Live Mail

[Char Jackson]

Looks like I need to go check out media players.

Thanks, Char.

After seeing mine, my son ended up with the Western Digital Live:
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136997>
Western Digital USB 2.0 TV Live Streaming Media Player, Wi-Fi, Full-HD
1080p WDBHG70000NBK-NESN

 

[Ken Springer]

After seeing mine, my son ended up with the Western Digital Live:
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136997>
Western Digital USB 2.0 TV Live Streaming Media Player, Wi-Fi, Full-HD
1080p WDBHG70000NBK-NESN

When I upgraded my TV, I think I looked at units like that. I'm
assuming it's in the same vein as Apple TV, the discontinued Logitech
unit (which I liked), and others, but found out I couldn't do what I
wanted TV signal wise, so didn't get one. Didn't even get a Smart TV.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 12.0
Thunderbird 12.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.2.2

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Springer wrote:
[...]

The real downside of the discrete model was there was a very small
area of the room that you could occupy and get an accurate effect of
discrete 4-channel stereo.

My Marantz 4400 had an option of a remote control. Yes I bought one and
it solves that problem. Go anywhere in the room and adjust the joystick.
Funny that those remotes were very rare back then for some reason. And
today they are super rare for these machines. Rarely do I ever see one
available on say eBay or something.

Before listening to discrete quad through quad headphones, I wasn't
expecting anything really exciting. After all, you only have two ears.
Man was I ever wrong! Stereo headphones are so dull and boring compared
to the sound from quad headphones. Besides that left and right thing
going on in your head like stereo, you also have the addition of a front
and back thing working too. ;-)

Then someone got the idea of creating a mix of the front signals, and
create a pseudo effect of 4-channel sound. I never heard an actual
4-channel system, but I know Sansui was a leader in that area. One of
my brothers-in-law still has his Quad receiver from Sansui. This whole
idea was sometimes referred to as surround sound.

If you wanted the top of the line quad, you got either Sansui or Marantz
back then. Marantz also had a scope (CRT) with their top of the line
models. And that pseudo effect thing, the Sansui QRX-9001 had what they
call a QS Synthesizer. And you only had two choices, hall or surround
and no adjustment. Although the Marantz 4400 had what they called
vari-Matrix. Which allowed you to vary the effects one way or the other.

Sansui QRX-9001 quad
http://www.blackswampaudio.com/Images/Inv/1280.jpg

Marantz 4400 quad
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/Superfly8track/4400quadbrochfw.jpg

Sansui SPX9000 (speaker) comments
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/spea...akers/sansui/sp-x9000/PRD_120543_1594crx.aspx

It is funny reading comments from others buying them without knowing
what they sounded like first. And then shocked what kind of sounds comes
out of those boxes. Ah... that brings back my first experience with
them. Although I heard them before I bought four of them.

One day I placed one on the front porch and cranked the Marantz 4400 up
three quarters of the way up. Standing next to it, it sounded like crap.
Pops, cracks, etc. and I couldn't make out anything intelligent. So I
decided to take a walk (I live out in the country) and it turned out
totally amazing (I guess my ears were way passed saturation when I was
too close)! Sharp crystal clear sounds booming for miles around. And you
could hear every single instrument so super clear. They are just amazing
and sound just like a live band was right there.

The Model One is capable of driving 8 speakers, each speaker with a
slightly different sound...

All high-end quads supported 8 speakers back then (including mine). And
high-end stereos supported up to 4. Mine is called Main and Remote.
Although I don't remember if those names were standard or not. And I
never had anything connected to the other set, but I got the impression
that whatever volume, balance, and equalizer settings for one also
applies to other set.

P.S. You think you are falling behind? I am really behind. And this
weekend sounds like I am going to be too busy to be on the computer at
all. :-(

 

[Char Jackson]

If you wanted the top of the line quad, you got either Sansui or Marantz
back then. Marantz also had a scope (CRT) with their top of the line
models. And that pseudo effect thing, the Sansui QRX-9001 had what they
call a QS Synthesizer. And you only had two choices, hall or surround
and no adjustment. Although the Marantz 4400 had what they called
vari-Matrix. Which allowed you to vary the effects one way or the other.

