylar to vibrate in it's
suspended field. The concept is very similar to that of a huge,
condenser type microphone in reverse.

Both Magies and the original Martin Logans are audiophile delights and
have been the subject of debate for years over which is the better.
Most feel that Magnepans have a slight edge.

I bi-amped the SL3s I had but also used a subwoofer as well. I ended up
selling them because they were big and very temperamental to location.
Like the Magies, they are dipole speakers meaning there is as much sound
being generated from the rear as from the front and positioning for best
performance is critical due to reflections off of walls. It's not so
important if you are not a nerd about it like I was, but I was always
trying to expand the "sweet spot" and had a very critical ear. Martin
Logan has tried to address this by curving the mylar surface but they
are still very sensitive to position relative to the listener. I was
driving my wife nuts setting up a room that was purely dedicated to
sitting in one spot to listen to music, so I finally gave up.

The concept of near mass-less drivers makes sense to me. The mylar can
instantaneously respond to an input as opposed to a heavy voice coil
suspended in a permanent magnet field like conventional speakers. Also,
because there is mass, there is inertia to deal with in conventional
speakers. Once in motion, the voice coil can tend to continue to
oscillate when the input is removed causing distortion or "muddiness".
Near mass-less mylar can stop moving much faster. The result is a very
"airy" and natural sound.

One thing unique to electrostatics (and I think the same is true of
Maggies) is their impedance. Speakers have a nominal impedance (usually
8 ohms) but the actual impedance the amplifier sees varies with
frequency. In conventional speakers with a voice coil, the reactive
impedance is inductive, therefore the impedance goes down with
frequency. Electrostatics appear to be a capacitive load to the amp, so
impedance goes up as frequency goes down (and visa-versa). It's
important to select the correct amp to drive them.

I had no desire to drive myself and everyone nuts with another system
but happened to hear some speakers made by Focal. Focal is a French
company (actually called JM Laboratories) and build mid to high end
speakers as well as other audio products. I ended up with a pair of
Chorus speakers as well as matching surrounds and a center channel.
Very pleased with their sound reproduction although I don't think it
compares to the Martin Logans. At least they are not as position
sensitive and don't dictate the room's setup. I use the previously
mentioned Velodyne 15" subwoofer with them.

http://www.focal.com/en/chorus-700/401-chorus-726-3544056691074.html

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.



I'm happy with it. I don't think the pawn shop guy realized what he had,
that, or he was tired of looking at it. It weighs over 100 pounds!

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 6:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.



I'm happy with it. I don't think the pawn shop guy realized what he had,
that, or he was tired of looking at it. It weighs over 100 pounds!


If it's the model I think it is (MC452) you probably got an outstanding
deal if you bought it from a pawn shop. They go for $7k to $8K new.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.


What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the 60
cycle hum

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 6:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :)
They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance,
and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp
configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great
sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the
pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn
shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.



I'm happy with it. I don't think the pawn shop guy realized what he had,
that, or he was tired of looking at it. It weighs over 100 pounds!


If it's the model I think it is (MC452) you probably got an outstanding
deal if you bought it from a pawn shop. They go for $7k to $8K new.



Less than 10% :) When we made a deal, I left a deposit, wrote down the
serial number, went out to the car, and called the property theft
departments at several local police departments on my cell to find out
if it was "hot." There were no reports of such an amp getting legs and
walking out of its home, so I went back into the pawn shop and completed
the deal. I knew it was expensive new, but I had no idea of how
expensive. I figured $2500, maybe.

On a later visit to the pawn shop to see what other goodies might be
there that would interest me, I chatted with the owner. He showed me the
pawn ticket. He "loaned" $900 on the piece and sold it to me for less
because he was tired of looking at it. I took it to a Maryland high end
stereo shop to have it checked out and the tech said it was less than a
year old and had seen almost no use. The tech also told me there was no
alert from McIntosh out on the piece, either.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.


What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the 60
cycle hum


To some people tube amps have a warmth that solid state lacks. I am not
sure I go along with that, but in the true audiophile world solid state
is a no-no.

There is really no reason that a well designed tube amp should "hum" any
more than a solid state amp. Most of the hum originates from using AC
to power the filaments in the tubes. A 6L6 power tube requires 6 volts
for the filament, a 12AX7 requires 12 volts and so on. High end tube
amps will typically use rectified AC meaning "DC" to power the
filaments. That usually all but eliminates any 60hz hum.

I believe the truth about tubes vs solid state has a different origin.

