[Paladin79]

Sorry, but can't help myself --here's my two cents :

I suggest strongly considering a better quality >$1,000 USD 4" (102-105mm) apochromatic refracor. This way one gets exquisite naked-eye view of the moon, planets, star clusters etc, and has all the aperture one needs to do most any sort of astro-imaging, even on very dim objects. IMO: virtually nothing under $1,000 (for the optical tube assembly only, minus a tripod/mounting) is worth your attention.

Going smaller than 4", and naked-eye observation becomes progressively limited.

It's tempting to get a larger aperture for brighter naked-eye views of galaxies and nebulae etc, but there is a big price to pay in convenience and versatility in going much larger.

Also, the cost of a quality mounting adequate stable enough for astro-imaging with a 4" refractor is quite affordable. Mountings of similar quality/stability for larger scopes get very expensive.

There's also an important factor of simple human nature: It's quick and easy to casually move and set-up a smaller scope such as a 4", and so one is likely to actually take it out an view more often.

I hear lots of stories of people who have big scopes (8" or larger) getting a small refractor as a "second scope" and then finding they end-up using the small refractor the great majority of the time.

I'm personally quite interested in some of the 102-103mm apochromatic refractors being offered by William Optics. Beautiful machining and build quality, very well reviewed. One of those with a good Vixen tripod/mounting could be a 'hot ticket' at a modest price. Have a peek:

https://williamoptics.com/products/telescope

BTW: sorry folks, I know that's waaay off-topic. Just say I'm settling the score a bit for all the recent camera/photography banter and cat pictures

Right now my recommendations are coming from an astrophysicist as well as a gentleman who has right at 50 years experience. I am getting a larger scope but it will be quite portable and I have a fairly light camera with Leica optics that should work well for my purposes. Beer is not exactly on topic so never feel bad about drifting off yourself.

 

[rlow]

Hey all,

If you're going to RMAF, we have a surprise in store.

Not quite yet a product intro, but a preview of some very hot Schiit. Well, fairly hot Schiit. Because we're Continuing down a path we started earlier this year, and that path veers away from A nother path.

Said product preview will be in the speaker room. Yes, there will be (preliminary) specs and (preliminary) pricing. No, the pricing will not have 4 figures. No, it probably won't be shipping this year. But if we're lucky, it should be first up next year!

I'll be at the show Friday and Saturday all day, and Sunday in the morning. I hope to see you there!

All the best,
Jason

Those were just about the most poorly coded secret puns I’ve seen in a while. Kudos Jason!

Looking forward to seeing how hot that thing gets (winter is cold up here in Canada!)

 

[golfbravobravo]

Sorry, but can't help myself --here's my two cents :

I suggest strongly considering a better quality >$1,000 USD 4" (102-105mm) apochromatic refractor. This way one gets exquisite naked-eye view of the moon, planets, star clusters etc, and has all the aperture one needs to do most any sort of astro-imaging, even on very dim objects. IMO: virtually nothing under $1,000 (for the optical tube assembly only, minus a tripod/mounting) is worth your attention.

Going smaller than 4", and naked-eye observation becomes progressively limited.

It's tempting to get a larger aperture for brighter naked-eye views of galaxies and nebulae etc, but there is a big price to pay in convenience and versatility in going much larger.

Also, the cost of a quality mounting adequate stable enough for astro-imaging with a 4" refractor is quite affordable. Mountings of similar quality/stability for larger scopes get very expensive.

There's also an important factor of simple human nature: It's quick and easy to casually move and set-up a smaller scope such as a 4", and so one is likely to actually take it out an view more often.

I hear lots of stories of people who have big scopes (8" or larger) getting a small refractor as a "second scope" and then finding they end-up using the small refractor the great majority of the time.

I'm personally quite interested in some of the 102-103mm apochromatic refractors being offered by William Optics. Beautiful machining and build quality, very well reviewed. One of those with a good Vixen tripod/mounting could be a 'hot ticket' at a modest price. Have a peek:

https://williamoptics.com/products/telescope

BTW: sorry folks, I know that's waaay off-topic. Just say I'm settling the score a bit for all the recent camera/photography banter and cat pictures

Keep it up! I love reading info such as this. I may (having moved to a slightly less light poluted area than Oakland) get into this in due course.

I used to visit your neck of the woods often on the way to Yosemite (and did my first cross country solo to the airport there!). Sad the chocolate factory is no more (

 

[HumanFly]

"and that path veers away from A nother path."

