Dusty Chalk

Oh, and we were going to get the Focal Sib XL for work -- looks like they discontinued the Sib XXL (the full-ranger in that line). But I think that was because we had like a $2K budget left for the speakers. Focal has something good at most every price point. Perhaps their Profile line? I would also look at Dali -- they have a lot of good things at a variety of price points, and in a variety of styles. As does B&W, Spendor, Quad (I love my little 12L actives)... Gallo! I get to listen to these just about every Saturday, they're really wonderful speakers. Of course: listen before you buy!

Denon uses a proprietary link -- I think it was Pioneer that calls their proprietary i.link -- called "Denon Link". It looks like all Denon receivers from the 3806 up have it, as well as all Denon DVD players from the 2930 up. (Just search on "link" within each page.) ...which doesn't really make sense to me. They should make one that doesn't have any of the DTS or HDCD etc. decoders (I.E. a "transport only" version)...but it would still need to do video. The Pioneers are also good -- StevieO loved his. EDIT: Here is a link to a Denon Link press release. A thought: no need to modify the analog outs of the DVD player, as you won't be using them.

I don't know if Pelican is up your alley or not -- they're more famous for their larger stuff and their durability, but they do make the occasional Attach?: link to their medium cases, and at a fraction of the price of the LV, a veritable bargain. They also have small and micro.

No. You could always get a good DVD player and the LG HD-DVD/BluRay player later, if you decide it's worth it.

Their (Outlaw's) prepro's are excellent bang-for-the-buck, but Hirsch is not entirely happy with the amp. You should probably pm him and point him towards this thread for his own take on his own opinion, I could be wrong (as he still uses it, so he can't be entirely unhappy with it, but also remember he's spoiled -- he's used Electrocompaniet and stuff in his stereos). I would think you would be able to do better with an i.Link linked Denon DVD player/receiver pair, or Pioneer digitally linked DVD player/receiver pair. And since home theaters almost always go with a sub, you don't need full-range speakers except for maybe the front left and right, since you want them for nice stereo (I'm a big fan of full-rangers rather than a 2.1 setup, but a 2.1 setup can be nice as well, if it's properly set up). I'd go with SVS or HSU for the sub. I'm going to be getting a SVS sealed design for the office, eventuallly. (SVS and HSU are subwoofer companies.)

I'm still liking pico or picoAmp or nanoAmp, I completely disagree with the DIY slant -- I don't hear it. But even so, considering Justin's roots, I don't see it as a dealkiller. How about Amplette or Ampette? Or if you want to give it a Russian slant, amprushka or ampichka. Or how about just David, has that been offered up yet?

Awesome. I love self-referential humour. Or whatever it is you call that.

What about Chick Corea fusion? Romantic Warrior is one of my favourite recordings of all time, and my favourite fusion album of all time. I also dig Al Di Meola's work from about Land of the Midnight Sun to about Electric Rendezvous. I realize it's more "composed", but I still dig it.

I got it, Dan.

That SH hasn't remastered Charlie Parker.

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs 1 to move it to the Lighting section 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs 5 to flame the spell checkers 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp" 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too" 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?" 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs" 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

Well...yeah, but...kinda hard to argue with that...but my attitude towards gear has always been that the better the gear, the fewer the impediments to hearing it properly...but yeah, I've heard good music on some pretty shitty equipment and still managed to enjoy it. I mean, look at what I say over on Head-Fi every time someone says their equipment is boring: "try listening to more interesting music". Yeah, I'm sure there's something in the SH catalog that would interest you, but I get your point, and agree completely.

Awesome -- that's probably DigiPete's. He's the first. I may have to get one eventually, too.

Yeah, really. If they ever stopped making CD's, I'd be dead.

It's got nothing to do with mastering. I've compared needledrops I've made myself -- I.E. with zero additional compression -- and have lost detail. Admittedly, it's not with an Apogee Rosetta or anything, but an Alesis Masterlink ain't no chopped liver. I recorded at 24/88 and downsampled/downmixed to CD. It's just not the same (although the 24/88 was perfectly adequate -- I honestly could not tell the difference). But I am specifically critical of CD, and not of digital in general -- I am a strong believer in digital, I don't even have a turntable set up right now. Don't confuse me for those extremists. Heck, most of my synthesizers are digital, I just prefer to mix them in the analog domain. I wouldn't mind going through the experiment again -- recording a record to high-res digital and 16/44.1 digital, and passing around the files, so that they could use whatever algorithm they like to create their own 16/44.1 digital files, and compare them. Thus eliminating 90% of the variables, but ... will have to be over christmas break or something, I'm swamped through October, at least.

They will if you have a cat...and you leave your records out...or you hide your stash in a record jacket...

So? A modern modern record is probably being done at 24/96 or 24/192, which a CD can't handle. Whereas a record will capture all of it -- so just because it's done in digital, doesn't mean the end result should be digital. I know the pedants over at sh.tv were whining when they found out the record version of Pink Floyd's Echoes compilation was done off the same digital master tapes, but L -- it was 24/96 (IIRC), which should still sound pretty damn good. Like I said -- you keep telling yourself that. I think you're speaking in over-generalizations. BTW, dynamic range <> transients. Yeah, those cannon shots would pop the needle out of the record. And it doesn't take as expensive a system as you're portraying to keep the rice krispies quiet. I'm pretty sure Hirsch's system (including cleaning machine) is only a couple thousand. I'm also pretty sure it can be done for even less (substituting a different table, and a more manual-intensive record-cleaning machine).

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. CD's have only just barely gotten into the realm of fully utilizing their entire dynamic spectrum, whereas analog has had decades more development. In other words, most of the CD's you have do not have the same dynamic range that vinyl does. But yeah, if all you listen to is live music, it's kind of hard to get a record cutting machine into a concert.

Preach on.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g-yrjh58ms]Keepon the robot dances to Spoon's "I Turn My Camera On"[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPdP1jBfxzo]...and Spoon's "Don't You Evah"[/ame]

To me, most Grados look alike.

Oh, okay, I didn't read the whole thread...sorry...I got overwhelmed when I frequented there...

Yeah, I figured out which thread it came from based on the one quote, and you're right, it didn't. And aerius -- awesome South Park reference.

So the mods here use moderation to forward their own selfish agenda, and to instill a fear of posting any other agenda...this is better than Head-Fi how?

Actually, that's not new -- you could do translucent windows in XP. Download, for example, Process Explorer.