Audiophools Wall Outlet (this is unbelievable)
i...@yahoo.com
The best part are the comments section!
I guess they don't monitor them.
Some folks have a great sense of humor.
Ish
Ken
read. Ken
Peter Elem
<i...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cdrtf5df3puqchchm...@4ax.com...
That's a riot -and- a-half...ACtually These are just $12.00 hospital sockets
available from Home Depot and relabeled for the trusting and unwitting audio
consumer. When I first saw these I actually went to Home Depot and installed
one of theirs. Now my stereo takes me right to the performance with all it's
emotional impact. Or, (putting it this way) when I fantasize, I prefer to do
it on the cheap!
philo
as funny as the whole thing was...
this took the cake:
Cryogenic heat treat hardened contacts
Perry
$1750? Used. And it sold.
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?accstwek&1262395363
Ken
philo
I sure don't know what it is...
but if it's not cyogenically heat treated I doubt it would be much good <G>
William Sommerwerck
> Depot and relabeled for the trusting and unwitting audio consumer.
> When I first saw these I actually went to Home Depot and installed
> all its emotional impact. Or (putting it this way), when I fantasize,
> I prefer to do it on the cheap!
I see nothing wrong with installing a $12 outlet that makes a firm, clean,
stable connection -- especially with high-powered amps. But I wouldn't
expect it to improve the sound.
Buy a JVC or Yamaha hall synthesizer. They show up on eBay occasionally.
William Sommerwerck
It holds the disk firmly against the platter. The idea is to flatten the LP,
and to make better mechanical contact.
Anything over $50 or so is too much.
Bill Noble
weight that sits in the center. Sometimes both are used. It may improve
the sound, I haven't noticed anything important when some friends used one -
the theory makes sense - by adding the mass of the platter to that of the
record, you lower the resonant frequency and get better transfer of energy
to the stylus. But I don't use one - it's just too much hassle.
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hdndva$scp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Michael Black
Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but I recall an article in The Audio
Amateur that had a "record clamp" and it was a vacuum device for keeping
the record flat. You might recall records weren't always as flat as they
could be, I remember taking some back to the record store for a
replacement. And I thought the record clamp was to deal with that.
Michael
William Sommerwerck
a
> weight that sits in the center. Sometimes both are used. It may improve
> the sound, I haven't noticed anything important when some friends used
one -
> the theory makes sense - by adding the mass of the platter to that of the
> record, you lower the resonant frequency and get better transfer of energy
> to the stylus. But I don't use one - it's just too much hassle.
My turntable has an integral clamp that screws to the spindle -- it takes
only a few seconds to remove or replace.
There used to be clamps with a kind of collet -- you pressed a button to
open it. These were even easier to use. I think I have one in the drawer.
William Sommerwerck
> Amateur that had a "record clamp" and it was a vacuum device for keeping
> the record flat. You might recall records weren't always as flat as they
> could be, I remember taking some back to the record store for a
> replacement. And I thought the record clamp was to deal with that.
There were turntables that used a vacuum clamp. They disappeared, after it
was discovered that they greatly speeded up the leaching of the plasticizer
from the vinyl.
graham
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other one might be the SOTA Reflex Clamp William ..... actually
worked quite well ..... Is yours a VPI with a screw spindle?
William Sommerwerck
> worked quite well...Is yours a VPI with a screw spindle?
No, it's a Well-Tempered with a screw spindle.
I have a Monster Cable DS-250 Disc Stabilizer. It's unused, in great
condition, and anyone who wants it can have it for $50 postpaid. You press
the button on top to open the collect, then push it down over the spindle
and release the button.
i...@yahoo.com
I like this testimonial the best.......
Amazing
Monday, October 26, 2009
TedKennedy from The coast - Maine
I installed 2 of these - one for the stereo
and another in the bathroom where my wife dresses. I couldn't tell
much difference from the stereo because I am a musician and have spent
years in front of loud speakers.
The one in the bathroom - !WOW!. My wife has been plugging her
hairdryer into it and her hair is softer than ever and the gray is
gone! Also - she has gone from a B cup to a DD!! BIGGER BOOBS!
John Stone
On 11/14/09 6:44 PM, in article hdnj04$9i9$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think what was "discovered" was that some people were claiming that their
records were getting noisier after being played on some vacuum turntables.
What was "theorized" is that the vacuum was somehow altering the chemical
composition of the vinyl. I don't recall this ever being "proven", and how
that was possible, given the low vacuum level, is beyond me. Many of those
vacuum systems had hard metal platters, and the far more plausible
explanation was that dirt was being pressed into the grooves because the
record and platter weren't being kept sufficiently clean. Nobody, to my
knowledge, ever made such claims with soft platter vacuum tables like those
from Sota, and these remained popular for years. I had a vacuum table
myself years ago, and never had a single problem with increased noise from
the records. But leave it to the audiophile community to find the most
complicated explanation for the simplest problem.
D. Peter Maus
>
I had a vacuum table
> myself years ago, and never had a single problem with increased noise from
> the records. But leave it to the audiophile community to find the most
> complicated explanation for the simplest problem.
>
Ignorance creates this. Most audiophiles are not scientifically
trained, have no background in technology, nor understand the
physics of their sound system.
What doesn't help is the occasional revelation of some minor
influence in the performance of their hardware that has scientific
foundation, and measurable impact, but little listenable change. The
vanishingly low distortion levels of most audio, these days, are
pursued like meet to a starving man, and the truth is that once a
threshold is reached, in real world listening, there is no audible
difference with even an addition order of magnitude reduction in THD
for instance.
So, these myths surface.
Even in the recently discussed world of capacitors, there is
significant science to explain the difference in the audio
performance between capacitor constructions/materials, but few can
actually hear the difference when applied to most hardware.
Don't get me wrong, as a professional in the audio business and
and audiophile myself, I'm all for the tiniest of improvements. And
I experiment with just about anything. But for real world listening,
there is more of a difference produced by opening a window in the
listening room than there is in much of these 'technical solutions.'
William Sommerwerck
> trained, have no background in technology, nor understand the
> physics of their sound system.
I do.
