BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brett Winchester <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:54:16 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
Perhaps yo are right from the musicians point of view, but I did have
before I cleaned out my hd a truly scientific  blind study that refutes
that point of view.  Personally I still have a warm spot for the older
technology, however.  



>>> [log in to unmask] 7/25/2006 4:06 PM >>>
no no no!!!! the glow in the dark still has much supperior sound
quality no
matter what.
You can not get the same sound quality out of any transistorized
equipment.
You might come close, and certainly the smaller size, lack of
substantial
heat and feature rich components certainly make the non-tube stuff
easier,
cheaper and nicer to be around.
Any musician worth his sault will tell you that tube driven amplifiers
still
are far far supperior to transistorized amps.
The same is true with audio equipment such as stereos and preamps and
so on.
That said, of course, a 1948 am tube radio probably wont sound as good
as
your 15 dollar wallmart special bed side radio, but if you compare a
modern
tube amp, against a modern transistor amp, there is a huge difference.
tubes are warmer, have more head room, are cleaner, and can take much
more
abuse and knocking about then most transistorized components.
73
Colin, V A6BKX
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Winchester" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: alternative to Jaws....


> My parents had a Magnavox console radio vintage 1948 or so with an
am
> shortwave plus phonograph with an optional Fm tuner which we did not
> have.  This PA fed a pair of elelectrostatic   speakers and had a lot
of
> volume.  My wife's fisher vintage 1982 with 120 watts per channel
would
> have to work to race the older radio.  Or perhaps I am a bit too
> nostalgic.  I have heard that the "glow in the dark" has a better
sound
> but think that has been more or less proven wrong now.  Ah well warm
> sound nice "real" cabinet work Like homemade ice cream  on a summer
> day.....
>
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 7/25/2006 3:29 PM >>>
> if i were to guess, something between 45 and 60W?
> I know a pair of 6l6's in my guitar amp put out around 60W
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2