iceman94

My reaction to the Merlins was also ehh, but I assumed that it was due to my tastes (I knew I was trying out more "neutral" gear, coming from a "warm" background). Interesting.

As far as speakers go, I would seriously consider smaller, Internet-direct brands like Salk or Selah. In particular, the Salk Songtowers look hard to beat in terms of the "complete package" (WAF, dimensions, etc.) in your price range. I haven't heard these options, but I plan on it sometime. Or, another option is a used pair of Merlin TSM monitors. I got the MM off of Audiogon NIB locally for $1400, they're probably lower now. I feel like they'd fit your criteria of "clean" very well, and their sealed box gives "quality" bass. My only concern is amping- apparently they're overdamped and more fit for tube amps, and my digital amp hasn't really gotten along with them that well- excellent detail, but fatiguing overall. Edit: Crap, didn't realize your total budget including amp was $1.6k-2k. In that case, postjack's active Quads look really good, but I'm talking out of my ass because I haven't heard anything besides my Merlins.

Sweet! I'm another Stover fan, found him through his Star Wars work. I'm glad to hear about the third Caine book, I thought it had gone forgotten. He'll be releasing another Star Wars novel this February, this time working his mindfuck on Luke, in the near-post-ROTJ era. Finally something I can look forward to \

Have you compared it to anything, or otherwise have any impressions?

I recall reading something about this where similar resolutions were already passed for both Islamic and Hindu holidays, so it might not be just an "Islam is OK" thing. It's only fair to do the same thing for Christianity. All the resolutions are dumb, but if you're going to do it, finish the job. And while the pie chart is meant to be mocking, its actually pretty damn true in some circles.

My mom told me some big storm was going to happen Saturday evening in the CT. *shrug*

So I'm flying from Chicago to CT on Saturday like right before there's some blizzard supposed to happen. Ought to be interesting. I love snow and wish it would happen more- of course, not driving in it is nice- but I hate all the slush crap it turns into afterward. It sucks to jump like two feet to avoid submerging your foot in some huge puddle.

I'd love to try vinyl, but too too many critical albums for me are CD only, so it's a no-go. I'll stick to my music, kthxbai. [offtopic rant]I sometimes see a similar mindset with overall system quality- people are like, wow, my system's so revealing that it only sounds good with excellent recordings. Well, what if some of your favorite music isn't well-mastered? Skip the "has-to-be-audiophile-recording" crap and aim to make everything sound at least somewhat enjoyable.[/offtopic rant]

I've tried it before, and I plan on giving it a more thorough audition this break. The things I really rely on in Bibble aside from standard adjusments are integrated Noise Ninja, a third-party plugin that does skin tone correction, and on occasion the healing brush. Doing these in RAW instead of PS is so much better. Also, LR seemed a bit slower, and the cropping was weird when I tried it. I doubt I'd use LR to replace Breezebrowser for tagging/captioning, either. I admit I kind of go against the grain for photo software- everyone's god in the newspaper/wire world is Photo Mechanic, and I absolutely hate it.

It has the most comprehensive toolset of any RAW converter I've come across. Older versions sucked and were unstable, yes, but I can do everything in a normal workflow short of good sharpening and CMYK conversion in Bibble instead of PS.

Good glass does make a big difference. Also remember that the price difference also comes from other things like prestige markup, build quality, and especially either being able to zoom at a constant aperture or having a maximum aperture a stop or two faster than the non-L. But there are non-L primes that match L zooms, and really so what if you can't match, coming close is pretty good for the $. The main point of me posting the image was an example of noise at high ISO. Maybe not the *most* representative, but still an example of what could be done. I didn't have anything else on hand to post.

Bibble > Aperture Unless you're browsing/tagging-> Breezebrowser. It doesn't run on Mac

A 1D Mark II is not full-frame, it's a 1.3 crop. The 20D's sensor performs similarly with high ISO- there was a time when a 20D was a choice budget second body to the 1D2. You lose build, autofocus (huge), framerate, and even more crop, but the sensor itself is similar. Furthermore, while the pro lens- a 70-200 f/2.8 L- does have slightly better image quality, the main point about it being pro is that it lets you zoom over the whole range at f/2.8- a cheap prime at f/2.8 is actually quite similar. What's going on here is postprocessing. Shoot in RAW, set the white balance correctly in the RAW converter, increase contrast by pinching the ends of the histogram, and good use of Noise Ninja. 100% view is NOT an accurate way of seeing what the final print will look like- 50% is a far better way to judge print quality. I've found noise to be more perceptible on-screen rather than in print, too. Also, a lot of people end up just using photos at web sizes anyway, but seriously, I haven't been able to tell much difference between web and 4x6 for the times that I've printed. Good post-processing also does NOT come in $600 Photoshop- I prefer Bibble, but there are a few good RAW converters out there for a lot cheaper than PS. There is a learning curve, but key basic points that make a huge difference aren't that bad, really. PS is good to have if you want to get serious, but it is by no means necessary. IS is great, but its easy to let the shutter go down too far and then you can have motion blur- its more hit or miss, but when its hit its really nice. The flash is really the best "quality" way to go, but then you run into the huge camera size, which could just be annoying and a social fail. I forgot about the Sigma 30/1.4- that might also be really sweet.

