Jump to content

ermghoti II

Members
  • Posts

    5,963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ermghoti II

  1. I did see that, and didn't mean to discount it. Still one is left with a very specific solution for an issue that can be tackled in other ways, so it strikes me as a niche product. Where the L80s triggered a wave of competing products, I don't know that we'll see a similar trend with the FRX series. I wish Sabian the best though, their Vault/V Type/AAX V Crashes are fantastic.
  2. Conceptually, I prefer measuring head tension. The head is what you hear, and lug tension is affected by lubrication, debris, galling, and/or damage. People seem to like them well enough though.
  3. I found the Drum Di a huge help when I had no experience tuning; when a drum is really out of whack, it's difficult to interpret what will fix it until you've done it for a while. Otherwise, I was better off slacking all the lugs and starting over. Also, Drum Dial readings are objective, so they are a much better way to communicate tunings than stuff like "I get my top head really tight, and the snare head really super extra tight." These days it mostly just sits, but I did break it out tuning the resonant heads when I installed Quietstrokes. I found the ideal tunings were so low, it's extremely difficult to get everything matched up.
  4. I've been really impressed with L80s, for at-home practice, but I'm having trouble with these. I'd guess I could reduce my volume about or close to 4dB by using lighter sticks, and not have to refit my kit at premium. If one were starting from scratch, maybe, but I guess you'd better hope you're happy with the sounds available from this handful of models. I already assembled my kit with an ear towards controlled volume, so smallish drums with two ply heads, and thinner cymbals that speak without Gronking them.
  5. You ever wonder why a good electric instrument's tone is described as having balls?
  6. Two sides... Feb. 24, 2018 FYI- Re- Dramatic changes at Heritage Guitars As Heritage’s largest worldwide Customer/Dealer I was alarmed upon hearing they’d let go a dozen employees. The rumors are flying. So, I reached out to find out what’s up. I listened to explanations from Jim Duerloo, Archie Leach. They are OK with what has transpired and see no serious problem with continued Guitar building going forward. Jim felt they had way too many people anyway and Archie pointed out that the remaining shop staff is double what it was when he acquired the Company. My observation is from a guy that receives and inspects more Heritages than anyone else, and what I’m witnessing is quite different than what some understandably unhappy former workers are saying. They’re saying that the new guys are lowering QC standards, but this is exactly opposite of what the new folks say and do. Heritage always made a solid and toneful Gibson style instrument BUT the fit, finish & especially the setups would vary from just pretty Okay to awful. These “old Gibson habits” and standards are a long standing and well known Kalamazoo standard. Wolfe Guitars has suffered with this shoddy Gibson style finishing for 3 decades and we learned early on to either return them or deal with it. We became really adept at correcting the many Kalamazoo glitches. When Mr. Leach took over he vowed to do better, and he has repeated this mantra to me so many times. Has he delivered? YES, in a big way. Since he’s taken over we’ve seem BIG improvements in the new “bone” nut, vastly improved setup, vastly improved finish, and hardware fit. Still solid-toneful Gibson style instruments BUT they now look and play WAY better than before. WAY BETTER! Heritage are now delivering the absolutely finest Guitars ever, and no one knows this better than I. So, why release a dozen workers? Archie has partnered with a large worldwide distribution Company- Bandlab, and those guys “insist” the QC MUST be even better! Archie agrees and told me the long time workers have resisted the changes and continued their old ways. This is unfortunate, but I support their herculean effort to make the “best Guitars to ever come from Kalamazoo.” Am I concerned? Just a bit, as I’ve seen the results of their efforts, and I believe they’ll get the job done. I will say this- the last few Guitars we’ve received are truly the finest I’ve ever seen & played from Kalamazoo, so the proof is here in my shop for anyone to see & play. Their intentions are good, so I will give them a chance and I hope you will too. Sincerely, Jay Wolfe, WOLFE GUITARS, Jupiter, Florida-USA
  7. I've just qjieted up my drums in the last few months. I went with L80s (added the 20" ride and splash to the 14-16-18 set) and a Gen16 china, because I'm a huge douchebag. For the drums themselves, I ended up with Remo Silentstrokes over Muff'l rings, with some strategic moleskin and bits of kick patches. It was a little work, but I've ended up with a very drum-like sound and feel at 80-85dB.
  8. Normal. You have multiple strings and guitar parts vibrating, which are generating various fequencies of various strength, which sum and cancel differently as they sustain and decay. Look at the chaos in slow motion:
  9. I got my AT4050s for under $500 each, looks like that's not a thing any more. How close are the ATM250s to the old ATM25s? Those are fantastic, a poor man's 421, I used to nab them when I found one under $100. Surprised to see an EV20 is still sub $500. Edit: I believe the PL20 is identical to the EV20, but they used to go cheaper used.
  10. I got a D'angelico EXL-1 this year, they go on sale often for $899. They are pretty amazing, they come with lightish roundwounds that make it sound a bit folky, but with a set of flats in .012 they cover the familiar jazzbox territory, plus a surprising range well into overdriven rock territory. Also, they come with an excellent HSC.
  11. Abandoning headphone jacks to make phones thinner? What a laugh. They can make a phone the thickness of a credit card, and it will still be unwieldy because they insist on making everything with a 7.25" screen. It's a money grab, and/or an instance of asking what one can do, versus asking what one should do.
  12. There's that, which is fair irrespective of what subject the test is performed upon. However, there is also this kind of thing: "Many people feel that the true character of individual components is only realized after long term listening and living with the component in question. These people would argue that it takes time to fully appreciate or understand certain subtle differences that exist in various audio components." and "Many people feel that the true character of individual components is only realized after long term listening and living with the component in question. These people would argue that it takes time to fully appreciate or understand certain subtle differences that exist in various audio components." These statements appear (to me) to fall more into the area of "your test produces results I don't like, and therefore I reject it." Moreso considering how often the topic is something that measurably can not have an audible effect, like a network cable or pure unobtainium power cords or magic control knobs.
  13. He did a very thorough job. I feel it conclusively disproves that construction material does not meaningfully affect the sound of a solid-body electric guitar, but it really doesn't speak to whether a given species of wood reliably yields a tonal signature. I wouldn't be surprised if the conventional wisdom of the characteristics of various species of wood are way off. I got ahold of an all-maple Carvin neck-through, which I expected to be unreasonably bright. It was bright, but the brightness was exhibited in a honky to nasal range, which worked fine, as opposed to a shrill or icepicky manner. As another example, mahogany is considered a dark wood, but SGs and Vs are not particularly dark sounding guitars.
  14. $100 is very cheap for a microphone. Try used SM57s, which are everywhere, or in a pinch, the GLS 57 copy gets very good word of mouth, and can be had for about half that, including a cable.
  15. Nz5nouYnk5k#t=259 XwkErzvb1x0 hpPN31uH8s4
  16. Same forum had to ban discussion of DBT from their cable forum. "Due to the flame wars that erupt as a result, this, and the other forums (other than the Sound Science forum), are DBT and ABX-free zones and posts about either will be moved or deleted. See Jude's original post on the matter." http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/dbt.html "Why are DBT discussions not allowed? Quite simply, the reason is that these topics rarely spark a productive exchange. While a vast majority of Asylum inmates are firmly in the middle ground, the topics of DBT and ABX tend to force polarization and quickly degrade into death spiraling flame wars. Is DBT bad? Some think so. Others do not. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, DBT has proved to be the only method that is generally accepted for determining the audibility of small differences between audio equipment and cables. It does work. A problem exists when these tests are either done poorly or when specific results are extrapolated erroneously. DBT is also not necessary for determining personal preferences. What's the difference between DBT and ABX? DBT is a scientific methodology. Some believe that ABX is closer to a religion. ABX is actually a sub-set of DBT. Years ago, a group of audiophiles developed a box that was dubbed the ABX Double Blind Comparator. The purpose of the box is to allow fast switching between two things to be compared, A versus B. Fast instantaneous switching has many advantages. One's audio memory is short. Research has shown that one is more accurate in detecting small differences when the time between test stimulus is reduced. The controversy then becomes the question of what effect the ABX box may have on the audio signal. Is the box totally transparent? What effect does adding additional cabling have on the results? Proponents would argue that these issues are irrelevant and that the advantages of fast switching out weigh any possible problems that are non-existent anyway. Opponents simply roll their eyes and respond with, 'Get a clue'. Discussions get nastier quickly. Isn't this being unscientific? Again, some may think so. In reality, there are many methods for determining preferences and accuracy of audio components. Measurement data is far more accurate than one's ears. DBT is simply one procedure. DBT does a great job in removing bias from comparisons. However, DBT does not imply that differences do not exist, only that these differences in this test, are below the levels of general audibility. Many people feel that the true character of individual components is only realized after long term listening and living with the component in question. These people would argue that it takes time to fully appreciate or understand certain subtle differences that exist in various audio components."
  17. "We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains. Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree. Common sense people...." http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/60#post_6640111 http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/60
  18. I'm pretty happy with the features on 2016s. Before that, the 2015s have some odd features, the goofy tuners are replaceable, but they also have a fretboard with wide shoulders (space outside the strings) and a funny adjustable nut and zero fret. If these things don't bother you, they are blowing them out. Also, some late 2015s don't have those features. The 2014s had an anniversary logo at the 12th fret, the 2012s had two piece fingerboards due to Gibson's import troubles. Some people view the 2013s as an oasis among some quirkier years, I think Traditionals from then aren't even weight relieved, so overall, as close as you'll get to the50s design without paying for a reissue. 2011 and prior, the variations are pretty minor. I have a 2010 Traditional Pro, which I like a lot. There are occasionally little windows where maybe different caps were employed, or supposedly there was a good run of tops, or whatever If you're into slender necks, look at the Classics, they started chambering them around 2007 IIRC, making for lighter weight and brighter sound. The Traditional Pro from 2010-2011 are also slim in the necks, but the Traditional Pro II is not all that close to the original T. Pros, the Signature T being more similar. Etc etc. In a given year, Gibson might have 20-40 Les Paul models, so it's all going to be your preference.
  19. Every era has individual pieces that are gems, and some that are disasters. Worry about which years have feature sets you like or would prefer to avoid.
  20. It was pretty Alice in Wonderland. Something to the effect that if you don't know what to listen for, you could miss it. Basically, the reason why you need a double blind test was the reason they were opposed to it. I think it really boiled down to the fact that their sacred cows (probably magic cables or something) were proved inaudible, and they *knew* they made a huge difference in *their* experience, therefore the test must be wrong.
  21. I have rarely been so horrified at the state of humanity as when I discovered there is a subset of the audiophile community that insists that blind testing makes a comparison of audio components invalid.
  22. I was thinking about this years ago, maybe even before 2000. The death of cover art, liner notes, lyric sheets. I wanted to release a CD in a 12" sleeve. Wouldn't have worked, retailers would have balked at the format. Imbedded pdf's sound good... but the public would have to care, and since they don't care about the music enough to pay for it...
×
×
  • Create New...