> What doesn't help is the occasional revelation of some minor
> influence in the performance of their hardware that has scientific
> foundation, and measurable impact, but little listenable change. The
> vanishingly low distortion levels of most audio, these days, are
> pursued like meet to a starving man, and the truth is that once a
> threshold is reached, in real world listening, there is no audible
> difference with even an addition order of magnitude reduction in
> THD for instance.
You've obviously never heard badly designed amplifiers with low measured
distortion that sound terrible. They're uncommon, but they do exist.
Jeffrey D Angus
> I'm all for the tiniest of improvements. And I
> experiment with just about anything.
Ah, you just said the magic word. Incremental differences.
Like putting silver bearing paste on your RCA connectors.
Yes, it does make a pronounced difference to the contact
resistance of the connector itself, but it does NOT make
a profound difference in the overall sound of the system.
Despite the claims on the packaging.
Unless your connectors are in really horrible condition to
begin with.
Jeff
--
�Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.�
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
D. Peter Maus
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> I'm all for the tiniest of improvements. And I experiment with just
>> about anything.
>
> Ah, you just said the magic word. Incremental differences.
> Like putting silver bearing paste on your RCA connectors.
> Yes, it does make a pronounced difference to the contact
> resistance of the connector itself, but it does NOT make
> a profound difference in the overall sound of the system.
>
> Despite the claims on the packaging.
>
> Unless your connectors are in really horrible condition to
> begin with.
Exactly my point. A lot of this stuff is scientifically
supportable. But to what degree? And does it matter in real world
listening?
As I said, I experiment with just about anything. What I've found
is that the largest difference made in the listening experience was
in treating the acoustic space where the listening takes place.
William Sommerwerck
> is that the largest difference made in the listening experience was
> in treating the acoustic space where the listening takes place.
So, going from speakers that cost $100 a pair, to speakers costing $1000 a
pair, to those costing $11,000 a pair makes little or no difference?
Peter Elem
This, in particular, depends. Some inexpensive speakers can be very good,
while some high priced units miss the mark. An example here is the old
Rectilinear speaker. It was a floor standing speaker around the mid sixties.
I heard one used in a carousel for the "canned" caliopee music. I thought it
was the real thing until I got within sight of it. Speakers, in my
experience can be a real crap shoot.
Perry
You can make one out of a hockey puck very easily. I don't find it to be
particular useful or make much of a difference in sound quality (and I play
a lot of vinyl).
Of course, it didn't cost $1500 either. I SURE would hear a difference
then...
William Sommerwerck
news:hdpvun$bpv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> experience, can be a real crap shoot.
Speakers are not a crap shoot. You can hear them before you buy them.
I'm not talking about "good" $100 speakers (and there are good ones) and
"bad" $1000 and $11,000 speakers (and such do indeed exist). I'm talking
about speakers that offer a high level of performance (measured and
subjective) in a particular price range.
Please answer the question -- are the room acoustics more important than
going from $100 a pair to $11,000 a pair?
Let me be specific... I have a $200 pair of Mission speakers in my bedroom
that are quite good. The speakers in my living room are biamped Apogee
Divas, which retailed for about $11,000. You're telling me that the room is
more important than the speaker? That if I put the Missions in a carefully
tuned and set-up room, I would get better sound than I get from my Divas in
the living room, which (other than having a lot of junk lying around to
scatter the sound) has not been treated or tuned in any way?
Obviously, if the room has lousy acoustics (and I've heard such rooms), any
speaker you put in it will (at the very least) not live up to its potential.
But comparing a lousy room with a decent (though "un-tuned") one is a
meaningless comparison (not unlike Ivor's Tiefenbrun's claims about the
importance of the turntable), because no serious listener would put up with
a lousy listening room, especially when it doesn't cost much to fix it up.
Whereas many listeners never bother to improve "decent" listening rooms.
By the way, the Rectilinear 3 was designed by Jon Dahlquist. I've never
heard it.
Peter Elem
I replaced a midrange in one.......When I opened it up there was a plastic
container being used as an exclosure for the midrange, the type you get at a
deli when you order a pound of potato salad.
BTW: I never relied completely on "in dealer" listening to a speaker to
evaluate it. Again what I hear at the dealer may not be what I get at home.
I read white papers and try to get a feeling for what the designer is trying
to do. I have had speakers I didn't like at first, but that I grew into.
Right now my favorite is a pair of really large JBL theatre speakers at a
local cinema near here. Looks like two 18" woofers each plus a top mounted
tractix type horn......Damn good sound, full midrange right down to the low
bass and strong specific upper range........Relaxing and natural.......
I'm aware of the fact that movie houses often cut the treble past 8 or 9khz
because it is less irratating to the audience. I don't hear much above that
range anyway.........
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Wharfedale.htm
My all time fave is the Wharfedale Super 8.............
Peter Elem
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hdrkod$bva$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Peter Elem
In 1966 I bought my Wharfedale Super 8 (sounds like a friggin' motel...LOL)
for around $30. That includes the Swedish high flux magnet et al.......and
even in today's dollars it's still a lot cheaper than a Lowther, for
example.
I can buy ( or could, they are disocntinued) Apogee for 12 grand , and they
did a lot of things right but the money hole for audio has gotten very deep
in the last 30 years. It used to be that for under $1,000 I would have a
Marantz tube system...(well maybe a bit more with Bozak concert grand,
whatever.....)
The sense of experimentation is gone and has been replaced with a sense of
salon mentality snobbery. That's not conducive to musical enjoyment for
me......
"Peter Elem" <pe...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:hdrovt$gkq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
William Sommerwerck
thread.
> In 1966 I bought my Wharfedale Super 8 (sounds like a friggin'
motel...LOL)
> even in today's dollars it's still a lot cheaper than a Lowther, for
> example.
> I can buy (or could, they are discontinued) Apogee for 12 grand...
You can get a pair of Divas for $2K to $3K -- dirt cheap.
> and they did a lot of things right but the money hole for audio has
> gotten very deep in the last 30 years. It used to be that for under
> $1,000 I would have a Marantz tube system... (well, maybe a bit
> more with Bozak concert grand, whatever...)
There was a time, about 25 years ago, when I could afford to buy what was
"state of the art" -- especially as I was a reviewer and got a special
price.
Unfortunately, the cost of equipment has totally eclipsed my ability to
purchase it -- and I wonder if it would be worth it.
My current system, given good program material, sonds remarkably lifelike.
(My system "sounds better" than it ever has. I don't know why.) I wouldn't
mind having top-of-the-line QUADs, but I don't have the money, even at half
price, for three pairs.
> The sense of experimentation is gone and has been replaced with
> a sense of salon mentality snobbery. That's not conducive to musical
> enjoyment for me...
No argument.
John Stone
"Peter Elem" <pe...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> By the way, the Rectilinear 3 was designed by Jon Dahlquist. I've never
>> heard it.
>>
>>
>
> I replaced a midrange in one.......When I opened it up there was a plastic
> container being used as an exclosure for the midrange, the type you get at a
> deli when you order a pound of potato salad.
Others have described it as a "cottage cheese container" The driver was an
off the shelf Philips unit, as I recall.
>
> Right now my favorite is a pair of really large JBL theatre speakers at a
> local cinema near here. Looks like two 18" woofers each plus a top mounted
> tractix type horn......Damn good sound, full midrange right down to the low
> bass and strong specific upper range........Relaxing and natural.......
>
> I'm aware of the fact that movie houses often cut the treble past 8 or 9khz
> because it is less irratating to the audience. I don't hear much above that
> range anyway.........
You have the advantage of a huge space with its own acoustical contribution.
The reverbrant field dominates in this setting. Modern theaters have pretty
good acoustical design too. I've always liked the "movie theater effect"
myself. Even a pair of lowly Altec Voice of the Theater's can be made to
sound pretty good in that setting. Try those same speakers at home (if they
could be made to fit) and the story would be very different.
>
> http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Wharfedale.htm
>
> My all time fave is the Wharfedale Super 8.............
Retro hi fi speakers don't do much for me. I get plenty of that charming
character from a nicely refurbished high end German table radio. I go for
accuracy, and I think modern speakers do this better.
paul @removeppinyot.removecom Paul_P
"Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdnetc$44e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> there are two types - a ring that goes around the periphery of the LP, and
> a weight that sits in the center. Sometimes both are used. It may
> improve the sound, I haven't noticed anything important when some friends
> used one - the theory makes sense - by adding the mass of the platter to
> that of the record, you lower the resonant frequency and get better
> transfer of energy to the stylus. But I don't use one - it's just too
> much hassle.
A legitimate use for weight on a turn table would be to minimize rumble and
"wow" or fluctuations in speed. I remember very heavy turntables used in an
AM radio station I worked in back in the 70's.
It is common to use heavy precision tables to minimize vibrations (i.e.,
rumble) as in the LASER industry.
Paul P.
Peter Elem
"John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C726E46A.A6281%jms...@comcast.net...
Frankly, I wouldn't recognize "accurancy" if it hit me upside the head. I
prefer music.....
William Sommerwerck
> the head. I prefer music...
Then you're missing a great deal of the music.
Pete Bertini
branch circuit wired with 14 gauge romex?
I'd be an insurance company would use that
as an excuse not to pay for an electrical fire, regardless of
the cause.
pete
John Stone
> "John Stone" <jmse...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:C726E46A.A6281%jms...@comcast.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/16/09 8:51 AM, in article hdrote$g1...@news.eternal-september.org,
Really? So the same piece of music played through a portable radio or
a pair of Apogees sounds equally close to the real thing?
Bill Noble
do is change the breaker. put a 500 amp outlet in, but keep the 15 amp
breaker - you still get 15 amps, but you get less heating in the outlet....
come on -
"Pete Bertini" <radioco...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uPkMm.35132$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
Scott W. Harvey
Indeed...I had a pair of speakers once that, in terms of build quality,
and fit and finish, was about two steps above white van speakers. They
sounded AWESOME, better than name-branded speakers costing 5X as much.
I'm sure this was purely by accident, maybe the makers got a good deal
on some quality surplus drivers that week or something.
BTW, Rectilinear existed until at least the mid-1970s. I remember ads in
Playboy and National Lampoon around that time. They were positioning
themselves as a low cost, no-nonsense antidote to the absurdly
complicated and questionable designs of BOSE and its imitators.
-Scott
Scott W. Harvey
>> The sense of experimentation is gone and has been replaced with
>> a sense of salon mentality snobbery. That's not conducive to musical
>> enjoyment for me...
>
> No argument.
>
>
No argument from me either.
The guys I knew 25 or 30 years ago who were really into the high-end
audio thing were acquiring the equipment because they wanted really good
sound. Most of the stuff out there back then had at least some science
backing it up.
A lot of people who are doing it now seem to be more interested in
showing off, and a new level of quackery has evolved to serve them.
That's why there are $800.00 cryo-treated power cords to make your
system sound more "airy"
-Scott
Pete Bertini
"Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> you can always put a higher current outlet on any circuit, what you cannot
> do is change the breaker. put a 500 amp outlet in, but keep the 15 amp
> breaker - you still get 15 amps, but you get less heating in the
> outlet....
>
I agree, but Codes can be weird.
Pete
William Sommerwerck
> a 15 amp branch circuit wired with 14 gauge romex?
It's perfectly legal. A 15-amp circuit should include a 15-amp circuit
breaker.
Jeffrey D Angus
> I agree, but Codes can be weird.
>
> Pete
They (the codes) can also get a bit strange at times about
the total number of outlets on one circuit.
The newest thing is insisting on using AFCI breakers in all
"living" (i.e. living and bed rooms). As if GFIC outlets in
the kitchen, bath, outdoors and garage wasn't enough.
Peter Elem
>> Frankly, I wouldn't recognize "accuracy" if it hit me upside
>> the head. I prefer music...
>
> Then you're missing a great deal of the music.
>
>
Detail, yes, accuracy is a red herring.......
Peter Elem
"John Stone" <sea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6af34ce-4482-46f1...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Absolutely, especially when listening at the beach! I wouldn't want to drag
a set of apogee's to the beach, the super 1 ohm driving capable amps and the
extension cords............
Peter Elem
"Scott W. Harvey" <NOT_M...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hdtdt...@news3.newsguy.com...
I have never liked BOSE. The bass on all their components sounds tubby and
"pumpy", often over exaggerated.........On the subject of
Rectal-Linear.....A cartoon appeared in stereophile many years ago.....A
man's wife is ordering parts for him at an electronics distributor.....She
asks for a "Rectal-fire".
Peter Elem
rectitude....or the proper behavior...thus Rectilinear........
Many people fall for this kind of promotion involving subliminal
suggestion....... Especially certain forms of speakers , for example: An
African American friend of mine likes speakers shaped like a drum. Jews seem
to go for horn speakers......!
"Peter Elem" <pe...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:hdusg6$lbm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Michael Coslo
The reason is that the hobby is the victim of it's own success.
I'll probably be smote for saying this, but there are so many excellent
systems now that sound just great that people haver to make stuff up to
argue about.
Can you hear differences between systems? No doubt. But you can't hear
the difference between your feng shui rocks or lack therof. It's a Ford
Versus Chevy argument. The very fact that people get so shrill and
metaphysikal about the subject is the proof. If there were real
differences, the arguments would be si8mple and direct.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
GregS
>there are two types - a ring that goes around the periphery of the LP, and a
>weight that sits in the center. Sometimes both are used. It may improve
>the sound, I haven't noticed anything important when some friends used one -
>the theory makes sense - by adding the mass of the platter to that of the
>record, you lower the resonant frequency and get better transfer of energy
>to the stylus. But I don't use one - it's just too much hassle.
A clamp does remove a LOT of resonance.
I formed a simple test to hear the resonance. Place the stylus on the record
when its not moving. Use a light object to tap on the record.
You will hear it. Then try it again with the clamp on, and behold.
Its really a big difference. My theory is an vibration from the stylus
will excite that resonance, just the same.
There was at least one clamp made from using suction. But
Oh that noisey pump !!
I made one clamp from a rubber lab stopper. Free.
greg
>"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:hdndva$scp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Michael Black
> Scott W. Harvey wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>>> The sense of experimentation is gone and has been replaced with
>>>> a sense of salon mentality snobbery. That's not conducive to musical
>>>> enjoyment for me...
>>>
>>> No argument.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No argument from me either.
>>
>> The guys I knew 25 or 30 years ago who were really into the high-end audio
>> thing were acquiring the equipment because they wanted really good sound.
>> Most of the stuff out there back then had at least some science backing it
>> up.
>>
>> A lot of people who are doing it now seem to be more interested in showing
>> off, and a new level of quackery has evolved to serve them.
>> That's why there are $800.00 cryo-treated power cords to make your system
>> sound more "airy"
>
>
> The reason is that the hobby is the victim of it's own success.
>
> I'll probably be smote for saying this, but there are so many excellent
> systems now that sound just great that people haver to make stuff up to argue
> about.
>
That's the thing, forty years ago, even thirty years ago, it was common to
see articles and books that talked about the minimum specs you needed to
get "good sound". And that's because there was a lot of stuff that didn't
get to the level of those specs. Not simply because there was junk out
there, but because the field was still developing, because it took time
for the "best" to get to a price where the average consumer would pay.
Then those specs disappeared, the barrier having been beaten. You could
still buy junk, but it was pretty obvious (from the low price if nothing
else). The equipment hit a point where it was routinely good enough
(distortion, wow and flutter, record or tape speed, that sort of thing)
that one didn't need to worry except in the broadest sense (don't buy that
all in one system with the turntable built into the top of the receiver,
and even that had exceptions as some companies did that and didn't make
junk). What was needed for "best sound" became everyday.
And after that, it took a lot, in terms of money and in terms of design,
to see a whole lot of change. How much you fussed depended on how finicky
you were.
Michael
GregS
I think Bose designs are really very simple. Rectilinear complicated.
greg
GregS
>In article <hdnetc$44e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Bill Noble"
> <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>there are two types - a ring that goes around the periphery of the LP, and a
>>weight that sits in the center. Sometimes both are used. It may improve
>>the sound, I haven't noticed anything important when some friends used one -
>>the theory makes sense - by adding the mass of the platter to that of the
>>record, you lower the resonant frequency and get better transfer of energy
>>to the stylus. But I don't use one - it's just too much hassle.
>
>A clamp does remove a LOT of resonance.
>I formed a simple test to hear the resonance. Place the stylus on the record
>when its not moving. Use a light object to tap on the record.
>You will hear it. Then try it again with the clamp on, and behold.
>Its really a big difference. My theory is an vibration from the stylus
>will excite that resonance, just the same.
>There was at least one clamp made from using suction. But
>Oh that noisey pump !!
>I made one clamp from a rubber lab stopper. Free.
Everybody do the test on their turntables.
Sure.
I just threw away 2 DVD players into the garbage.
Its been a while since I had a turntable connected !!!
I do have records, and I do have a couple of turntables.
Peter Elem
"GregS" <zekf...@zekfrivolous.com> wrote in message
news:hdv32f$ihu$2...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. The Rectilinear was a closed
box acoustic suspension design. The most simple to build. BOSE is a
complicated ported design.....
William Sommerwerck
> excellent systems now that sound just great that people
Yes and no. A hi-fi system isn't supposed to "sound great" -- it's supposed
to sound like whatever material is fed into it -- that is, "sound like"
nothing at all. As no system I've heard reaches that level (except possibly
for the Plasmatronics speaker), there's still room for discussion.
> Can you hear differences between systems? No doubt. But you
> can't hear the difference between your feng shui rocks or lack
> thereof. It's a Ford versus Chevy argument. The very fact that
> people get so shrill and metaphysikal about the subject is the
> proof. If there were real differences, the arguments would be
> simple and direct.
You overlook the ability of humans to infinitely complicate anything.
The ultimate question/issue is "Does the reproduction sound like the real
thing?" Within that simple question lies a hundred points of view.
Peter Elem
When the first Edison phonographs came out I think they sounded like the
real thing...But the human ear collectively matures and sees the
shortcomings in old technologies when newer and better technologies are
introduced. I ask, what will audio systems of 2025 sound like? And will they
make that Apogee speaker sound like an old tin can?
William Sommerwerck
> the real thing...But the human ear collectively matures and sees the
> shortcomings in old technologies when newer and better technologies
> are introduced. I ask, what will audio systems of 2025 sound like?
> And will they make that Apogee speaker sound like an old tin can?
Probably not -- properly engineered planar speakers tend to have a much
longer "shelf life" than speakers using cone drivers. But one would hope
that speaker design will have significantly improved.
Scott W. Harvey
>>
>
> I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. The Rectilinear was a
> closed box acoustic suspension design. The most simple to build. BOSE is
> a complicated ported design.....
At the time these ads were being run, Bose speaker design was at the
peak of its ridiculousness. I remember one Bose speaker that had drivers
projecting sound against the back wall, up toward the ceiling, to the
left and to the right....everywhere BUT straight ahead.
-Scott
John Stone
"Peter Elem" <pe...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> I think Bose designs are really very simple. Rectilinear complicated.
>>
>> greg
>>
>
> I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. The Rectilinear was a closed
> box acoustic suspension design. The most simple to build. BOSE is a
> complicated ported design.....
>
The Bose 901 was a closed box design all the way through 1976. As for ported
designs, what's so complicated about them? Calculating bass reflex cabinet
and port dimensions has been basic stuff for a very long time. Today you can
design your own bass reflex cabinet with great accuracy, using shareware
calculation programs available free all over the net.
William Sommerwerck
> at the peak of its ridiculousness. I remember one Bose speaker
> that had drivers projecting sound against the back wall, up toward
> the ceiling, to the left and to the right....everywhere BUT straight
> ahead.
You're thinking of the 901s, in which eight drivers (in two groups of four)
pointed backwards, with one pointing forward. I owned them. Big mistake.
Lousy sound.
Peter Elem
BOSE was trying to emulate a pulsating sphere...Did a lousy job of it
though. The QUAD electrostatic with it's circular delay line does a much
better job.......
GregS
I think so many crossovers in the Rec was complicated. The orginal Bose had no
port. It was closed box. 9- 4 1/2 inch drivers in a wooden box filled with fiberglass, so simple.
No crossovers. All ther work was done by a simple active equalizer.
greg
Michael Coslo
The audio field isn't likely to change much, at least as far as the
quality of sound. What I would expect is different technology coming to
the fore.
An analogy might be found in the photography field. The chemical
photography field is very mature. Good photographs can be taken and
reproduced.
Yet we are switching over to digital photography, especially now that
quality approaches that of traditional film. There is the technical
potential to surpass film quality (certainly not yet, though - I don't
know if any of you have seen the results from an 11 by 14 camera) but
it's potential is there.
My guess is that in the future, we'll be listening to some different
technology - but it will be incrementally better quality.
- Mike -
GregS
The Quad had so much more resolution than the Bose. But I never saw any Quads
in the Disco. I did see a pair of ESS AMT1's in one disco in Vegas a long time ago.
for fill in.
greg
GregS
Oh, back in the late 70's it was hard to NOT to find the 901's or 802 in any bar in Vegas.
greg
William Sommerwerck
>> of four) pointed backwards, with one pointing forward. I owned
>> them. Big mistake. Lousy sound.
> BOSE was trying to emulate a pulsating sphere...
Not the 901. The 2201.
William Sommerwerck
> now that quality approaches that of traditional film.
It doesn't approach it -- it's better
> There is the technical potential to surpass film quality (certainly
> not yet, though - I don't know if any of you have seen the results
> from an 11 by 14 camera) but it's potential is there.
Actually, there are scanning digital backs for large-format cameras. Not
cheap, but if you're turning out a lot of catalog photos, they quickly pay
for themselves.
Peter Elem
The QUAD wouldn't have enough efficiency or output for a bar setting...It
would be blown up before it got loud enough......On the subject of the Heil
Hitler ESS AMT1.....My brother had and still has a pair. I heard them back
in the 70's at his home and was impressed. It's a remarkable idea as well,
which off course is responsible for it's uncanny clarity in the midrange and
up........
graham
<i...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cdrtf5df3puqchchm...@4ax.com...
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=110-439&vReviewShow=1&vReviewRand=2818820
The best part are the comments section!
I guess they don't monitor them.
Some folks have a great sense of humor.
Ish
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is just the start ... you need these to go with the duplex outlet ....
http://www.thecableco.com/prodListing.php?cat=93&man=299
Bill Turner
THE SAME TIME CHANGE THE TITLE. PLEASE !
CHECK MY WEBSITE: www.dialcover.com
Bill Turner, excuse caps, short answers, stroke.
Peter Elem
"Bill Turner" <dial...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15294-4B0...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
How about "Audio nuts get carried away on subject of speakers"......
frenchy
literally brought me to my knees."
Very funny!
D. Peter Maus
I talked to an old high school buddy, this afternoon, who went into
metallurgy. He's currently in manglement at a steel company. I asked him
about this.
There is a process where by a metal is heat treated to a very high
temperature, and then quenched with supercold gas. Like that emitted by
liquid nitrogen.
Cryogenic heat treating.
He said it is applicable only to some alloys. But very effective at
creating a wear resistant surface where it is used.
What he did caution that there is no firm specification for the term.
Or the result.
Anything can be called cryogenic heat treating.
Peter Elem
"D. Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:he2c21$8tm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That's interesting. He is in "manglement" at a steel company?
Peter Wieck
> breaker.
OK - let's differentiate between "code compliant" and "legal".
In most jurisdictions Codes do not have the force of Law. In point of
fact, other than perhaps NYC with its MEA numbers I do not know of any
such situation in the many municipalities and jurisdictions from
California through New York where I have overseen the design and
construction process.
Non-compliance to codes may call for civil fines and may make an owner
open to civil action, but not "lawbreaking".
Just a quibble.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> You've obviously never heard badly designed amplifiers with low measured
> distortion that sound terrible. They're uncommon, but they do exist.
Sure do. Anyone here remember the OEM Dynaco ST-120 with the 2N3550
outputs and no limiting circuits? Sure, it was 'rated' at 60wpc/8 with
vanishingly low distortion but sounded like glass in a blender on its
best day and pretty much blew up on a weekly if not hourly basis. But
it sure did test nice! The next time I come across one, I might just
preserve it as an 'example' of how bad simple amplifiers can actually
be. I would have to put sockets on the drivers and outputs, however as
it would be a close-run thing as to whether it would play or smoke at
any given attempt.
However, their latter-day version with the 2N3772 outlets, zener-diode
clamping circuit and TIP 31/32 drivers sounds quite nice after all the
other needed updates.
Peter Wieck
I mostly agree with you and mostly go along with your logic - BUT,
PLEASE!
Please note the interpolations.
On Nov 16, 8:39 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Speakers are not a crap shoot. You can hear them before you buy them.
No they are not to some extent. But even in high-end boutiques,
speakers can be set up under conditions that greatly enhance their
strengths and hide their weaknesses. And why it is critical to bring
your own signal (CD or whatever) when auditioning speakers so you can
at least be familiar with the demonstration piece. But despite every
effort to screen outside their intended home no speaker will sound as
it does 'at home' until it is at home.
> I'm not talking about "good" $100 speakers (and there are good ones) and
> "bad" $1000 and $11,000 speakers (and such do indeed exist). I'm talking
> about speakers that offer a high level of performance (measured and
> subjective) in a particular price range.
Sure, with you so far.
> Please answer the question -- are the room acoustics more important than
> going from $100 a pair to $11,000 a pair?
That would depend - but still, with you so far.
> Let me be specific... I have a $200 pair of Mission speakers in my bedroom
> that are quite good. The speakers in my living room are biamped Apogee
> Divas, which retailed for about $11,000. You're telling me that the room is
> more important than the speaker? That if I put the Missions in a carefully
> tuned and set-up room, I would get better sound than I get from my Divas in
> the living room, which (other than having a lot of junk lying around to
> scatter the sound) has not been treated or tuned in any way?
Um, no. But that is not the point entirely. What is the point is that
there may be conditions and rooms where the Missions and the Divas
sound equally good, or where due to other constraints the Missions may
actually sound better. Getting to the point where *treating the room*
gets more mileage than more expensive speakers in a bang-for-buck
equation. And further it may be absolutely true that the physical
limitations of a given room make the Mission speaker 'as good as it
gets'. I think that is closer to the suggestion. I think the basic
point is get the best speakers you can at the highest possible price-
point you can afford. Even I agree that speakers are really the only
field in Audio where continuous, worthwhile, audible (not just
measurable) improvement remains possible - even though my 'newest'
speakers are 8 years old.
> Obviously, if the room has lousy acoustics (and I've heard such rooms), any
> speaker you put in it will (at the very least) not live up to its potential.
> But comparing a lousy room with a decent (though "un-tuned") one is a
> meaningless comparison (not unlike Ivor's Tiefenbrun's claims about the
> importance of the turntable), because no serious listener would put up with
> a lousy listening room, especially when it doesn't cost much to fix it up.
> Whereas many listeners never bother to improve "decent" listening rooms.
As to lousy listening rooms, we live in an old house - an 1890 center-
hall colonial of something over 4,000 square feet. It is mostly
furnished in period furniture of both Queen Anne and Victorian pieces
as well as colonial style tables and such. The floors are hardwood,
walls and ceilings plaster with oriental carpets (2.5 years in the
middle-east had some fringe benefits), there are few but very good
pictures and paintings on the walls and few window treatements -
mostly hanging vintage art-glass and stained-glass pieces to obscure
but still permit full light. The main listening area is the Library -
17 x 28 x 10. Maggie speakers placed "wrong" for their design (hung 4"
from the wall) but greatly lessened the problem with a very 'live'
room. I had an equalizer nearly on full-cut for the top frequencies
before moving them closer to the wall. The wife-friendly listening
room (formal living room) is 17 x 15 x 10, lots of glass but lots of
plants. The AR3a speakers are raised just over one woofer diameter off
the floor and set out from the wall about 3" and asymetrically placed
on the long wall. Sound quite nice with no tendency towards over
brightness and no boominess either. Some tweaking to get there and
some grudging decorator accommodations from my wife - but she is happy
with the results.
> By the way, the Rectilinear 3 was designed by Jon Dahlquist. I've never
> heard it.
Point being that all things are of-a-piece and there are many
opportunities before one gets to the extremes.
GregS
GregS
>What is the legality of using one of these 20A outlets on a 15 amp
>branch circuit wired with 14 gauge romex?
>
>I'd be an insurance company would use that
>as an excuse not to pay for an electrical fire, regardless of
>the cause.
A 20 amp dual socket like that tell one thats its dedicated and able to supply 20 amps.
I would think any other use has some kind of problem with something.
However, I just looked at a power strip mounted on the wall by an electrician.
It has two outlets on the same breaker, so thats against what I said.
The extra little notch on the outlet still tells me it can supply 20 amps under
all conditions, but what do I know. ANother thing, the outlet has two sockets, so
my theory of being able to supply 20 amps is out the door. It would have to be 40 amps
total.
Audiophiles don't use 14 gauge romex.
It fuzzes up the sound.
I have a NAD receiver out in the garage connected by 10 gauge wire, but
its 85 feet from the breaker !!
greg
John Stone
513f58e2-a1bf-43c9...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "Peter
Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
I can't think of a single good thing to say about the ST-120, even the
modified one. Ok, they were reasonably cheap. But, a single ended power
supply with large coupling caps to the speakers, non-symmetric output
circuitry, slow NPN power devices, high loop feedback, etc. It was simply a
bad design from the start. I'd suspect that it wasn't the original
transistors per-se that made this thing sound so lousy. For one thing, a lot
of them exhibited high frequency oscillation, probably due to bad lead dress
or output devices that were out of spec. They also ran very low bias levels,
making for fairly nasty crossover notch-again depending on the output device
matching. Distortion at power never measured very good at low and high
frequencies, and it had little drive capability into loads below 8 ohms. The
TIP mod along with more aggressive hf compensation basically made the ST120
much more reliable, but the circuit wasn't fundamentally changed. It still
measured pretty lousy, even by the standards of the day. And for sound, I'd
take a stock Stereo 70 over it any day of the week. The one positive thing
the ST120 did do was sell a lot of new amplifiers at the store I worked at.