Sansui QRX-9001 quad
http://www.blackswampaudio.com/Images/Inv/1280.jpg

It's interesting to see how similar that model is to the 9090DB.
<http://www.blackswampaudio.com/Images/Inv/1141.1.jpg>

I had a 9090DB for about 15 years and loved it, but I kept blowing the
power amp section so I sold it in favor of a pair of Carver m1.5t
amps.

 

[BillW50]

In XS11E typed:

But there IS a "wrong" newsreader for everyone and that would be one
that can't quote properly, such as Windows Live Mail.

Naw. I can make WLM to quote correctly. That is the beauty of using an
external editor. As internal editors are terrible. I don't know why
people are so gullible and put up with them? Back in the early days of
readers, people were smart enough to not too. I am not sure why people
stopped? Maybe because of the huge new crowd who didn't know any better
I guess.

 

[BillW50]

In Stephen Wolstenholme typed:

There isn't any better yet. Agent can be as simple or as complex as
the users needs. I know it's default appearance looks a bit complex
but 90% of the facilities don't need to be used. I like this to be
east to use and so have reduce my Agent to the minimum set of buttons
I actually use. I only have 11 buttons in Agent.

Steve

Well the text looks way to small for one thing. This could probably be
changed of course (can it?) But I don't see everything fitting anymore.
Agent does tabs, which is ok. But I couldn't figure how to do separate
windows (can it do this?). And there is a standard way most Windows
applications work. Agent seems to ignore the rules and you need to do it
the Forte way instead. All of my questions you don't need to explain how
to, just a simple yes or no would be good enough for me. Plus I have
dozens of computers and Agent would be really expensive for me.

 

[BillW50]

In Stephen Wolstenholme typed:

I don't know which features are expected with CTRL & H but it is for
getting new headers in Agent.

Steve

I don't know why people remember the CTRL-H thing, but not what it does.
Anyway CTRL-H under Outlook Express since I don't know, OE6.0 I think.
shows all threads that you had a part in and hides everything else. No
rules to set, it just knows based on your name and email in the
configuration.

Other readers can simulate this somewhat. But none of them make this
view so easy. Thunderbird for example, you could make any thread you had
a part in as watched in a rule. Although if you make any other thread as
watched, it now isn't the same thing. Even still, Thunderbird can only
display unread watched. OE can do this too, but you can also see both
read and unread (handy for a quick review). Thunderbird can't do this
either. Can Agent?

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

It's interesting to see how similar that model is to the 9090DB.
<http://www.blackswampaudio.com/Images/Inv/1141.1.jpg>

I had a 9090DB for about 15 years and loved it, but I kept blowing the
power amp section so I sold it in favor of a pair of Carver m1.5t
amps.

It is funny back then (maybe true today I don't know) they had their own
look. Sansui looked like Sansuis, Kenwood looked like Kenwoods, Marantz,
etc.

It is funny that you mentioned your Sansui kept blowing the power amp.
Although it just wasn't yours, a lot of Sansui machines did that. I am
not sure why that was? Many manufactures had a second delay or something
before it would supply power to the speakers. This was to wait until the
voltages would normalize first before the load was applied. And this
supposedly saved the finals from blowing. And I don't recall if Sansui
did this or not (although I thought they did too). Do you recall?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I don't know why people remember the CTRL-H thing, but not what it does.

I'm sure people are just using Ctrl-H as a convenient label for that
whole discussion. Six characters is better than a paragraph

 

[Char Jackson]

I'm sure people are just using Ctrl-H as a convenient label for that
whole discussion.

Exactly right, at least in my case.

Six characters is better than a paragraph

I remember exactly what Ctrl-H allegedly does, but I think referring
to it in shorthand is funnier.

 

[Ken Springer]

It is funny back then (maybe true today I don't know) they had their own
look. Sansui looked like Sansuis, Kenwood looked like Kenwoods, Marantz,
etc.

You can say that about automobiles, too.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 12.0
Thunderbird 12.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.2.2

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

It is funny back then (maybe true today I don't know) they had their own
look. Sansui looked like Sansuis, Kenwood looked like Kenwoods, Marantz,
etc.

Just think how distinctive that Marantz thumb wheel tuner knob is. One
glance and you know what it is. Remember a brand called Sherwood? I
used to see those advertised in Stereo Review in the early 70's and
say to myself, 'Hey, that's a Sansui...oh, wait, no it's a Sherwood.'
It seemed like they went out of their way to copy a look, but for the
most part the brands back then were immediately recognizable. They
also seemed to be built more substantially, for the most part, or at
least that's how I remember things.

