Discuss Star Trek

"It's funny, how your feet, in dreams, never touch the Earth".

44 replies (on page 1 of 3)

Jump to last post

Next pageLast page

Heart, These Dreams. One of my favs from them.

Very good, DS. Check out this live version. It's my all time fave Heart performance. Nancy alters two words of the lyrics in the first verse. Can you spot the difference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGSy6n3SQhQ

That song also has a reference to an Estée Lauder cologne.

More of a fan of Crazy On You that acoustic guitar part in the beginning and than that electric guitar kicking in man that caught my attention when I was 7-8 years old hearing it for the first time.

@Nexus71 :grinning: The name of the Estée Lauder perfume that I was talking in the song These Dreams is White Linen. I've always loved that company's perfumes, which is probably the reason that that song is stuck in my mind.

@Nexus71 said:

More of a fan of Crazy On You that acoustic guitar part in the beginning and than that electric guitar kicking in man that caught my attention when I was 7-8 years old hearing it for the first time.

Imagine how it sounded to me, working in a high-end audio store with expensive equipment, even better than my own stuff at home that I bought from that store. Also try listening to Steve Miller Band "Swingtown" and imagine your shirt rippling standing in front of chest-high speakers. Those were the days!

Maria Kelly said ;"These Dreams is White Linen. I've always loved that company's perfumes, which is probably the reason that that song is stuck in my mind."

I'm more of a Rituals guy the Samurai-line.

@Knixon : Nowadays everything is plastic and flimsy in construction because most people listen on line or use streaming services. Which is a shame because the quality of that is lacking the warmth and atmosphere of the original recordings.On occasion I will record some music using a streaming service but if I record that on MD or cassette I usually use an equaliser to give the sound more "body".But even after that cassettes and MD's recorded from Cd or Vinyl (some 30 years old ) will sound a lot better.So when buying good audio equipment I usually go to a site similar to E-bay and Amazon where you can buy better quality (despite being used) than what is in most retail shops nowadays

But most of the really high end stuff is beyond my pay check and I seriously doubt at my age I will hear much difference between $2500 amp and a $10,000 amp so I usually go for the top segment of the "ordinary " brands from the 90'sand 00's and so far I've gathered together some fine equipment with the best sound I've heard and one of the best things I heard was a Quad amp with a Quad digital tuner and a Thorens record player and high end cd-player and that blew me away in my teens.and has used that as a reference judging equipment ever since. But what I've gathered together sounds as good if not better than that Quad set up (plus Ithe 6.1 channel for watching movies) .

@PhelpsFan said:

@Nexus71 :grinning: The name of the Estée Lauder perfume that I was talking in the song These Dreams is White Linen. I've always loved that company's perfumes, which is probably the reason that that song is stuck in my mind.

In the live version I posted a link for, she says "black leather" instead of "White Lenin".

Well, I also can't afford to buy a brand new $10,000 amp (Luxman, most likely). But I do have a set of the Laboratory Reference Series components from Luxman from the late 70s, in mint/near-mint condition (most of them came in their original double boxes with manuals), and while the original prices might have totaled only $5,000 or so (and I paid about $1200), that was in 1978. In today's adjusted dollars that's about $12,000. And I don't need - nobody needs - 6.1 for listening to regular music.

Here's a sample photo, although not of my actual setup:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/Turtlesruin/SNZOtT40jtI/AAAAAAAAAGU/tWhVHdOmBac/s400/DSCN1810.JPG

(I also have the very rare 5G12 equalizer unit, two of the K-12 cassette decks, and PX-101 linear tracking turntable. Those push the equivalent value well over $12k, I paid about $300 each.)

For my less ultimate setup I've found the dual-mono Mitsubishi components to be excellent. I have mine running to a pair of Polk Audio Monitor 5 Jr Series II speakers plus a Polk powered subwoofer so I can get quite LOUD when the situation calls for it. And they were also quite affordable. I got one set for about $250 from a guy on ebay who thought they were broken, but from the description it sounded to me like he just didn't know how to connect them and use them. Turns out I was right.

Again, not my actual pieces.

http://img.canuckaudiomart.com/uploads/large/890032-rare-mitsubishi-daa15-dc-dam10dac20.jpg

The top unit is a combined tuner/preamp, and what you see on the bottom is the power meters and control add-on for the normally rather plain power amp, which alone looks like this:

http://pictures1.kyozou.com/pictures/_19/18891/18890211.jpg

The power amp, without the meters, can also be "docked" to the back of the preamp/tuner, making a VERY intimidating "receiver." Although it may not fit on many peoples' shelves.

For home theater and everyday music I'm happy with regular dolby prologic, 5.1. I really like the Kenwood KR-V8070, which I've used for years. When the first one developed a problem that the shop told me would cost over $100 to repair, I went and bought another for less than $100 and it's still working fine. But to be safe I have 3 more of the same model, put away. One came with a 6+1 CD changer (6-disc cartridge plus a single-disc tray) for about $65 as I recall.