When McIntosh conducted their amplifier clinics, we'd end up with a stack of
the things in trade. Often as not, we just trashed them. The distortion
graphs were usually horrific, and there were always a couple that would go
up in smoke in the middle of the test.
Peter Wieck
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are dead-on - note, however the "after all the other needed
updates". This requires drilling of the audio boards and some tweaking
of the power-supply to get it to calm down. Really, the only full cure
is to de-rate it to about 40wpc and take it from there. But in the
$20-30 range (which is where it should be these days), fully updated,
it ain't half-bad for a workbench amp - where I keep mine.
Michael Coslo
>
> Um, no. But that is not the point entirely. What is the point is that
> there may be conditions and rooms where the Missions and the Divas
> sound equally good, or where due to other constraints the Missions may
> actually sound better.
Some times I think the entire system needs tailored to the individual song.
Which reminds me of the extremes taken by the Car Stereo enthusiasts. I
watched a show about this. They don't even play music through their
systems, and if they did, it wouls sound awful. They are after raw,
piston pumping power.
Even the audiophiles think they are nuts.
Which is to say, in the end, isn't it just nice to listen to some good
music on a nice sounding system?
And it's unfortunate that so many audiophiles, who probably started out
just wanting that good music on a nice system, end up with car systems
that don't even play music, and stereo systems best suited to playing
test tones.
- 73 d eMike N3LI -
D. Peter Maus
After years of building, refining, modifying and configuring my
own system, I finally got something that I liked.
I took a huge amount of crap from audiophile friends and
colleagues for my equipment choices.
But in my listening room, I have something that I enjoy, that
wears well, and, now hasn't been materially changed in more than a
decade.
That doesn't mean I don't experiment. I do. A lot. And I've
rebuilt speaker drivers, crossovers, recapped amps and pre's,... but
nothing in my experiements have resulted in anything that's driven
material changes in my system.
What I have found, however, is that I listen to music, or other
sound, all day. Every day. And when I'm working, I'm listening non
stop to audio I either produce, or sweeten. Out of the studio,
whether FM, CD's, satellite radio, or even vinyl, there's something
running on my audio systems all day. I just love to hear great
sound. My friends, and colleagues....occasionally they may listen to
a CD, then run more tests and execute more tweaks. But I don't know
of anyone who just listens to their systems.
Audiophilia is the love of sound. It's bizarre, to me, to have
made such an enormous investment in audiophilia to only use it for
tests and tweaks, but enjoying listening to sound only occasionally.
Their choice. Their money. But I certainly don't understand it.
graham
"Michael Coslo" <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:he46rg$8k64$1...@tr22n12.aset.psu.edu...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most audiophiles, I know, realize that you can't get true high-end
sound in a vehicle and they don't care! The venue is just too small,
noisy and has a limited power source. I have the stock Delco stereo
in my Chevy Tahoe.
Peter Wieck
> Most audiophiles, I know, realize that you can't get true high-end
> sound in a vehicle and they don't care! The venue is just too small,
> noisy and has a limited power source. I have the stock Delco stereo
> in my Chevy Tahoe.
Amen to that.
An individual whom I *might* admit to being an acquaintance actually
uses electromagnetic servos to pump his bass diaphrams. The coil is
about 8" in diameter with a 2.5" core in which is a massive magnet on
an arm that pumps the diaphram from a distance of about 4" away. Made
it himself, machined and wound it in his shop around the massive
neodymium magnets he had purchased for the purpose - this one, as it
happens:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=DY0Y0%2DN50&cat=168
He does not care about fidelity.
Kinda a modern field-coil speaker with the PM being the piston.
We use similar (much smaller) magnets to hold up temporary banners and
posters on store windows. Even those with thermal pane glass. One
magnet inside, one outside.
William Sommerwerck
> there may be conditions and rooms where the Missions and the Divas
> sound equally good, or where due to other constraints the Missions may
> actually sound better. Getting to the point where *treating the room*
> gets more mileage than more expensive speakers in a bang-for-buck
> equation.
Yes, but... Treating the room generally does not cost a huge amount of
money. And you wouldn't put expensive speakers in a room that badly needed
treatmernt. Ergo...
William Sommerwerck
> and able to supply 20 amps.
Not if there's a 15-amp breaker upstream!
Bill Noble
"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:513f58e2-a1bf-43c9...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
In their day, I repaired a lot of these - but the output transistor I
remember was 2n3255 - whatever they were, the transistors were infamous for
being an effective protection device for the fuse. But, I used one and for
speakers that needed power (I had AR 3s), they sounded better than things
with less power. I used to keep a pile of as I recall 3 parts - a resistor,
a small transistor and a pair of TO-3 transistors per channel - it was
always those parts and never anything else. And the wire wrapped around the
big filter caps to reduce oscillation tendencies.....
Scott W. Harvey
>> At the time these ads were being run, Bose speaker design was
>> at the peak of its ridiculousness. I remember one Bose speaker
>> that had drivers projecting sound against the back wall, up toward
>> the ceiling, to the left and to the right....everywhere BUT straight
>> ahead.
>
> You're thinking of the 901s, in which eight drivers (in two groups of four)
> pointed backwards, with one pointing forward. I owned them. Big mistake.
> Lousy sound.
>
>
rectangular with one or two drivers facing the wall and pointing
downward, and a driver in front pointing upward, and a couple of drivers
pointing left and right. The apparent idea was to have the sound bounce
off the walls and ceiling like the tennis ball in a PONG game. Ugh.
-Scott
Scott W. Harvey
When I lived in an apartment in San Jose, one of my fellow tenants
discovered that one of the outlets in his place was wired with speaker
wire(!). He was pissed at the owner of the property anyway, so he called
it in. Code enforcement came by and examined it, determined that it was
not properly done, and cited the owner.
