Posts Made By: James C Chandler Jr

Tony Aguire said:

Anyone have anything to say about Crown amps? I am looking to replace my recently toasted *sniff * Pioneer receiver. I would like to step away from the bells and whistles of surround sound and get a simple 2 channel amp that delivers good sound quality and power.

I was running
1) Pioneer Dolby 5.1 110watts/channel driving two front channels and a center channel
2) Pioneer Dolby Pro Logic reciever (old) driving the rear channel at 100 watts per channel
3) a 150 watt powered sub.

Article number one is now dead, which I would like to replace. I would lose the center channel (no complaints) but would keep the rear channel setup and sub. I have a pre amp that can split the signals to the appropriate unit.

Thoughts?

Thanks and clear skies.

Dunno how the new ones are rated nowadays, but in the past Crowns were well-respected commercial sound reinforcement amps.

Other well-respected commercial sound reinforcement amps I've had good luck with over the years, are Crest and QSC. I have a QSC amp I used for on-stage keyboard amplification more than 10 years and have used at home in the studio for about that long that still works good as new. Installed a stack of Crest amps at the old gig I worked, for main PA system, which has been running 6 nights a week for at least 20 years, no problemo.

If you can find an old JBL-Urie amp from the 1980's on, they run like gangbusters. Some of the JBL-Urie amps used complementary pair NPN-PNP output devices which gave slightly better distortion/transient performance with conservative biasing. I have a JBL-Urie out in my studio that has been trouble-free at least 25 years.

The closest thing I've seen to indestructible are the old Peavey CS800 amps. Peavey sold zillions of those thangs for many years, used and abused in zillions of nightclubs, saloons, and honky-tonks across the USA. Back when I was repairing commercial amps, in my area there were probably four Peavey CS-800s in use for every Crown, and I fixed lots more Crowns than Peaveys.

That is not to say that Crown was unreliable, but that model of Peavey was nearly indestructible. After I would repair an amp, the testing phase involved connecting a signal generator to the amp, and connecting the amp to big 300 watt ceramic load resistors, and running the amp near full power for awhile to make sure it doesn't get too hot.

Some "low distortion hi fi" amps, the heat sinks on the amp would get as hot or hotter than the load resistors. They would be dissipating more power inside the amp than they were delivering to the load.

The Peavey CS800 was just amazing. It would heat up the load resistors hot enough to burn all the dust off, too hot to touch, and the heat sinks would still feel cool to the touch.

Commercial amps trade off distortion against reliability. If you have an ultra-finicky incredibly low distortion amp, it will typically tend to run on the warm side and tend to die eventually. Commercial amps do not have high distortion, but the THD might be more in the ballpark of 0.1 rather than 0.001 percent. That allows a well-built design to run cooler and be more reliable, assuming it is competently designed and built.

Often if you want squeaky-clean, then the amp might need to go to the repair shop more often. Kinda like a sports car versus a dump truck. An honest THD measurement around 0.1 percent really doesn't sound that bad. Oftentimes consumer amp companies cheat on measurements, but commercial amp companies are typically pretty honest on specs, because they can be easily found out by their typical customers.

Just sayin, 200 watts from a good commercial amp is an entirely different beast than a typical 200 watt home amplifier.

If I needed to mail-order a new amp today, just lookin thru Guitar Center at likely-looking gambles, this is the cheapest one that looks worth the risk. It looks nearly identical to an older model QSC amp that has been very durable for me. Of course I'd do a lot more web research before pulling the trigger.

http://www.guitarcenter.com/QSC-RMX-850-Power-Amp-100713940-i1145670.gc

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/new.york.islamic.center/index.html?hpt=T2
Many people always wanted to know where they're going to get their money. Now we know...

Separation of Church and State?

I discovered that Birdman Weapons Systems was an old joke website from ten years ago.

The website is still 'alive', but it is so archaic that it won't display in modern browsers, and some modern browsers warn that it is unsafe to visit.

Found a link saving a few of the spoofs, though it says many have been lost in time--

https://forums.cabelas.com/showthread.php?t=17658

There is one Birdman Weapons Systems youtube vid--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_XX2lIT1tQ

Every prius should at least be outfitted with a high power electronic system which perfectly emulates the sound of a super-charged jacked up 1970 GTO with glass packs.

Though perhaps an acceptable substitute would be a mandatory 10,000 watt sound system pumping out Boom Boom Boom gangsta rap.

It isn't just the hybrids, though. Many modern cars are altogether too quiet. I bought dad and stepmom a new little Honda Element because they had got too frail to climb way up into dad's fancy crewcab Sierra land barge. The silly thing is so quiet just sitting idling, standing right outside the car you don't know it is running unless you touch the chassis and feel slight vibration from the engine.

Valuethewebsite. Interesting.

It says that my hobby website--

"has the estimated value of $159 and ranks # 11,574,401 in the World (Alexa). With the daily ads revenue: $1 and pageviews per day: 13."

They may be overestimating its value.

====

On the other hand, the little software company I work for, pays the bills for a couple of dozen employees and makes the owner reasonably wealthy, and generates a great deal of its revenue from online sales. So it isn't exactly a financial failure. But Valuethewebsite puts it at about the same value as Astromart--

"has the estimated value of $44,194 and ranks # 153,408 in the World (Alexa). With the daily ads revenue: $21 and pageviews per day: 1,096."

If Herb is making as much as the little software company I work for, and and he gets to keep most of the money, then he can retire any time he feels like it!

Wonder if it is really bad for you? In the quantities in question? Maybe it does more good than harm?