You don't hear anyone comparing tube versus solid state for modern,
digitally recorded music. It's really a throwback to analog recordings
that used tube circuitry to both record and reproduce classic music.
That's what people got used to hearing and when played on solid state
amps, you'll hear the complaints about it being too bright and lacking
warmth.

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Modern Telecasters have much improved pickups from a technology point of
view but they don't sound like the 1950's versions. Musicians often are
trying to capture the exact tone of a guitar used in an old recording
and find they can't quite get it right with a modern Telecaster. It
cracks me up because they revert to additional pre-amps and effects to
try to make the technologically superior, new Telecaster sound like the
inferior 1950's version.

Musicians also love tube amps because you can overdrive them and distort
the crap out of the sound. Kills me. A solid state guitar amp won't do
that and again has to rely on signal processing circuits to recreate the
distortion.

I like 'em sounding clean.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 7:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :)
They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance,
and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp
configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great
sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the
pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn
shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat the
house anymore.


What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the 60
cycle hum


To some people tube amps have a warmth that solid state lacks. I am not
sure I go along with that, but in the true audiophile world solid state
is a no-no.

There is really no reason that a well designed tube amp should "hum" any
more than a solid state amp. Most of the hum originates from using AC
to power the filaments in the tubes. A 6L6 power tube requires 6 volts
for the filament, a 12AX7 requires 12 volts and so on. High end tube
amps will typically use rectified AC meaning "DC" to power the
filaments. That usually all but eliminates any 60hz hum.

I believe the truth about tubes vs solid state has a different origin.

You don't hear anyone comparing tube versus solid state for modern,
digitally recorded music. It's really a throwback to analog recordings
that used tube circuitry to both record and reproduce classic music.
That's what people got used to hearing and when played on solid state
amps, you'll hear the complaints about it being too bright and lacking
warmth.

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Modern Telecasters have much improved pickups from a technology point of
view but they don't sound like the 1950's versions. Musicians often are
trying to capture the exact tone of a guitar used in an old recording
and find they can't quite get it right with a modern Telecaster. It
cracks me up because they revert to additional pre-amps and effects to
try to make the technologically superior, new Telecaster sound like the
inferior 1950's version.

Musicians also love tube amps because you can overdrive them and distort
the crap out of the sound. Kills me. A solid state guitar amp won't do
that and again has to rely on signal processing circuits to recreate the
distortion.

I like 'em sounding clean.




I attend a lot of chamber music concerts and I listen to the same sort
of music on my main stereo. My criteria for the latter is, how much does
it sound like "live." I don't expect it to sound exactly the same, but I
do think the two should sound very similar.

I'm not sure you can really tell with modern, studio-created rock music.
For sure, "heavy metal" doesn't sound the same in person as it does on
the CD's, which I think are chemically produced in studios. I was at a
live Aerosmith concert a few years ago, decent seats, and they obviously
could not reproduce on stage the tracks they laid down digitally.

I presume it is pretty much the same for the individuals and small
groups you've showcased. They aren't overly endowed with electronics, so
if they produce a CD, they can pretty much sound like it on the small
venue stage.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 7:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 7:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :)
They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance,
and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp
configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great
sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the
pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however
they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other
than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn
shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat
the
house anymore.


What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the 60
cycle hum


To some people tube amps have a warmth that solid state lacks. I am not
sure I go along with that, but in the true audiophile world solid state
is a no-no.

There is really no reason that a well designed tube amp should "hum" any
more than a solid state amp. Most of the hum originates from using AC
to power the filaments in the tubes. A 6L6 power tube requires 6 volts
for the filament, a 12AX7 requires 12 volts and so on. High end tube
amps will typically use rectified AC meaning "DC" to power the
filaments. That usually all but eliminates any 60hz hum.

I believe the truth about tubes vs solid state has a different origin.

You don't hear anyone comparing tube versus solid state for modern,
digitally recorded music. It's really a throwback to analog recordings
that used tube circuitry to both record and reproduce classic music.
That's what people got used to hearing and when played on solid state
amps, you'll hear the complaints about it being too bright and lacking
warmth.

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Modern Telecasters have much improved pickups from a technology point of
view but they don't sound like the 1950's versions. Musicians often are
trying to capture the exact tone of a guitar used in an old recording
and find they can't quite get it right with a modern Telecaster. It
cracks me up because they revert to additional pre-amps and effects to
try to make the technologically superior, new Telecaster sound like the
inferior 1950's version.

