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.

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.

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.

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

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.

On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:50:50 PM UTC-6, Tim wrote:




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.

Paul Harvey, Tim... "PAUL" Harvey!


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.


"Late 50's? How about late 70's? I swear I'm typing challenged!

On 1/12/14, 10:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/12/2014 9:57 AM, 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!


BTW ... here's what I've been up to with the iMac:

http://s802.photobucket.com/user/Eisboch/slideshow/Loft%20Studio

Oh, I forgot to mention...have you checked out Pixelmator? It's a very
nice "substitute" for Photoshop, which I have *never* liked because of
all its levels of complexity. Photoshop does a lot more than Pixelmator,
but Photoshop does about a zillion things I don't need to do.

On 1/12/2014 11:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/12/14, 10:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

BTW ... here's what I've been up to with the iMac:

http://s802.photobucket.com/user/Eisboch/slideshow/Loft%20Studio



Oh, I forgot to mention...have you checked out Pixelmator? It's a very
nice "substitute" for Photoshop, which I have *never* liked because of
all its levels of complexity. Photoshop does a lot more than Pixelmator,
but Photoshop does about a zillion things I don't need to do.


I have not. I've been using Gimp2 for years and have become very
familiar with it. I like it much more than Photoshop ... plus, it's free.

For cropping, sizing and basic enhancements of images I use Infranview.
Again, free and very easy to use. Unfortunately, they don't offer a
Mac version.

On 1/12/2014 11:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/12/2014 11:38 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/12/14, 10:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

BTW ... here's what I've been up to with the iMac:

http://s802.photobucket.com/user/Eisboch/slideshow/Loft%20Studio



Oh, I forgot to mention...have you checked out Pixelmator? It's a very
nice "substitute" for Photoshop, which I have *never* liked because of
all its levels of complexity. Photoshop does a lot more than Pixelmator,
but Photoshop does about a zillion things I don't need to do.


I have not. I've been using Gimp2 for years and have become very
familiar with it. I like it much more than Photoshop ... plus, it's free.

For cropping, sizing and basic enhancements of images I use Infranview.
Again, free and very easy to use. Unfortunately, they don't offer a
Mac version.




I just checked out Pixelmator. I'll download it on the Mac and give it
a try. Looks pretty cool.

On 1/12/14, 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:38:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Oh, I forgot to mention...have you checked out Pixelmator? It's a very
nice "substitute" for Photoshop, which I have *never* liked because of
all its levels of complexity. Photoshop does a lot more than Pixelmator,
but Photoshop does about a zillion things I don't need to do.

I have been using Paint Shop 3, 4 and 7 for years. Each version has
features I like for different things.


I used a version of Paintshop some years (decades?) ago, when Corel
packaged it in with WordPerfect. I went to WordPerfect after Xywrite
more or less died, but Corel made WordPerfect as complicated as Word,
which I use because I have to. I really have never liked Word.