Health Food "experts" recommend chromium to improve metabolism, to lose weight and minimize the effects of type-II diabetes. Are the levels of chromium in drinking water anywhere as large as the dosage in the health food store chromium nostrums?

Rod Kaufman said:

Enjoy:
http://vimeo.com/6686768

Thanks Rod. Nice

Here is a 17 Giga Pixel zoomable panoram of Yosemite that is pretty neat--

http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/GlacierPointZoomify.htm

Those are an interesting set of questions, Keith. It is a shame folks may not be likely to make some kind of attempt at serious answers. The questions seem more interesting than yet another thread about theology or the lack thereof.

I couldn't even make educated guesses at the answers, but here are a couple of seriously faulty wild guesses-

Keith Lawson said--
"4. What did the first single cell organism eat to sustain itself? Primordial Soup?"

AFAIK it hasn't been settled whether DNA and proto-organisms originated in clouds of space gas or deep inside the planet or primordial mud puddles or whatever. Even if one desired to invoke a creator, then it would be about the same problem, unless EVERYTHING was created in a single instant?

Life has been discovered deep in the earth and deep in the ocean. Those organisms run on chemical energy drawn from sterile matter created by geologic processes. So if "deep in the earth" is the first origin (and only origin), then the organisms would not need any special nutrient soup other than what was and is already there.

Similarly, if photosynthetic organisms may have been among the first, then all they need is certain sterile chemicals plus sunlight.

Sulfides and such are common around volcanic surface pools, such as around Yellowstone. So if surface-dwelling aquatic chemo-synthetic life was among the first, they would have what they need without requiring any special formula except what already would have existed (and which still exists today).

Those are not answers to your question. Just daydreaming about the question.

Keith Lawson said--
"5. Again, since evolution is a developmental process, what would be the driving force to make single cell organisms replicate to produce a multi-cell entities superior to a single cell? "

There have been studies of bacteria cultures. Bacteria often tend to organize in slimy sheets. The slimy sheets have higher survival abilities than individual bacteria floating around in suspension.

In the past, sheets of bacteria slime were not considered multi-cellular organisms, but they tend to operate about the same as a crude multi-cellular organism.

On the other hand, it may not be an incredibly unlikely accident that some bacteria might tend to glom together in sheets. So perhaps bacteria sheets are a POSSIBLE first multi-cellular organism?

So one possible scenario might be-- Certain bacteria accidentally have the ability to sediment into loosely-organized sheet colonies. The sheet colonies just accidentally have better survival potential than individual bacteria. The bacteria sheets compete better in the environment compared to free-floating individual bacteria. Voila!

====

Some question of mine--

* Did God create the chicken first, the egg first, or did he create chickens and eggs simultaneously?

* When God separated the darkness from the light, did he wave a wand like Merlin, or did he just twitch his nose like Samantha on the Bewitched TV show?

I have Celestron Axiom 82's in 15mm, 10mm, and 7mm. I like them fine, as good as my Nagler 13mm T6.

So that sounds like a great deal.

On those ES 82 reviews you posted, there was mention of some lateral color. I haven't noticed lateral color on the Axioms or the Meade 18mm 82 degree. But maybe I wouldn't notice lateral color on the ES eyepieces either.

Hi Floyd

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Historical writings from the founders show intentions both for defense from invasion and also defense from a tyrannical govt.

Jefferson made some statements sympathetic to minor post-revolution rebellions, after the revolution and before he was president. Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion happened under Washington's watch, and Fries' under Adams. All were put down by leaders who had been rebels themselves only a few years before. After Jefferson became president, he unsurprisingly became less sympathetic to armed rebellions.

Of note about these rebellions was that though there was bloodshed during the rebellions, most of the surviving rebels were pardoned afterwards. Possibly to avoid creating martyrs and encouraging the growth of wider schisms. In case of a similar rebellion today, I suspect the majority of rebels would be wiped out unmercifully and any surviving rebels would almost certainly be executed or life imprisoned. So perhaps in some ways the guys back then were a bit more civil toward peed off fellow-countrymen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

"
Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as an ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he argued that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[17] In contrast to Jefferson's sentiments George Washington, who at the time was urging many through letters about forming a better and more energetic national government through the union of the states, in a letter to Henry Lee wrote in regards to the rebellion, "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries%27s_Rebellion

===

Re national defense, there isn't much an armed citizenry could do against a nuclear attack, but the following anonymous piece illustrates why the USA will likely never be invaded. Or if invaded, at least the invaders would pay dearly for the land. Admittedly this little anonymous piece is silly in some respects, but it does make a decent point-- A guerrilla resistance in USA would likely be orders of magnitude stiffer than anything Viet Nam or Afghanistan mounted, and those conflicts were very expensive even for the USA.

"
In WWII, Japan's highest ranking naval officer was Isoruku Yamamoto. Although he was Japanese, and his loyalties were unquestionably with The Empire, he studied for many years in America, graduating from Harvard University. There is an oft-repeated (and sometimes disputed) quote attributed to him regarding the possibility of any nation taking a war to American soil:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Here is why he was correct:

America's Hunters… “The World's Largest Army.”

The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great, considering there were over 600,000 hunters that got permits this year.

Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to keep the deer population under control.

But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

And that is just FOUR states.

The total population of registered hunters in America today ranges from 23 million, to 43.7 million individuals, based on annual data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

As long as the American Hunter retains his right to Bear Arms, America will forever be safe from foreign invasion of troops and our government.

Hunting - it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
"