It is funny that you mentioned your Sansui kept blowing the power amp.
Although it just wasn't yours, a lot of Sansui machines did that. I am
not sure why that was? Many manufactures had a second delay or something
before it would supply power to the speakers. This was to wait until the
voltages would normalize first before the load was applied. And this
supposedly saved the finals from blowing. And I don't recall if Sansui
did this or not (although I thought they did too). Do you recall?

Yes, it had the turn-on delay. Mine never blew during turn-on, though.
I used to run it at extremely high power levels for as much as 8-10
hours at a time, and I suspect it just wasn't expecting that level of
abuse.

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Springer typed:

You can say that about automobiles, too.

Yes so true! Nowadays everybody else copies the others looks. Even my
Honda Shadow 1100 '95 copied the look of a Harley. Although nobody had
mastered the sound of a Harley yet. ;-)

 

[Ken Springer]

In Ken Springer typed:

Yes so true! Nowadays everybody else copies the others looks. Even my
Honda Shadow 1100 '95 copied the look of a Harley. Although nobody had
mastered the sound of a Harley yet. ;-)

The unique sound of a Harley is due to the V-Twin's construction.
Harley's have just one connecting rod journal, and both connecting rods
are attached there. That results in uneven firing of the cylinders.
The others have two connecting rod journals, so you can have even firing.

The downside of the Harley design is the engine will never run as smooth
as the others without a fancy vibration dampening system.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 12.0
Thunderbird 12.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.2.2

 

[Ken Blake]

Just think how distinctive that Marantz thumb wheel tuner knob is. One
glance and you know what it is. Remember a brand called Sherwood? I
used to see those advertised in Stereo Review in the early 70's and
say to myself, 'Hey, that's a Sansui...oh, wait, no it's a Sherwood.'
It seemed like they went out of their way to copy a look, but for the
most part the brands back then were immediately recognizable. They
also seemed to be built more substantially, for the most part, or at
least that's how I remember things.

It was many years ago, but I once had a Sherwood stereo receiver.

I'm not sure, but I think it was the first transistorized equipment I
had. It replaced my two giant Dynakit power amplifiers, two Dynakit
preamplifiers with a stereo control unit, and a stereo tuner (stereo
radio in those days was one channel FM and one channel AM) whose brand
I don't remember.

I built all of those units myself, and they were great. But they took
up an enormous amount of space, which was why I went to the
transistorized receiver (which was stolen when our house was broken
into about 35 years ago).

These days I have a Sony receiver, but neither my memory nor my
hearing is good enough to compare it with what I used to have.

 

[choro]

It was many years ago, but I once had a Sherwood stereo receiver.

I'm not sure, but I think it was the first transistorized equipment I
had. It replaced my two giant Dynakit power amplifiers, two Dynakit
preamplifiers with a stereo control unit, and a stereo tuner (stereo
radio in those days was one channel FM and one channel AM) whose brand
I don't remember.

I built all of those units myself, and they were great. But they took
up an enormous amount of space, which was why I went to the
transistorized receiver (which was stolen when our house was broken
into about 35 years ago).

These days I have a Sony receiver, but neither my memory nor my
hearing is good enough to compare it with what I used to have.

And even if you had the hearing you had all those years ago, would you
have been able to remember the sound you heard all those years ago? If
you think so, you are only kidding yourself!

I had a top of the range Yamaha Tuner, a real flagship of a tuner, and I
remember listening to it through a pair of top-notch Sennheiser
earphones. The clarity of the sound was unbelievable. But of course, I
did not persist in listening to it through the earphones because I had a
superb hi-fi with Tannoy Buckinghams to deliver the final sound.

The idea was to test the quality of the Tannoys actually. But to be
honest I couldn't tell the difference betweeen the sound I heard through
the upmarket Sennheisers and the Tannoy Buckinghams. Lovely natural
audiophilie sounds on those Buckinghams.

Shit! My ex has got them now.. The price of a divorce can sometimes be
too steep!
-- choro

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

Just think how distinctive that Marantz thumb wheel tuner knob is. One
glance and you know what it is.

Oh yes! And boy is that ever nice to tune with. I really love mine. I
also loved the volume control of the Kenwood amp. It was one huge giant
knob with very fine clicks. I forget how many clicks it had, like 36 or
something.