Musicians also love tube amps because you can overdrive them and distort
the crap out of the sound. Kills me. A solid state guitar amp won't do
that and again has to rely on signal processing circuits to recreate the
distortion.

I like 'em sounding clean.




I attend a lot of chamber music concerts and I listen to the same sort
of music on my main stereo. My criteria for the latter is, how much does
it sound like "live." I don't expect it to sound exactly the same, but I
do think the two should sound very similar.

I'm not sure you can really tell with modern, studio-created rock music.
For sure, "heavy metal" doesn't sound the same in person as it does on
the CD's, which I think are chemically produced in studios. I was at a
live Aerosmith concert a few years ago, decent seats, and they obviously
could not reproduce on stage the tracks they laid down digitally.

I presume it is pretty much the same for the individuals and small
groups you've showcased. They aren't overly endowed with electronics, so
if they produce a CD, they can pretty much sound like it on the small
venue stage.




You would be amazed at what a good recording engineer can do now-a-days
using computer mixed and generated "recordings". I've been playing
around with some professional software on the iMac and it's incredible
what can be done once you become familiar with the particular software
capabilities. Pro-Logic is one of the most popular of the various
software offerings but has a steep learning curve as I am discovering.
But even Garage Band, once you learn what it can do can produce very
high quality recordings.

One of the guys associated with the new shop is an established recording
engineer and has a studio in the same facility that the guitar shop and
performance venue is in. Many locals produce their EPs and CDs with
him. I've heard them perform live, then I hear them perform the same
songs recorded with Joe (the recording engineer) and it's mind blowing
to hear the difference. Pro Tools even has an "autotune" feature so if
a singer is slightly off key, the software will correct the pitch.
Amazing stuff.

I've been spending some time doing some goofy recordings just to learn
the software. Some have come out sounding very good ... near pro
quality and I am basically on page one of the 900 page learning curve.

Technology Updates
 

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:14:38 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr.
Luddite" wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were
given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce.
:) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits
me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive
amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low
impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp
configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc.
Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They
are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue
what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp
running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in
Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the
pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and
make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a
"passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the
magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says
however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of
ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film,
causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and
hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient
and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for
max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not
noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If
that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone
other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the
pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett
Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of
these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses
up at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in
that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to
heat the
house anymore.


What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the
60
cycle hum




To some people tube amps have a warmth that solid state lacks. I
am not
sure I go along with that, but in the true audiophile world solid
state
is a no-no.


There is really no reason that a well designed tube amp should
"hum" any
more than a solid state amp. Most of the hum originates from using
AC
to power the filaments in the tubes. A 6L6 power tube requires 6
volts
for the filament, a 12AX7 requires 12 volts and so on. High end
tube
amps will typically use rectified AC meaning "DC" to power the
filaments. That usually all but eliminates any 60hz hum.


I believe the truth about tubes vs solid state has a different
origin.


You don't hear anyone comparing tube versus solid state for modern,
digitally recorded music. It's really a throwback to analog
recordings
that used tube circuitry to both record and reproduce classic
music.
That's what people got used to hearing and when played on solid
state
amps, you'll hear the complaints about it being too bright and
lacking
warmth.


Another example using guitars as the subject:


The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy
sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it
established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.


Modern Telecasters have much improved pickups from a technology
point of
view but they don't sound like the 1950's versions. Musicians
often are
trying to capture the exact tone of a guitar used in an old
recording
and find they can't quite get it right with a modern Telecaster.
It
cracks me up because they revert to additional pre-amps and effects
to
try to make the technologically superior, new Telecaster sound like
the
inferior 1950's version.


Musicians also love tube amps because you can overdrive them and
distort
the crap out of the sound. Kills me. A solid state guitar amp
won't do
that and again has to rely on signal processing circuits to
recreate the
distortion.


I like 'em sounding clean.

Good explanation

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 7:43 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 7:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/13/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 5:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to
me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :)
They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance,
and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp
configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great
sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are
dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what
that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp
running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It
was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the
pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make
him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a
"passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however
they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due
respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's
the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other
than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn
shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz



That's a very nice amp. Purest however will stick their noses up
at it
however because it's solid state and not tube. I wouldn't ..

I don't think McIntosh made commercially available tube amps in that
power range. 100 amps would likely require at least two sets of
push-pull output tubes and you'd notice that you didn't have to heat
the
house anymore.


What is it about the tube amps that makes them special? Is it the 60
cycle hum


To some people tube amps have a warmth that solid state lacks. I am not
sure I go along with that, but in the true audiophile world solid state
is a no-no.

