[ricksome]

That's pretty cool! Gorgeous too, Tom.

Now I just need to blow up the picture so I get all the detail when I copy it.

Make sure you have different color Sharpies to finish the cardboard.

 

[ricksome]

If you download music from the internet and pay for the download (think iTunes), you do not own the physical media. From what I have been reading on this forum, you need to own the original physical media. I cannot connect the dots here. Someone tell me how a paid download can be legal?

 

[FLTWS]

High Quality Cardboard hand picked for uniformity of color and equal spacing of the grain pattern.

 

[theeclone]

Current state of affairs w the DL-103. Best it's ever sounded! Unhooked the fluid damping. I think it was just kind of compensating for lack of effective mass, but not really a true substitute, and I never could get behind some of the things it did sonically (there were plusses and negatives).

So now I have the cap, 4g headshell weight, and a bunch of 10 awg solid copper wire. 3 pieces wrapped around the counterweight, and one around the tonearm Keepin' it classy. I swear that last one I put on the tonearm itself was the chef's kiss. Have to wonder if the insulation provides just enough damping so that somewhat flimsy arm doesn't resonate when it shouldn't.

Things are much more mellow now. Had some hardness to the sound before. And moar bass! Also the reverb tails feel longer. That was one thing I noticed the fluid damping seemed to kill on each cart I've tried it with. It was like spatial placement was more solid, but everything was more dead/veiled.

So yeah this cart needs a *lot of effective mass.

 

[ArmchairPhilosopher]

If you download music from the internet and pay for the download (think iTunes), you do not own the physical media. From what I have been reading on this forum, you need to own the original physical media. I cannot connect the dots here. Someone tell me how a paid download can be legal?

Physical media or not, you are purchasing a license. A license to use the content for your personal entertainment, that is.

By re-selling your physical media, you also re-sell that license. That's why your right to use the content goes away with the physical media.

You can't re-sell your download, because the license to the use of the content is connected to your account, and with that, to your person. One could imagine a future where the re-sale of a download might become possible if the original seller would offer a way to transfer your purchase to a new account. But while that might be technically not all that difficult to implement, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath. Any re-sale, while legal, is seen as a lost sale by the industry, as they'd rather sell two licenses to two different people as one license to one person that later gets transferred to a second person without them seeing another dime.

The exact same concept applies to software, by the way. Regardless of whether you bought your game, your operating system, your utility application, or whatever else, on physical media or as a download, you have not actually purchased the software itself, but a license to use it. The software itself remains the sole property of the developer. Or their distributer. Things can get a bit fuzzy at times in this regard, but the point is that you never purchase the software (or movie, song, book, etc.) itself, but a license to its use.

(As an aside: This would be one of those very rare cases where using blockchain technology (NFTs in this case) as a means to attach the ownership to a non-fungible license to a person instead of the now-standard practice of attaching it to a person's account would actually make at least some sense for a change. But again: while technologically completely feasible, economically this wouldn't be interesting to the licensors, and so I wouldn't hold by breath.)

Once I (who, as a teenager got a letter from a lawyer about my alleged *cough* use of peer-to-peer sharing software, felt motivated to read up on these things) realized that you don't actually own the content—be it on physical media or as a download—but merely a license to its personal use, it made the switch to go streaming only rather easy for me. The usual—and somewhat understandable but not exactly legally correct—argument that "owning the LP/CD/etc means that you outright own the content" simply didn't do it for me anymore.
And so now, I see my streaming subscription as what it really is: A frankly ludicrously low rental fee to a planet-sized library of music that I can browse and consume at will.

Do albums I have bookmarked disappear on occasion?
Yes.
Does my access to the content cease the second I stop paying for my subscription?
Also: yes.

But since I never actually owned the content on all those LPs, CDs, cassettes, DVDs, and VHS tapes that I bought over the years to begin with, the whole concept of subscription fees and streaming libraries just feels much more true to the original intent and feels, as such, more honest to me.