The owner did nothing about it for 60 days and when the tenant
complained again about it the owner was hauled away in matching
bracelets and charged with a misdemeanor.
So, yeah, it's possible to be criminally charged for non-compliance if
you're stupid enough to remain that way...
-Scott
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> Yes, but... Treating the room generally does not cost a huge amount of
> money. And you wouldn't put expensive speakers in a room that badly needed
> treatmernt. Ergo...
It has been my experience that treating a room - some combination of
speaker placement, furniture placement, some furniture elements,
carpets, curtains, and so forth costs very nearly nothing *more* than
what would be done anyway unless one is of the 'sound-tube' mentality
- the sort that uses little catenary towers on their speaker wires.
Some speakers are simply wasted in some rooms based on size or shape.
And most often of all in my experience is that the 'listener' has pre-
conceived notions so strong as to render treating a room impossible
without heroic measures. The speakers MUST be here and the Sweet Spot
(what a crock) MUST be there and the placement MUST be exactly this -
drives me nuts. Set up the system, blindfold them - sit them down,
WONDERFUL. Take off the blindfold and it is all wrong, Why doesn't it
sound so good anymore when it is where I want it? Standing wave?
What's that? Nulls? Echoes? Why?
But you lost me at 'expensive' ;-)> Yes, very good speakers tend to be
expensive. But expensive speakers are not necessarily good.
William Sommerwerck
Then they're not Bose. Bose didn't make speakers like that.
There was an audiophile speaker -- I can't think of the brand -- with
multiple drivers on the surface of a polyhedron. It took the designer
several iterations to get rid of the very obvious colorations.
William Sommerwerck
>> amount of money. And you wouldn't put expensive speakers
>> in a room that badly needed treatmernt. Ergo...
> But you lost me at 'expensive' ;-)> Yes, very good speakers
> tend to be sxpensive. But expensive speakers are not
> necessarily good.
True. But I meant that if you have money to spend on pricey speakers, you
have the money to fix the room acoustics. As you pointed out, the basic
correction costs little or nothing.
Peter Elem
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:he66j6$58c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
http://shahinianacoustics.com/
Maybe that was Shahinian Acoustics on Long Island..........
GregS
A fire plug tells me its capable of a lot of water.
If its piped with 1/2 in tubing you will not get much.
greg
William Sommerwerck
> Maybe that was Shahinian Acoustics on Long Island...
Correct. Mr. Shahinian was such a nice guy I didn't have the nerve to tell
him how poor his early designs were.
In case it needs to be pointed out, multi-directional speakers (not
including dipoles) are fine for mono, but quite wrong for stereo.
GregS
Multidirectional speakers are ideal for making a sound appear to
be in your room. Thats an effect I like. Unfortunately most
recordings are not optimised for this effect.
greg
Bill Noble
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:he66n4$5gn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
There is a fallacy in that argument, and my living room illustrates it
amply - you only have X square feet available, and you have Y items that
must fit. Some, or many items may be of the type that just does not belong
in a listening room, but they are there for other reasons (such as the cost
of buying a new house with more rooms being more than the cost of the stereo
by a lot) - I have no question that I could improve my room acoustics, but
to do so would cost on the far side of 6 digits because of real-estate
prices out here on the left coast - so that leaves messing around with
speakers and stuff, or going with really good headphones.
And, even with cost is no object speakers, I've never heard anything
approaching the quality of good electrostatic headphones (like the Stax)
graham
"Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:he6jnr$2di$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at this custom listening room. It is fun having a
dedicated listening room. I had one in the 80's & 90's with only
one chair, lots of gear, dedicated A/C circuits with wall & ceiling
treatments. Unfortunately downsizing has eliminated the
dedicated room.
http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/view.mpl?UserImages=4961&session=20090921105654
Bill Noble
snip
>> True. But I meant that if you have money to spend on pricey speakers, you
>> have the money to fix the room acoustics. As you pointed out, the basic
>> correction costs little or nothing.
>>
>
> There is a fallacy in that argument, and my living room illustrates it
> amply - you only have X square feet available, and you have Y items that
> must fit. Some, or many items may be of the type that just does not
> belong
> in a listening room, but they are there for other reasons (such as the
> cost
> of buying a new house with more rooms being more than the cost of the
> stereo
> by a lot) - I have no question that I could improve my room acoustics, but
> to do so would cost on the far side of 6 digits because of real-estate
> prices out here on the left coast - so that leaves messing around with
> speakers and stuff, or going with really good headphones.
>
> And, even with cost is no object speakers, I've never heard anything
> approaching the quality of good electrostatic headphones (like the Stax)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Take a look at this custom listening room. It is fun having a
> dedicated listening room. I had one in the 80's & 90's with only
> one chair, lots of gear, dedicated A/C circuits with wall & ceiling
> treatments. Unfortunately downsizing has eliminated the
> dedicated room.
>
> http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/view.mpl?UserImages=4961&session=20090921105654
that would be wonderful to have - but that room is larger than my living
room - remember, I live where a chicken coop will sell quickly for a million
$, more if it has indoor plumbing
Pete Bertini
"GregS" <zekf...@zekfrivolous.com> wrote in message
news:he6852$6gk$2...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
Thank you. My sentiments exactly. A 20 amp wall socket implies that the
circuit (wiring, breaker, etc.) is rated for 20 amps.
Pete
Bill Baka
> http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=110-439&vReviewShow=1&vReviewRand=2818820
>
> The best part are the comments section!
>
> I guess they don't monitor them.
>
> Some folks have a great sense of humor.
>
> Ish
Now I've seen it all. Their tech looks like he might be able to fix
something, but I would stay far, far away from Stereophile wall outlets.
Shit, just go and spend about 15 to 20 dollars each on hospital grade
connectors. Those are rated for life support and trump audio any days.
PLONK=http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=110-439&vReviewShow=1&vReviewRand=2818820
Bill Baka
Peter Elem
"Pete Bertini" <radioco...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:HDENm.29716$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
In the evnt of an overload the 15 AMP breaker will open...The 20 amp breaker
serves no purpose in this circuit......