Remember a brand called Sherwood? I used to see those advertised in
Stereo Review in the early 70's and say to myself, 'Hey, that's a
Sansui...oh, wait, no it's a Sherwood.' It seemed like they went out
of their way to copy a look,

Oh yes I remember those Sherwood in the magazines. Oh and who was it
that used the mutts in their ads? Wasn't it Akai? And who used a guy
sitting in a comfortable chair in front of speakers with the wind
blowing from the speakers?

but for the most part the brands back then were immediately
recognizable. They also seemed to be built more substantially, for the
most part, or at least that's how I remember things.

That is the way I remember it too. Everything was made very solid and
built to last. Heck my Marantz 4400 is loaded full of electrolytic
capacitors and still working 35 years later. Quality was very important
back then, but it also showed up in the price tag. ;-)

Yes, it had the turn-on delay. Mine never blew during turn-on, though.
I used to run it at extremely high power levels for as much as 8-10
hours at a time, and I suspect it just wasn't expecting that level of
abuse.

Ah okay, that would do it. I never could get my Marantz volume up very
much. As with those Sansui SPX9000 speakers with the 16 inch bass
speakers, even at a quarter volume. the windows would shake, objects
would fall off of the shelves, etc. And I was afraid any more volume,
the walls would start to crack. Even when I had taken one speaker
outside and cranked the volume to three quarters, that was far too much
volume for even outside. Although the Marantz and the Sansui didn't miss
a beat and they were still begging for more! ;-)

The Bose 901s also came out during this era and some of my friends
bought them. While they didn't sound as nice as the Kenwood or Sansui
speakers at the time, but they were not really too awful. But I still
didn't like the idea of taking a bunch of midrange speakers and amping
up the high and low frequencies to force midrange speakers to go where
no sound has gone before. I do credit Bose for such an achievement
though. But Bose did have one major fatal flaw. As sooner or later, one
would accidentally drop a turntable arm on vinyl while the volume was
cranked up. Kenwood and Sansui speakers could handle this abuse without
problems (I am not sure if your windows or ears could though). But not
Bose. This would instantly destroy your Bose speakers for good.

 

[Ken Blake]

On 05/05/2012 15:18, Ken Blake wrote:


And even if you had the hearing you had all those years ago, would you
have been able to remember the sound you heard all those years ago? If
you think so, you are only kidding yourself!

Right. That's what I said. Please reread the above. It says "neither
my memory nor my hearing is good enough"

 

[Char Jackson]

It was many years ago, but I once had a Sherwood stereo receiver.

I'm not sure, but I think it was the first transistorized equipment I
had. It replaced my two giant Dynakit power amplifiers, two Dynakit
preamplifiers with a stereo control unit, and a stereo tuner (stereo
radio in those days was one channel FM and one channel AM) whose brand
I don't remember.

I built all of those units myself, and they were great. But they took
up an enormous amount of space, which was why I went to the
transistorized receiver (which was stolen when our house was broken
into about 35 years ago).

Those Dynakits might have been worth some real money today.

 

[Char Jackson]

The Bose 901s also came out during this era and some of my friends
bought them. While they didn't sound as nice as the Kenwood or Sansui
speakers at the time, but they were not really too awful. But I still
didn't like the idea of taking a bunch of midrange speakers and amping
up the high and low frequencies to force midrange speakers to go where
no sound has gone before. I do credit Bose for such an achievement
though.

They aren't for everyone. Most people don't understand how they work
and how they need to be deployed. Unfortunately, many of those in my
experience were actual 901 owners, and then they wondered why their
901's didn't sound very good. I've seen multiple people who used 901's
without their active equalizer, for example, or people who turned the
speakers around backwards, or people who stuck their speakers in a
small enclosed space to make it look neater, or even placed them
directly on the floor. All of those are fatal if sound quality means
anything.

But Bose did have one major fatal flaw. As sooner or later, one
would accidentally drop a turntable arm on vinyl while the volume was
cranked up. Kenwood and Sansui speakers could handle this abuse without
problems (I am not sure if your windows or ears could though). But not
Bose. This would instantly destroy your Bose speakers for good.

The weak points of any speaker system are the crossovers and the
tweeters. Bose 901's have neither, which is part of the reason why
Bose claims their power handling capacity is "unlimited in residential
applications". In short, you're not going to damage 901's by dropping
the needle, regardless of volume settings. You may blow your amp, but
the speakers will live on with no ill effects.