Which, of course, isn't to say that you shouldn't buy or enjoy your physical media or downloads. This is simply my personal perspective on these things and by no means should this keep you from doing what you enjoy. To each their own.

Plus, buying physical media (and downloads) is—and will likely remain for some time—one of the more effective ways to support the artist. So it definitely has that going for it, too.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, just an armchair philosopher.

 

[JohnnyCanuck]

@theeclone

What is your tracking force? I don't believe it's the 2.8g shown on your tonearm.

JC

 

[theeclone]

What is your tracking force? I don't believe it's the 2.8g shown on your tonearm.

JC

It most certainly is! The 103 is rated for 2.5 +- .3. The more tracking force the less distortion I seem to get.

 

[JohnnyCanuck]

It most certainly is! The 103 is rated for 2.5 +- .3. The more tracking force the less distortion I seem to get.

I stand corrected. My memory must be failing me.

My first MC cartridge was a Denon DL-103. Bought it in 1978 with the Denon step-up transformer, a Rega 3 turntable and a Formula 4 tonearm.


JC

 

[streaml1ne]

One of the things I like about this thread, it's like watching a TV sitcom.

This thread is almost like the AI driven never ending Seinfeld episode that's was streaming on twitch a few weeks back.

 

[davidflas]

Cardboard may not look the same but go for it if you like. Show up in NC and you might win this one. I went so far as to find a piece of rainbow poplar for the base whose colors match. I am giving away five items so if fifty people show there is a one in ten chance of a person winning something.

Impressive woodworking skills!

 

[ricksome]

Physical media or not, you are purchasing a license. A license to use the content for your personal entertainment, that is.

By re-selling your physical media, you also re-sell that license. That's why your right to use the content goes away with the physical media.

You can't re-sell your download, because the license to the use of the content is connected to your account, and with that, to your person. One could imagine a future where the re-sale of a download might become possible if the original seller would offer a way to transfer your purchase to a new account. But while that might be technically not all that difficult to implement, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath. Any re-sale, while legal, is seen as a lost sale by the industry, as they'd rather sell two licenses to two different people as one license to one person that later gets transferred to a second person without them seeing another dime.

The exact same concept applies to software, by the way. Regardless of whether you bought your game, your operating system, your utility application, or whatever else, on physical media or as a download, you have not actually purchased the software itself, but a license to use it. The software itself remains the sole property of the developer. Or their distributer. Things can get a bit fuzzy at times in this regard, but the point is that you never purchase the software (or movie, song, book, etc.) itself, but a license to its use.

Once I (who, as a teenager who got a letter from a lawyer about my alleged *cough* use of peer-to-peer sharing software, felt motivated to read up on these things) realized that you don't actually own the content—be it on physical media or as a download—but merely a license to its personal use, it made the switch to go streaming only rather easy for me. The usual—and somewhat understandable but not exactly legally correct—argument that "owning the LP/CD/etc means that you outright own the content" simply didn't do it for me anymore.
And so now, I see my streaming subscription as what it really is: A frankly ludicrously low rental fee to a planet-sized library of music that I can browse and consume at will.

Do albums I have bookmarked disappear on occasion?
Yes.
Does my access to the content cease the second I stop paying for my subscription?
Also: yes.

But since I never actually owned the content on all those LPs, CDs, cassettes, DVDs, and VHS tapes that I bought over the years to begin with, the whole concept of subscription fees and streaming libraries just feels much more true to the original intent and feels, as such, more honest to me.

Which, of course, isn't to say that you shouldn't buy or enjoy your physical media or downloads. This is simply my personal perspective on these things and by no means should this keep you from doing what you enjoy. To each their own.

Plus, buying physical media (and downloads) is—and will likely remain for some time—one of the more effective ways to support the artist. So it definitely has that going for it, too.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, just an armchair philosopher.

Thank You For The Reply. Much Appreciated!!!