I also fooled around with a 35 for a time, and it was still a bit too tight on a 1.6. I think 24-28 is the sweet spot. Then again, some people love the 17-21 end of the L zoom, and I feel uncomfortable at anything wider than 70.

BTW, what ISO are you shooting at? Crank that sucker to 1600+ and expose as spot-on as possible, and with some noise reduction you can do remarkably well. Here's what a 1D Mark II (20D performs similarly noise-wise) can do at ISO 3200, 1/500s, f/2.8 on a 70-200/2.8- That's in a really crappy arena (Northwestern's Welsh-Ryan), and simulates other indoor conditions well outside of a really dim bar/restaurant. But, there you don't need 1/500s for sports, so you get more headroom.

I started off with a 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 combo...it was pretty awesome. The 17-40/4L won't cut it unless you're going to use flash, but if you're going to do flash properly you should get an external unit, and then bulk goes up like whoa. If you're willing to accept weight/size, you should go with a flash even with a 2.8 lens, you'll get much better image quality once you learn how to diffuse/bounce (I got a ways go to on that one). I started out with primes, but now I love zooms. I think primes are very good to learn composition on and the cheaper ones are a great deal, but once you miss enough shots you get sick of it. Depends on what you're shooting, of course, but fluid moments like people call for zoom. OMFG I would kill for a properly done Canon 120-300/2.8L IS Also, BTW, last time I checked the 28/1.8 was a dud. Newer samples might be better (Canon is a bitch at getting a WA correct), but seriously search about the lens beforehand. The Sigmas are interesting, I don't remember much about them. Go in a store and demo focal lengths to see what's most comfortable for you, 20 might be a tad wide. Or not.

Haven't been paying attention for a long while, but I'm satisfied with the Monaco I have. Don't know how it compares, just got it at the time (3-4 years ago) because it could do multiple monitors.

I do photography semi-professionally on the side- most people just stick with the standard OEM stuff (that includes Apple, they're not special). I probably can't talk because I do stuff on a laptop to be printed on fishwrap, so the professionals I know are AP guys and the like, but even most quality, knowledgeable advanced amateurs I've come across on forums (who are more likely to blow money on gear than pros) stick with "regular" monitors. Instead, spend a couple hundred on a hardware monitor calibration solution. I cannot emphasize enough the difference calibration makes. The Eizo is worthless without being calibrated- there goes your $2400. Seriously, I can't work on uncalibrated displays anymore, and find them tiring even for simple stuff like web. I'd probably even calibrate a non-photo machine, now that I know the difference.

I'd even shoot for ~15 ft., depending on the room. I think a good target to aim for would be to have excess even at the furthest reach of where you might walk. Of course, with speakers you don't need to worry about tugging cables , but you don't get a portable sweet spot either

Well, yeah. It would make things a lot more expensive, but you get stereo bass (don't know if it makes a difference, some claim it), and you don't put the money into good stands. Also, I think I came across a post on AC saying that one plate amp can be built in a separate enclosure to power both subs if you go for two, which would reduce overall cost a bit more. Most of the $ is tied up in the cabinets, though.

Just a thought, Omega now has a DeepHemp sub to match their line for the bottom end. It can even be used as a stand for the Compact Hemps. Not sure if this would alleviate any FR rolloff concerns- I know I'd be a lot better with a top-end rolloff than a bottom-end one.

396A is the Western Electric equivalent of the 2C51. This is typically used as a driver tube, not an output, and requires its own adapter. Don't use a 5687 adapter, they're not the same.

None I recall, just casual searches at AA.

Does anything stick out about the bass response of these DACs? Poking around, its the one major caveat I've seen in other threads/forums. I'd also love to see a Wavelength DAC put up against a Modwright Transporter (remove the opamp nasties, and I think the tube output stage is transformer coupled), but that's way too wishful...

x9 In my case (HD650s/SACDMods Sony 9100ES), I still stayed with a 6SN7 driver, my two favorite being the Sylvania 6SN7W short bottle and Mullard ECC32 coke bottle. I only tried the Raytheon 6414- it had great clarity, but was fatiguing and edgy. The Mullard was colored and midrangy, but nice every now and then. Basically, the Sylvania 6SN7W + 6BX7 was so perfect for me I just didn't bother doing any more work. Frihed, YMMV, but you seem stuck on the 6SN7 too, so finding the *one* driver you like might be a good path for you.