There is really no reason that a well designed tube amp should "hum" any
more than a solid state amp. Most of the hum originates from using AC
to power the filaments in the tubes. A 6L6 power tube requires 6 volts
for the filament, a 12AX7 requires 12 volts and so on. High end tube
amps will typically use rectified AC meaning "DC" to power the
filaments. That usually all but eliminates any 60hz hum.

I believe the truth about tubes vs solid state has a different origin.

You don't hear anyone comparing tube versus solid state for modern,
digitally recorded music. It's really a throwback to analog recordings
that used tube circuitry to both record and reproduce classic music.
That's what people got used to hearing and when played on solid state
amps, you'll hear the complaints about it being too bright and lacking
warmth.

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Modern Telecasters have much improved pickups from a technology point of
view but they don't sound like the 1950's versions. Musicians often are
trying to capture the exact tone of a guitar used in an old recording
and find they can't quite get it right with a modern Telecaster. It
cracks me up because they revert to additional pre-amps and effects to
try to make the technologically superior, new Telecaster sound like the
inferior 1950's version.

Musicians also love tube amps because you can overdrive them and distort
the crap out of the sound. Kills me. A solid state guitar amp won't do
that and again has to rely on signal processing circuits to recreate the
distortion.

I like 'em sounding clean.




I attend a lot of chamber music concerts and I listen to the same sort
of music on my main stereo. My criteria for the latter is, how much does
it sound like "live." I don't expect it to sound exactly the same, but I
do think the two should sound very similar.

I'm not sure you can really tell with modern, studio-created rock music.
For sure, "heavy metal" doesn't sound the same in person as it does on
the CD's, which I think are chemically produced in studios. I was at a
live Aerosmith concert a few years ago, decent seats, and they obviously
could not reproduce on stage the tracks they laid down digitally.

I presume it is pretty much the same for the individuals and small
groups you've showcased. They aren't overly endowed with electronics, so
if they produce a CD, they can pretty much sound like it on the small
venue stage.




You would be amazed at what a good recording engineer can do now-a-days
using computer mixed and generated "recordings". I've been playing
around with some professional software on the iMac and it's incredible
what can be done once you become familiar with the particular software
capabilities. Pro-Logic is one of the most popular of the various
software offerings but has a steep learning curve as I am discovering.
But even Garage Band, once you learn what it can do can produce very
high quality recordings.

One of the guys associated with the new shop is an established recording
engineer and has a studio in the same facility that the guitar shop and
performance venue is in. Many locals produce their EPs and CDs with
him. I've heard them perform live, then I hear them perform the same
songs recorded with Joe (the recording engineer) and it's mind blowing
to hear the difference. Pro Tools even has an "autotune" feature so if
a singer is slightly off key, the software will correct the pitch.
Amazing stuff.

I've been spending some time doing some goofy recordings just to learn
the software. Some have come out sounding very good ... near pro
quality and I am basically on page one of the 900 page learning curve.



Arrgh. I don't have the desire or energy these days to cope with
extraordinarily complex software. It's why I dumped Photoshop
entirely...much too complex for my relatively simple photo processing
needs.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 7:46 PM, Hank© wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:14:38 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I like 'em sounding clean.

Good explanation

LOL. I just noticed your attribute. "Celebrated boater" Ha ha.

Technology Updates
 

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:55:45 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 1/13/2014 9:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like
mine.

I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam
can and sound like a boom box.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg

A typical Bose sound.
The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)


I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond
of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't
know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about
six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of
M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that
purpose.

Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have
very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I
worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a
notch in that area.
I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with
cabinets that could hold a small child.



Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony
sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back
when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very
positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound
reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied
and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players
manufacturers over the years.

Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker
"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West
Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.
The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat
de-emphasized.

The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty
good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the
most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some
electrostatics.



I do admire the ability of Bose to market grossly overpriced gear these
days to Americans...the under-TV set sound systems, radios, small
stereos, earphones, etc.

I agree. Americans are easily led and fooled.

That sounds like an ethnic slur to me!!!
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!

Technology Updates
 

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:16:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency response.

Yes, unless you had the Bose receiver. I loved the sound of the combination. Of course, that
combination is probably one of the major reasons I have to wear hearing aids today. The Bose
receiver had the equalizer built in.

http://www.ebay.com/gds/Bose-901-Spe...1314034/g.html

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjY2WDEyODA=/$T2eC16VHJIQE9qUHtHBcBR%28JJmH%28,w~~60_1.JPG?set_ id=2


I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound, very accurate.

I loved mine, until they got so old paper on the cones began turning to powder. Had to get one
rebuilt when my daughter jumped out of the bed onto the floor above the ceiling into which the
hanging mount was screwed. All nine speakers came loose when the speaker hit the floor.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!

Technology Updates
 

F.O.A.D. wrote:
In my absence, the gurus at Evasi0n and saurik of Cydia himself came
up with a working untethered jailbreak and ancillary programs for the
iPhone 5S and the latest OS, so, finally, I'm able to customize my
iPhone. The customizations are mainly "tweaks" that expand upon the
features of the phones, such as adding more controls to the Control
Center and deleting the ones Apple puts in there that you might never
use.

Exciting, eh?

Also, sent my 2003 vintage iPod off to a service center for a battery
replacement. 10 years off a single battery on an often-used device
ain't bad.

Update on the slighty used, holy boat shoe sale: bids are now up to
$2.73, leaving me only $3000 and change short of my goal of the
purchase price of a new Apple Mac Pro! I don't need such a powerful
desktop, so I'd only buy one with auction proceeds. Or maybe a raffle.
I'm beginning to think a raffle might work...hmmm. 1000 tickets at $5
per...hey now!
That would be illegal.

Technology Updates
 

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr.
Luddite" wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:46 PM, Hank© wrote:


On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:14:38 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr.
Luddite"
wrote:




I like 'em sounding clean.

Good explanation


LOL. I just noticed your attribute. "Celebrated boater" Ha ha.

Twerent me what did it

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 9:13 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:50:04 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote:

Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one of
our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable, because
what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything like the
Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal notes
sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Pipe organ will show up lack of low frequency quicker than anything else.
The low sounds are below human hearing, so they are more felt, than heard.
Had a friend in the 1960's who played pipe organs at a few venues in San
Francisco as a side hobby to programming.

This set we have has a gut rumbling sub woofer. It does a great job
with "Top Gun". I think it is missing some of the "middle" if
anything.



Yeah, a lot of the newer sub woofers are designed for low frequency
effects in home theater applications and not so much for music reproduction.

As previously mentioned, I noticed that in the 18" servo driven
Velodyne that was a newer model compared to my older 15" Velodyne. The
18" had incredible effects for movies like "Top Gun" and "Das Boot" but
sorta sucked for music. The 15" is much, much better for music
reproduction.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 8:30 PM, Earl wrote:
F.O.A.D. wrote:
In my absence, the gurus at Evasi0n and saurik of Cydia himself came
up with a working untethered jailbreak and ancillary programs for the
iPhone 5S and the latest OS, so, finally, I'm able to customize my
iPhone. The customizations are mainly "tweaks" that expand upon the
features of the phones, such as adding more controls to the Control
Center and deleting the ones Apple puts in there that you might never
use.

Exciting, eh?

Also, sent my 2003 vintage iPod off to a service center for a battery
replacement. 10 years off a single battery on an often-used device
ain't bad.

Update on the slighty used, holy boat shoe sale: bids are now up to
$2.73, leaving me only $3000 and change short of my goal of the
purchase price of a new Apple Mac Pro! I don't need such a powerful
desktop, so I'd only buy one with auction proceeds. Or maybe a raffle.
I'm beginning to think a raffle might work...hmmm. 1000 tickets at $5
per...hey now!
That would be illegal.


Raffles are illegal?

Well, might not be necessary...the bids are now up to almost $6.00... :)

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 9:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:49:10 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Arrgh. I don't have the desire or energy these days to cope with
extraordinarily complex software. It's why I dumped Photoshop
entirely...much too complex for my relatively simple photo processing
needs.

I am using Sound Forge 4.5, pretty old but it does all I need and lots
more with a fairly simple interface.


I don't do any real sound processing. I have a few thousand songs from
the "do-wop" era I convert a hundred at a time to CDs for a couple of my
totally non-techy friends up north, and they pop them into their car's
CD changer. I use iTunes for that. It's pretty much automatic.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 9:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:49:10 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Arrgh. I don't have the desire or energy these days to cope with
extraordinarily complex software. It's why I dumped Photoshop
entirely...much too complex for my relatively simple photo processing
needs.

I am using Sound Forge 4.5, pretty old but it does all I need and lots
more with a fairly simple interface.



My problem is that I enjoy the technology of creating and mixing music
using these various software tools but I am a crappy musician. I'll
spend hours working on a composition and then delete it when I am finished.

What I get a kick out of is the ability to generate and mix multiple
tracks of various instruments using a simple keyboard controller. The
keyboard does not produce any sounds ... they are all generated from
samples in the recording software.

The latest Garage Band has a very authentic sounding B3 Hammond sound,
complete with drawbars, percussion and a Leslie controller. Played
through a decent sound system it sounds very close to a real B3.

Here's an example of one I attempted a week or so ago when I first
started using Garage Band. For those not familiar with how this works,
there's no organ, no Leslie, no drums, no bass or any instrument used.
All the tracks are created using a keyboard controller (I use a Samson
Carbon 49) and the instrument sounds are generated by the software. You
can then go back and modify effects like the Leslie spinning up or down.
Fun to play with but you have to excuse the lack of musical playing
ability:

https://soundcloud.com/rerik/gb-pale-4/s-WMlTp

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 9:16 PM, Hank© wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:46 PM, Hank© wrote:


On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:14:38 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr.
Luddite"
wrote:




I like 'em sounding clean.

Good explanation


LOL. I just noticed your attribute. "Celebrated boater" Ha ha.

Twerent me what did it

OOps. It was me. I forgot I set mu phone to do that.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 10:36 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

The old 901's were notorious for 'doubling' low bass notes (producing
more 2nd harmonic than fundamental).

Technology Updates
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:46 PM, Hank© wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:14:38 -0500,the celebrated boater, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I like 'em sounding clean.

Good explanation

LOL. I just noticed your attribute. "Celebrated boater" Ha ha.

Or you be like me that worked with card sorters and pneumatic card readers
with 110 db 3' from the heads, and you are missing certain frequency
ranges. Makes cheap players sound OK.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 4:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Which one do you pick up more often, the tele or the strat?
(wondering if I 'need' a tele also...)

And what's the scoop on the little 'M' amp? A vintage deluxe-reverb clone?

Technology Updates
 

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:27:36 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.

I have a Bose table top radio/cd player and it's good for what it is, but nothing like Haul Harvey advertized that it replaces a whole 'wall full' of equipment. crank it up and it barks like a dog. Well, not really but for the money it's over rated. I lost the tiny little remote control for it and bought another for a whopping $44.00 about 10 years ago. That's the last time it'll happen.

Now speaking of cabinets that could hold a small child, Well back in 'the day' I bought the best I could afford. and shopped for quality used.

I ended up with a Kenwood Kr 7070 receiver and two Ohm F speakers (Walsh drivers). That Kenwood was rated a 350w. and you could NOT over drive the Ohm titanium cones! I thought that wasn't enough, and I couldn't find any more Ohm's so I got a couple of Klipsch "Heresey's" for a quad system. The only other item I had in the system was a Technics cassette deck with 'chrome' and Dolby. I couldn't use a turn table because the system would rattle the tone arm. So, a friend of mine that worked at a radio station would bootleg albums for me. Also my consortium of friends would buy albums, or go to the local library and borrow them and rack them onto tape as well.. I had a good collection of 'stuff' and bought all my equipment of less than half value. Still over a thousand in the late 50's. I just sort of build as I went.

Anyhow, without going into the bloody details, it's all gone now.

The carnage of a bad first marriage.

BTW, If you're unfamiliar with the Ohm/Walsh, they are nothing short of amazing.

I wish I could rebuild my system, but until then I suppose I'll have to settle for my antique Monkey Wards 'hi-fi'


http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/d...00608_0214.jpg

Technology Updates
 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26:27 PM UTC-6, thumper wrote:
On 1/13/2014 4:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Another example using guitars as the subject:



The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,

especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.

But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established

"the sound" of a Fender Tele.



Which one do you pick up more often, the tele or the strat?

(wondering if I 'need' a tele also...)



And what's the scoop on the little 'M' amp? A vintage deluxe-reverb clone?

There's an old saying - "Tele's tell no tales" They are what they are, and it just about seems they're mandatory for playing country. But then again, Kieth Richards was always known for playing a Tele as well as Geo Harrison.

IMO, they seem to stay in tune but they're heavier than a strat, and they do have their quirks and limitations, but they're a 'gotta have' guitar.

YMMV

I dig 'em.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 9:00 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26:27 PM UTC-6, thumper wrote:

Which one do you pick up more often, the tele or the strat?

(wondering if I 'need' a tele also...)

And what's the scoop on the little 'M' amp? A vintage deluxe-reverb clone?

There's an old saying - "Tele's tell no tales" They are what they are, and it just about seems they're mandatory for playing country. But then again, Kieth Richards was always known for playing a Tele as well as Geo Harrison.

IMO, they seem to stay in tune but they're heavier than a strat, and they do have their quirks and limitations, but they're a 'gotta have' guitar.

YMMV

I dig 'em.

These guys put 'em to good use.

http://www.hellecasters.com/

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 11:26 PM, thumper wrote:
On 1/13/2014 4:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Another example using guitars as the subject:

The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,
especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.
But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established
"the sound" of a Fender Tele.

Which one do you pick up more often, the tele or the strat?
(wondering if I 'need' a tele also...)

And what's the scoop on the little 'M' amp? A vintage deluxe-reverb clone?



Probably two or three Strats for every Tele. The shop does a lot of
consignments as well as straight out buys and I've found that people who
find a Tele that they like tend to hold onto them more so than a
Stratocaster.

The "M" amp (stands for "Marshfield Amps") is a custom build by a
friend, Jeff Neely, "The Amp Smith. He builds tube amps to your taste,
meaning clean, or will break up easily at low volumes. I wanted a
vintage, clean vintage Fender sound and that's exactly what it does.
Sounds similar to a Fender Princeton. Has reverb and puts out about 12
watts which is more than enough for use at home. I rarely turn the
volume up beyond 3.

I had the Surf Green Telecaster and the Surf Green Strat, so he finished
the cab in Surf Green as well.

The Tele and Strat are also custom built by another friend who is a full
fledged luthier. He built the Tele from scratch and installed slightly
warmer pickups on it. The Strat started life as a made in Mexico Fender
but was totally stripped down and all the pickups, controls, bridge and
vibrato were replaced with upgraded components. A standard Fender
vibrato assembly is notorious for not returning to the same position,
even when adjusted properly. He put a Callaham bridge and vibrato
assembly on it that fixes that. The tone control is also a "pull" switch
that adds three more pickup wiring configurations to the standard five
way toggle switch.

To me, the most important part aspect of a guitar is how the neck feels
to you. Second is weight. All the other components can be easily
changed or modified. I liked the neck feel of both of these guitars so
they became "keepers". I like and have owned Gibson Les Pauls, but they
are too heavy for me, even the chambered ones.

The other guitar in that slide show is a somewhat rare one. It's a
Heritage H-525 that the last time I researched, has a production run of
about five per year. If you are not familiar with Heritage ... they are
basically the original Gibson. When Gibson moved from Kalamazoo to
Nashville in 1985 many of the craftspeople and luthiers could not or did
not want to relocate. Gibson made a deal with them and they set up shop
in the vacated Gibson factory and started producing Heritage guitars.
I've seen a few of them over the years and the fit, finish and overall
quality of Heritage is superior to that of a typical modern Gibson off
the production line. I like the sound of a jazz box, so I set the
Heritage up with 11 gauge flat wounds and found a Polytone jazz amp for
it. Great sound.

My favorite and "go to" guitar is the Tele. If you have a Strat, you
really should also have a Tele in your collection.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/14/2014 12:00 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26:27 PM UTC-6, thumper wrote:
On 1/13/2014 4:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Another example using guitars as the subject:



The early (1950's era) Fender Telecasters had horrible pickups,

especially the one in the neck position. It had a dull and muddy sound.

But the music of that era was recorded with them and it established

"the sound" of a Fender Tele.



Which one do you pick up more often, the tele or the strat?

(wondering if I 'need' a tele also...)



And what's the scoop on the little 'M' amp? A vintage deluxe-reverb clone?

There's an old saying - "Tele's tell no tales" They are what they are, and it just about seems they're mandatory for playing country. But then again, Kieth Richards was always known for playing a Tele as well as Geo Harrison.

IMO, they seem to stay in tune but they're heavier than a strat, and they do have their quirks and limitations, but they're a 'gotta have' guitar.

YMMV

I dig 'em.


Tim, I disagree somewhat with your comment on the weight of a
Telecaster. It really depends on the wood used for the body. Some
Telecasters are heavy but some are very light, depending on the wood.

My Tele is a pound or two less than the Strat.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/14/2014 2:20 AM, thumper wrote:
On 1/13/2014 9:00 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26:27 PM UTC-6, thumper wrote:

Which one do you pick up more often, the tele or the strat?

(wondering if I 'need' a tele also...)

And what's the scoop on the little 'M' amp? A vintage deluxe-reverb
clone?

