On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
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 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.


Yeah, that was a real shame.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 14:31:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
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.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.


Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

1:31 PMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.

.....

I’m not high brow much but I can appreciate a bunch of it. Way more than my wife can stand.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:


1:31 PMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.

....

I’m not high brow much but I can appreciate a bunch of it. Way more than my wife can stand.

But you don't try to impress people by throwing names around!

On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
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 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.Â*

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.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named
Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep.

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.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."

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.



My SUV has 269 ci (4.4L) and will run 0-60 in 4.7 seconds with twin
turbos. It's just under 5100 lbs. Amazing power for a heavy vehicle.

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 ;-)

True.

On 4/2/2018 7:31 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/2/18 2:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2018 2:23 PM, John H. wrote:
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 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.Â*

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.


I guess that appeals to many people (which I can understand) but I am
not high brow enough to appreciate it much.



The Barber of Seville and Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro were the
musical theater of their times, and those comic operas and others had
great appeal to the masses, even those with no formal education. The
same was true of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas.

Incidently, both the Rossini work and Mozart's were based on works by
the same playwright and the main protagonists are as a result named Figaro.

You might like these version of Figaro's Barber of Seville aria...with a
translation.

My taste for enjoying opera is limited. I like a lot of the comic operas
for their great music and really silly plots. Many of the "tragic"
operas put me to sleep.Â*


Well, enjoy your evening. I just don't have any appreciation for opera
in general but I certainly don't fault those who do. If there's a story
being told I'd rather just read it.

The most "high brow" I get is a few visit to Symphony Hall in Boston
once in a great while and to be honest, I am more awed by the
unbelievable acoustics there. Blows me away. We both (meaning Mrs.E.
and I) enjoy the Boston Pops and try to see them every year or so. It's
usually a fun take and we are friends with someone who performs with the
Pops.

On 4/2/2018 7:39 PM, Alex wrote:
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
theÂ* Cadillac Escalade and Infiniti QX80Â* away with this one.

3.5L twin turbo, 450hp, over 500 lb ft of torque, 10 speed
transmission,
Â*Â* 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.Â* Starts at $76K.Â* $96K typical.

Mrs.E. loves Navigators.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* You don't see that much anymore due to advances in
material sciences and hard coatings on the cylinder walls, rings and
valves.Â* 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.

===

Are they turbo charged or supercharged?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


"The current, fourth-generation *IndyCar* formula was presented in 2012.
The *engines* are now 2.2-liter twin turbo V-6's putting out estimated
550–750 hp depending on the level of boost used. They are limited to
12,000 rpm. *Engines* are currently supplied by Chevrolet and Honda."


I knew someone in Florida who had a Porsche 911 turbo that he installed
a variable boost control on it. Crazy fast but I'll bet it wouldn't
last long if he kept the boost setting too high, too often.