So whatever it is, it VEERS AWAY FROM A.
I personally do not think it`s anything class A or Jason is starting to make weird typos.
Could be he means it veers away from not being class A too. As in it veers away from continuity(the other path) to class A.
So I guess he told us nothing and we have to wait .

 

[Oveja Negra]

"and that path veers away from A nother path."

So whatever it is, it VEERS AWAY FROM A.
I personally do not think it`s anything class A or Jason is starting to make weird typos.
Could be he means it veers away from not being class A too. As in it veers away from continuity(the other path) to class A.
So I guess he told us nothing and we have to wait .

Man, I read his post way too fast. You're right, it can be either way, so it means Jason is indeed messing with us...

 

[FrivolsListener]

"and that path veers away from A nother path."

So whatever it is, it VEERS AWAY FROM A.
I personally do not think it`s anything class A or Jason is starting to make weird typos.
Could be he means it veers away from not being class A too. As in it veers away from continuity(the other path) to class A.
So I guess he told us nothing and we have to wait .

Then it is the Continuity topology which was A-like in Jason's description. I was hoping for a bigger surprise! I'll manage to settle.

 

[riffrafff]

Sorry, but can't help myself --here's my two cents :

I suggest strongly considering a better quality >$1,000 USD 4" (102-105mm) apochromatic refractor. This way one gets exquisite naked-eye view of the moon, planets, star clusters etc, and has all the aperture one needs to do most any sort of astro-imaging, even on very dim objects. IMO: virtually nothing under $1,000 (for the optical tube assembly only, minus a tripod/mounting) is worth your attention.

Going smaller than 4", and naked-eye observation becomes progressively limited.

It's tempting to get a larger aperture for brighter naked-eye views of galaxies and nebulae etc, but there is a big price to pay in convenience and versatility in going much larger.

Also, the cost of a quality mounting adequate stable enough for astro-imaging with a 4" refractor is quite affordable. Mountings of similar quality/stability for larger scopes get very expensive.

There's also an important factor of simple human nature: It's quick and easy to casually move and set-up a smaller scope such as a 4", and so one is likely to actually take it out an view more often.

I hear lots of stories of people who have big scopes (8" or larger) getting a small refractor as a "second scope" and then finding they end-up using the small refractor the great majority of the time.

I'm personally quite interested in some of the 102-103mm apochromatic refractors being offered by William Optics. Beautiful machining and build quality, very well reviewed. One of those with a good Vixen tripod/mounting could be a 'hot ticket' at a modest price. Have a peek:

https://williamoptics.com/products/telescope

BTW: sorry folks, I know that's waaay off-topic. Just say I'm settling the score a bit for all the recent camera/photography banter and cat pictures

Still...there's something to be said for light buckets. I luv my 10" Star-Liner classical Cassegrain. Lunar features are no problem, either, since I have a tube cover with an offset 3" hole in it to "stop-down" the aperture.

 

[Xcalibur255]

Since Vidar is pretty new and very well received so far it might make more sense for this new continuity topology to appear in an updated Ragnarok.

 

[the finisher]

And I just bought a used integrated amp, so you're probably right.
I love it though, and got a great deal, it has a remote.

He did say not 4 figures though.

 

[Kn1nJa]

Maybe it's a tube vidar.

That would run pretty hot....

 

[riffrafff]

I'm hoping they are monoblockable like Vidar...

Now the real question is what will it be named? The obvious choice would be Thor, but since he stated he didn't want to deal with the trademark issues it has I wonder if it could be Odin?

Ah HA! "Thor" is mentioned at 6:35 on the new JAXX board tour video from the Schiitferbrainz (youtube) channel!

 

[the finisher]

 

[Paladin79]

Still...there's something to be said for light buckets. I luv my 10" Star-Liner classical Cassegrain. Lunar features are no problem, either, since I have a tube cover with an offset 3" hole in it to "stop-down" the aperture.

Somehow I thought you might have some knowledge about this subject Riffraff.

Personally I just wait to see what is available for sale on the Schiit site, I do not need another turntable or cd transport etc., and the piece I am interested in may well be facing delays.

 

[Derrick Swart]

You guys have to read well, in the speaker room! There you might find A amp that gets fairly hot for less than A grand, so, my thinking: it must be an stereo amp that is not class A but sounds as one for $999.

 

[the finisher]

Thor was mentioned for sure in the video. Thor! The boards are there for everyone to see.
Starts about 5:50

Edit: Don't think it's Thor anymore, Fulla.