There's an old saying - "Tele's tell no tales" They are what they
are, and it just about seems they're mandatory for playing country.
But then again, Kieth Richards was always known for playing a Tele as
well as Geo Harrison.

IMO, they seem to stay in tune but they're heavier than a strat, and
they do have their quirks and limitations, but they're a 'gotta have'
guitar.

YMMV

I dig 'em.

These guys put 'em to good use.

http://www.hellecasters.com/



I had an interesting experience with a Telecaster a few years ago.

One day a couple of women ... probably in their fifties ... came to the
guitar shop carrying a strange looking guitar case. They were
interested in selling the guitar contained in the case along with the
case. They explained it was their father's guitar who had passed away
and no one else played it.

I opened the case and there was a vintage 1961 Telecaster. It was in
excellent condition, very little fret wear, straight neck and no major
dings or scratches. I checked the current book value for it and it was
just about $17,000.

Like Pawn Stars, I don't pay "book value" so after some discussion I
offered them $12,000 for it but also encouraged them to take it around
to other guitar shops in the area to see if they could get a better
offer. There isn't a huge demand for guitars in that price range and
although I was interested, I didn't want to tie up a bunch of working
capital on a guitar that might take a long time to sell.

They agreed to visit other shops (they had no idea it was worth that
much) and I figured that's the last I'd see of it.

After they left my luthier friend arrived at the shop and I was telling
him about it. At one point I mentioned that the case didn't look
original. It was old but it looked more like an acoustic guitar case
rather than the typical Fender rectangular case. He asked me to
describe it more and I mentioned that it had a strange "bulb" shape at
the top where the headstock rests.

Long story short, it turns out it was a Fender "Thermometer case".
They were used for less than 2 years when the original Telecaster was
produced in 1950. At that time the Telecaster was known as a
"Broadcaster" but the name had to be dropped because Gretch made drums
called the "Broadkaster". Fender removed the name from the headstock
for a brief period of time before renaming it the "Telecaster". The
guitars produced with no name on the headstock are known today as
"NoCasters".

Anyway, the Thermometer case is very rare. I checked on-line and could
only find one that was for sale on G-base. The owner wanted $8K for it.
That's just for a case!

It didn't make sense that a 1961 Telecaster would be in a 1950 vintage
case, but since I figured we wouldn't see them again I didn't worry
about it.

A month later the women returned to the shop and said they would accept
my offer of $12,000.

First, I asked them if their father had any other guitars thinking that
he may have had a Broadcaster or NoCaster as well and the '61 Tele had
simply been put in the wrong case. They said, no ... it was his only
guitar.

So, being a somewhat honest guy, I explained to them that the case
itself was rare and valuable and they may want to rethink my offer.
They told me that $12K was fine and would accept it.

I paid the $12K. Sold the case by itself for $3,700. Bought a era
correct but new rectangular case for $200 and sold the guitar and it
for $12K.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 11:50 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:27:36 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.

I have a Bose table top radio/cd player and it's good for what it is, but nothing like Haul Harvey advertized that it replaces a whole 'wall full' of equipment. crank it up and it barks like a dog. Well, not really but for the money it's over rated. I lost the tiny little remote control for it and bought another for a whopping $44.00 about 10 years ago. That's the last time it'll happen.

Now speaking of cabinets that could hold a small child, Well back in 'the day' I bought the best I could afford. and shopped for quality used.

I ended up with a Kenwood Kr 7070 receiver and two Ohm F speakers (Walsh drivers). That Kenwood was rated a 350w. and you could NOT over drive the Ohm titanium cones! I thought that wasn't enough, and I couldn't find any more Ohm's so I got a couple of Klipsch "Heresey's" for a quad system. The only other item I had in the system was a Technics cassette deck with 'chrome' and Dolby. I couldn't use a turn table because the system would rattle the tone arm. So, a friend of mine that worked at a radio station would bootleg albums for me. Also my consortium of friends would buy albums, or go to the local library and borrow them and rack them onto tape as well.. I had a good collection of 'stuff' and bought all my equipment of less than half value. Still over a thousand in the late 50's. I just sort of build as I went.

Anyhow, without going into the bloody details, it's all gone now.

The carnage of a bad first marriage.

BTW, If you're unfamiliar with the Ohm/Walsh, they are nothing short of amazing.

I wish I could rebuild my system, but until then I suppose I'll have to settle for my antique Monkey Wards 'hi-fi'


http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/d...00608_0214.jpg


Ohm has made some very nice speakers over the years.