Dusty Chalk

We all complain about sibilant gear, but microphones and associated gear can put the sibilance right on the source, so tell me about some of your ...erm... favorites? I'll tell you why I'm asking later. Doesn't matter if the music is good or bad, I'm more interested in the acoustic properties of the recordings.

I don't think the problem is the procedure, I think the problem is with donor availability. Maybe you can make a deal with the proprietor of "Le Basement"?

Mmm...Shahinian. I have a pair of Obelisks. Love them. One of these days, I'm going to upgrade to the Diapason Ensemble.

Seagate 1TB, US$80 @ Amazon gold box (today only)

Not only do I have the shiny gold one (note: not gold looking, that is actual 18 carat gold plate -- ultra-bling), I have the one that Stereophile reviewed. Right now, it's not powering anything. The last pair of speakers that it drove were a pair of Pioneer HPM-200's. I intend to try it out with my recently acquired K1000's.

As was stated before, I'm pretty sure this does not exist.

There's a right one?

Notice: with beer, not in beer.

I have to find that "dispense bacon into hands"/"throw bacon at face" image.

"...saw the new iPod Shuffle -- it looks like a tampon."

In their defense, they don't say it doesn't touch the PCB's, they say the audio signal never travels over PCB traces, I.E. the PCB is still hand-wired -- and I have to admit, I don't see any traces.

Me: put LotR on hold temporarily, had a hankering for some Kenji Kawai (GitS/GitS2:I). Although there is some truth to that...it's not true. (does the usual "wanders off" bit)

Whatever -- I think his point was that it's not number of clicks, it's number of clicks + 1.

I may be talking out of my ass (again), but I would think it would be easier on the line-level side -- you could make the input and output impedances more friendly to gear that isn't, as an added benefit of the device.

...raised In other news, eMusic subscriptions are up. (Alright, that's not news, that's a prediction.)

They only play one note at a time.

On a theoretical basis, I could see this as being possible. You could have prisms (or mirrors with very clean edges) split the light into its associated receptor and the alternate channels receptor, and adjust the levels of each by how much into the lightbeam you edged the mirror in. You could also make other more fine-tuned adjustments by filling the intermediate volume with gas suspensions with different opacities. Smoke, perhaps.

Also, repairs will be easier (should anything accidentally happen to the amp), since Justin will in most likelihood still be in business.

Yeah, but notice that wasn't his plan.

They ought to just rename the forum.

I really like LZ, I think they did what they did well, although it wasn't entirely original. I mean, isn't there an entire album of the material from which they culled most of their stuff (especially the first and second albums). Me: epic Lord-of-the-Rings complete soundtrack listening -- it's epic.

It's more of a griller.

I've heard both, and you're getting at that level where it's not so much that one is better than the other, so much as which one aligns with your tastes more. They're not very different -- I mean, c'mon, they're both "best ever" type amps -- but there might be subtle differences between the two, especially with multiple electrostatics, that might make you prefer one or the other with a certain pair of earspeakers. You should wait until you get it and then decide. It's really good -- you should at least hear it.

I love Manley. I own a Stingray. That said, yes, the word, 'ridiculous' does come to mind. Dew et anyway.

No, the Beekeeper was really good. Her low point was the covers album.