 

[HWB3]

Phew. Just got caught up. Went away for a couple of days with the wife. This thread moves fast. At least you know the North Jersey- South Jersey thing. Time for another adult beverage.

 

[tincanear]

Hey, @Paladin79... did you see this? <g>


Exactly. A big, burly, choke-input power amplifier shouldn't be affected in the least by a short hunk o' whyr... right? What's a few ohms here or there?

Well, the higher the resistance of the wire, the resistance in series with the speaker increases. Higher resistance makes the amplifier look more like a current source, which means that the speaker's frequency response will tend to follow changes in the speaker's impedance curve.

I went from a single-cable (4 total conductors), bi-wired Canare Quad 4S11 speaker cables, to the double-cable (8 total conductors), bi-wire BJC/Belden "OctoQuad" speaker cables. The difference was clearly audible, in a positive way, especially in the lower mids (where the B&W do the 'dip to 3.2 ohm' thing).

Disclaimer: I'm not a(n) EE, but I play one on the internetz.


Coming from you, AP, that's solid praise.


Emphasis on "non-shoddy". My default is AQ Red River. Bill Low of AQ said that he's most proud of these cables, as they really represent the knee in the price/performance curve. Well build and they look decent, if that matters.

As an experiment, I replaced the pair of 1M Red River XLRs between my preamp and power amps with the next grade up from AQ - the 1M Mackenzie XLRs. I really wanted to hear a difference... and I did not.

Agreed, 100%.


I share a hookup with four other units, and my in-house panel is a subpanel, bc the main breaker is outside at the distribution point. That is not ideal, but it is what it is. I chose to go with the Furman IT Reference 20i. It is massive and heavy, and it powers my whole system (yes, even the Tyrs). I am a strong believer in power conditioning, and I did upgrade my power cables slightly from stock, mainly for shielding. The system is dead silent with the input shorted and the gain set to 0db, but most of that is likely due to the fact that all interconnects (save for the TT & phono preamp) are XLR, and much less from the power cables themselves.

I want to set up a load monitor on the audio circuit to see how much current I'm pulling; probably will do something with a RMS clamp meter on the main power cable into the Furman.

As always, YMMV. /ds

dynamic loudspeaker load impedance typically changes substantially with frequency (e.g for 804d3, min is ~3 ohms @ 131Hz), but near the driver's in-box alignment resonant frequency, the impedance peaks to 8x the min value (25 ohms @ ~45 Hz). series resistance (be it from the thevenin equivalent source impedance of the amplifier, the speaker cables, termination interface resistance, etc.) interacts with the frequency-dependent loudspeaker impedance, causing fluctuations in frequency response (typ less than a dB for reasonable low-impedance cables). its not just the bulk speaker wire, but the interface impedances count as well (e.g. bulk wire to banana plug shell, banana plug shell to contact fingers, contact fingers to speaker terminal, etc.)

impedance & phase vs frequency plot for 804d3 from here:
https://hometheaterreview.com/bowers-wilkins-804-d3-floorstanding-speakers-reviewed/

think resistive voltage divider, Vout = Vin * (Rl) / (Rl + Rs) where Rs is combined equivalent source resistance, and Rl is the frequency-dependent load impedance.

RMS clamp meter on the main power cable should read close to zero (hot and neutral wires should have nearly equal but opposite flowing currents). something like a Kil-a-watt meter (temporarily added between wall socket and power conditioner) should work better. if reporting values to this thread, please indicate both volt-amps [VA] and Watts [W] measurements (VA typically higher than Watt readings). I expect closer VA & W readings for Tyr than for Aegir (choke input PSU on Tyr to have larger conductance angle, lower crest factor, higher power factor).

 

[tincanear]

I know, I was thinking more like $2 "bills"

isn't bc more akin to a $3 bill?

 

[Bonehead7171]

isn't bc more akin to a $3 bill?

Haha!!! That was my first thought but I didn’t want to offend!!!