The Kenwood receiver runs a set of Polk Audio RM series satellite speakers and passive subwoofer. I like the older ones that are made from a "composite" material that feels like artificial granite, not the newer plastic ones. I have spares of the speakers too, including three new-in-box sets, one of which came from Goodwill in Seattle for under $100. (Original price was over $1000.)

The store I worked at sold JVC and HH Scott too, and that's where I started. I took a nice JVC receiver to college with me. Later I moved up to Scott, and Scott is still an excellent choice when looking at ebay etc. Several years ago, I knew a guy who was really happy with a Pioneer receiver connected to several speakers that he thought made a kind of "surround" deal (not a good idea since the total impedance was probably down to about 2 ohms). I sent him a mid-line Scott amp and tuner, and his first reaction upon hearing it was "wow."

Thanx, knix. Next time I need a sleep-aid I'll read your last post.

Jetfire said : Thanx, knix. Next time I need a sleep-aid I'll read your last post.

:laughing: But he has nice gear though mine is a bit more modern and nowhere near as expensive I glad myself to have really good sounding all-round bunch of gear with excellent sounding audio and very good home theatre sound for movies.

@Nexus71 said:

Jetfire said : Thanx, knix. Next time I need a sleep-aid I'll read your last post.

:laughing: But he has nice gear though mine is a bit more modern and nowhere near as expensive I glad myself to have really good sounding all-round bunch of gear with excellent sounding audio and very good home theatre sound for movies.

As you wrote yourself, in this area, modern tends to be overrated.

Well I've heard several older systems and used some of the 70's stuff as well and sure it has it's good qualities but when a large portion of your collection consists of cd's and have to use a cd player it has it's shortcomings (no offence) and to have enough capacity for the various formats of audio reproduction plus home cinema more modern equipment alas is essential and if the bloody thing weighs a ton (which my AV/receiver does) just like the 70's gear we can't speak of cheaply made or flimsy gear.when I spoke of the Modern stuff I was talking about the more expensive models for sale at the retail stores from after 2010 and filled with hdmi connection that it became cheaply made and flimsy weighing less a large bottle of Coke.

Do you mean primarily limited numbers of inputs? That can be an issue with older gear, which often wasn't made with many inputs because as far as they knew, the options were limited. (Tuner, maybe one Aux...) But I've managed to find better options. You can also use the old "tape loop" inputs for CD players etc, especially if you're not going to have actual tape decks. They're the same signal level. The only thing you can't do is use a Phono input for non-phono due to the much lower signal level and the RIAA EQ curve; and you can't use a non-phono input for a phono input for the same reasons. (Unless you use a separate preamp, or get one of those "toy" turntables that has a built-in preamp since modern audio systems tend to have no phono input at all.)

For my computer sound, I use a nice JVC integrated amp that has inputs labeled Tape, Tuner, VCR/DAT, CD, and Video/Aux. (Plus Phono, which I don't use.) Of course, there's no requirement that you actually use those inputs for what they're labeled, or it explodes or something. That allows me to connect 5 computers. And I have an 8-way KVM switch to operate up to 8 computers through a single keyboard/mouse/monitor.

Aside from telling you that they expect standard line-level signals, the only significance of the labeling of the inputs is a certain type of functionality. Mostly, whatever you select as the "main" input is presented to the "Tape Record" outputs for recording: Tuner, Phono, etc if you actually have a tape unit. (Or DAT or something else that records.) In my situation, I have a second computer connected to the "Tape" connections, both Record and Play, so that if I want to record audio that's happening on one of the other computers, as soon as I select that computer I know its audio signal is also being sent to the Tape Record outputs that goes to the Line IN connection on that other computer. Then I run an audio recording program on that computer.

My computer sound system also uses higher-end Polk Audio speakers, not any kind of regular (and basically cheap, even for the ones that cost a lot) powered computer speakers. That turned out to be a necessity for practical reasons, not just because I wanted good sound. When I first started editing video, I found that sometimes there would be a small "pop" or "click" or something during transitions - like editing out commercial breaks - which the speakers I was using before, weren't sensitive enough to reveal. So I didn't find out about the noises until playing them later on the real A/V system. By switching to the Polk speakers I was able to make sure the edits were clean for sound as well as picture.

Beyond that, you can use a high-quality switcher to select from multiple sources feeding into a single input (Aux or whatever) on the stereo gear. It may not have remote control, but I'm not particularly concerned with that. I found some nice Sony models (SB-V40S) that cost me $50 each at Fry's Electronics but they're worth it. They actually switch Audio (L and R), composite video, and S-video. Which is important for my TV recording systems. But for just the audio gear, I only use the L and R connections. And with quality Monster Cables, of course. Each of those switchers turns a single "Aux" input into four. If you need to switch HDMI, there are options there too. But I think it's best to have the TV do the HDMI switching, and the selected output from the TV goes to the surround system. So if you want more HDMI inputs, get a TV that has them. Don't put that on the surround receiver.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz