terry9
Responses from terry9
| Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback Hello Rushton.Thanks for the update. At those spacings, any record that was not perfectly flat would not be cleaned optimally at either frequency. The calculation is very simple: wavelength = velocity / frequency. Since the speed of sound in water... | |
| Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback @bcowen Longevity is a very good point, bc. I have about 500 hours of US on my Elma, and it still looks near new - but then it's made for continuous use, 8 hours a day 5 days a week. | |
| Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback @ochremoon Hello Ochre. It depends on the energy distribution in the tank, and the actual US energy delivered to the chemistry. That is something you get (and pay for, alas) with a lab grade unit. And, of course, enough space for the wave to devel... | |
| Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback Sleeves. I should have mentioned sleeves.I like to use distinctive new sleeves for two reasons: first, new is clean; second, a distinctive sleeve signals that the record has been cleaned, averting that agonizing decision about a two foot long row ... | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? Douglas, I resent this. I didn't come to a technology site to defend science. | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? MB, I have to say it again, twice in the same thread. "Seldom have I heard of a more logical, compelling solution". I salute you. | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? davt, seldom have I heard of a more logical, compelling solution to a serious problem. I salute you. | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? mbl, you state, "if you have an instrument play live ..."I think that’s the point of difference, mbl. I don’t often listen to a single instrument or any other small source of music; usually it’s a group of musicians who can be playing substantial ... | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? No argument from me, DL. I am suggesting that top notch 6 channel is better than top notch 2 channel, and by that I mean the same electronics driving the same speakers. | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? Well mbl, I don't have a performance in my music room, ever. Even a string quartet with continuo would be a little tight.With my system, I try to simulate a concert, with the listener (me) positioned in the middle of the dress circle. That means p... | |
| Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback Moon, when I first started using US, I found that noise always diminished compared to VPI 16.5, so now I clean everything with US to protect my stylus. That said, some records are just intolerably noisy, although a mono cartridge can help with mon... | |
| May I Please Hear Your Quad 57s or Open Baffles? My opinion - an octave top and bottom, considerable clarity, but no, repeat no, loss of musicality. But YYMD, depends on what you listen to. | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? @bigkidz I absolutely agree with you about components. Every cap has a sonic signature, and so does every resistor. Active devices more so. Building the best is an expensive proposition, and few people have ever heard an amp, say, with all VAR res... | |
| Why pay so much for super high end? MB, the only place I have heard multichannel done right is in my system. That's not bragging, because it's quite easy to do, and I'll tell you how.Begin with a good two channel system, like ESL's. Double the Left and Right speakers, mounting them ... | |
| May I Please Hear Your Quad 57s or Open Baffles? Sorry to diverge, but have you considered Quad 2912? I have pairs of 2905's, and with some modification, they can sound very transparent indeed. Have you auditioned the big new Quads, Whart? |