New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective. Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok. Your brain replaces what is missing. You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude. Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/2018 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.



I once had a complete 4 channel, "Quadraphonic" Sansui system with four
large speakers, two Sansui stereo amps, a Sansui 4 channel
processor/decoder and a Teac 4 channel tape deck. Quadraphonic was the
fore-runner to surround sound but was plagued by different recording
standards and lack of pre-recorded material. Enoch Light released a few
tapes and 4 channel encoded vinyls back in the 70's.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/1/2018 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.



I have a pair of 80's vintage Bose 901's and the Bose Equalizer that
goes with them. I don't use them anymore but they are still in great
shape (speaker surrounds are not rotted, etc.) Properly set up they
still sound very good, especially if you add a subwoofer at very low volume.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:50:46 -0400, Alex wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/31/18 5:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:52 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/31/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Just been reading the various reviews on the 2018 Lincoln Navigator.

Ford pulled out all the stops and has blown the competition
including
the Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80 away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
6 adaptive performance settings, premier seating for all and an
interior fit and finish that is superior to any of it's competition.

Quite a price tag though. Starts at $76K. $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators. She has had three of them in the past.
Gotta keep her away from this one.





Heheh...what does that barge weigh, three tons?, and with a 3.5 liter
engine, the same size as in my little truck and a Toyota with V6?
With
twin turbos? Not an engine that is going to last long, pushing an
aircraft carrier.

It does 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. That doesn't seem to be
underpowered. I doubt Mrs E will keep it long enough to wear out the
engine.


I wasn’t questioning the horsepower output, but the wisdom of
powering a
three ton car with a small engine.


I don't know enough about cars to comment intelligently however I
don't think today's engines suffer from the "worn out" issues of
those of the past. Geared properly (10 speed transmission) I don't
think the Navigator V6 is working much harder than the V6 in my
Canyon that has an
eight speed transmission or the V6 in your Tacoma. The twin turbo
makes it more complex for sure but modern turbos have a decent
reputation for longevity. Lots of cars and trucks have them.

In the old days the main reason an engine "wore out" (except for a
catastrophic failure) was due to worn rings, cylinders and valves.
Their condition was manifested by burning oil, leaving blue clouds of
smoke and running rough with a cylinder or two missing due to lack of
compression. You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves. Lots of cars and trucks are used daily now-a-days with 150K
to 200K miles on them and they don't burn any oil.





You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

Indy cars have 2.2L engines pushing 600+ HP.

They only have to go 500 miles tho ;-)


Just like a top fuel dragster only has to turn about 1000 revolutions
between rebuilds. Each quarter mile.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

That's really pertinent in a discussion of engine performance.

Anything to toot your tooter though, eh Haareee.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 12:22:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:59:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.





Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.

The difference you can actually measure the performance of these new
HO gauge engines. It is not like just trying to describe what
something sounds like to you.
I agree the "Bose sound" is not necessary correct sound but Bose fans
swear by it. I still have 2 big Sansui speakers in the tiki bar and I
think they sound better than the Bose my wife has in the new room but
she likes the Bose sound more than the thumping base from those old
"leisure suit days" speakers.

Hooked up to my computer, the Bose Lifestyle system makes great sound!

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective. Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok. Your brain replaces what is missing. You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude. Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective. Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok. Your brain replaces what is missing. You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude. Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD's but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and yourÂ* expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective.Â* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.Â* Your brain replaces what is missing.Â*Â* You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.Â* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD'sÂ* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo. :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWyqaomjpdE

....especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.

New Lincoln Navigator
 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/2/18 1:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:28:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2018 9:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/1/18 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:54:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You probably are right. Pretty soon we'll be seeing one liter engines
zipping "funny cars" down the dragstrip!

They are getting a 3 ton truck up to 60 in 6 seconds with a 213 Cu/In
engine. In the 80s that would have taken a high performance 350 or
400. It would have been a 427 in the 60s.
Engines have come a long way.




Apparently so, but somehow it reminds me of the guys who used to
tell me
that those little Bose speakers put out the same quality of sound as
theater-sized klipschorns or wharfedales or other large, horn-loaded
speakers, or that "surround sound" is "more real" than what you hear at
an acoustically correct concert hall with proper miking. I never
believed that...taste, after all, is subjective. I have a CD of Mischa
Maisky playing Bach cello suites I play frequently, and I've seen him
perform in a small concert hall. I used to lug a copy of that CD around
to audio stores when I was thinking of getting different speakers. The
CD sounded like **** to me on new technology small speakers...the cello
sounded like a viola, which is tuned an octave higher.


Your ears and your* expectation of what "good" music reproduction sounds
like is very subjective.* Your brain is an excellent equalizer so if you
listen to music often on poorly performing speakers it can start to
sound ok.* Your brain replaces what is missing.** You just can't do an
instant "A", "B" test because you'll immediately notice the difference.

Surround sound sucks usually because people over-do the rear
"reflectance" sounds in terms of amplitude.* Set up properly you
shouldn't even notice that there are read or side speakers at all.

Surround is really for movies anyway where it is specifically recorded
to use the side and rear speakers as origin points, like a helicopter
circling over your head or something.


I agree. I don't really notice the surround on our 5.1 systems until
we play a movie that uses all of it. I suppose they could record music
in 5.1 but there is not a lot of it around.



Some music and even symphony orchestras are recorded in surround but the
intent of trying to create a true hall effect is hard to do plus most
people set the surround levels too high in order to "hear" them. Doing
so destroys the subtle reflection of sound that was intended.

Six channel "Super CD" recordings are very high in dynamic range and
fidelity because the recording technique is totally different than
regular CD's* but again, the extra channels don't always add to the
authenticity of the performance in a large venue or hall.





We're going to see The Barber of Seville at the KenCen later this month,
featuring, among others, the Moldavan baritone, Andrey Zhilikhovsky.
Hopefully, no one will mess with the sound and make it sound like
someone's multi-channel surround stereo. :)

The baritone is rising rapidly among the great singers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWyqaomjpdE

...especially since the sad and untimely death from brain cancer of
Dmitri Hvorostovsky.


Yeah, that was a real shame.