Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
....is unlikely to have this toy:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do. — Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909) |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. Just re-released as a product. Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 19, 8:48*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in messagenews:S72dnXHEG803IDfVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comca st.com... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... ...is unlikely to have this toy: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ Only $1589. This geek much prefers this .... (new release of classic, 1965 twin .... 100% vacuum tube powered) http://www.eisboch.com/65twin.jpg Eisboch I wondered why this was not done earlier. Do the "experts" say this sounds the same as the 1965 version? I don't know. *Sounds the same to me, but I am no expert. It has not been redesigned. *Just re-released as a product. *Same cabinet design, same Jensen "special" speakers, same tube pre-amps, reverb drivers and 6L6 output stage. I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. * Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Eisboch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Some of the new tube releases are pretty nice sounding.. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, things should get better. I just plonked salty and harry, as
soon as my other bud posts again, he will get the same. Last time i did it wrong and killed entire threads.. Think I got it right this time. ![]() need to be a little more patient.. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Hey Dick, let me know if you are getting my posts, if you are using Genes server to read and post you won't... -------------------------- I alternate back and forth between Gene's server and my Giganews server, mainly because it's interesting to see how his filter algorithms work. For example .... this whole thread .... originally started by Harry .... does not show up on Gene's at all, at least not so far. So you aren't there, but none of the respondents, including Harry's original post "Even the geek who has everything" is not there at the time of this post. Yet, all of our OT discussion about the Norwegian Utopia is there. I've noticed that most of the time posts on Gene's server show up much later after they appear on Giganews, although occasionally they show up on Gene's faster. Eisboch |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This just showed up on Gene's server, along with some of the thread started
by Harry, although his original post isn't here ... yet. "RMR" wrote in message ... Well, things should get better. I just plonked salty and harry, as soon as my other bud posts again, he will get the same. Last time i did it wrong and killed entire threads.. Think I got it right this time. ![]() need to be a little more patient.. On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... Hey Dick, let me know if you are getting my posts, if you are using Genes server to read and post you won't... -------------------------- I alternate back and forth between Gene's server and my Giganews server, mainly because it's interesting to see how his filter algorithms work. For example .... this whole thread .... originally started by Harry .... does not show up on Gene's at all, at least not so far. So you aren't there, but none of the respondents, including Harry's original post "Even the geek who has everything" is not there at the time of this post. Yet, all of our OT discussion about the Norwegian Utopia is there. I've noticed that most of the time posts on Gene's server show up much later after they appear on Giganews, although occasionally they show up on Gene's faster. Eisboch The above post by you just showed up on Gene's server, along with some of the thread started by Harry, although his original post isn't here ... yet Eisboch |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. I suspect it will sound good. Eisboch Which one are you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OXrmxDp44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6gDeGdQ3rM :) |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:19:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:33 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Does it have the original tube rectifier, or the later replacement? Hold on .... I'll check .... Must be a solid state (brick) rectifier. It has 10 tubes total .... (4) 6L6's, (2) 12AT7's, (4) 12AX7's. Eisboch Purists would find that horrifying! I have an old Super Reverb black face from around that era. Less power than a twin, and four 10" speakers. Personally, I think it was the best sounding guitar amp Fender ever produced. Something about the acoustic coupling of the 4-10" speakers just works really well for guitar. Amp-wise, it's basically just a Tremolux with reverb added. Like the other amps of that era, including the twin, it lacks channel switching, which makes it less than ideal for playing out. At 35 watts, it really isn't loud enough anyway, unless mic'ed through a PA. Last night I was pleasantly surprised. Over the past year I've redeveloped an interest in guitars and have collected a few, including amps. I enjoy the different sound and play "feel" of the guitar types and amp combinations. Two of the guitars are Taylor acoustic/electrics, a 6 string and a 12 string. When played through my old Marshall Valvestat, the solid sate Fender or the Vox amps, these guitars sounded horrible. So, I visited my local music shop and bought a Kustom acoustic guitar amp and the Taylors sound nice through it. Last night I tried the Taylors plugged into the "Normal" channel of the Fender Twin. Absolutely beautiful sound ... nice, rich, full and clean. I was really surprised. I haven't tried the EC "Blackie" yet. I suspect it will sound good. Eisboch Strat+Twin is one of the classic combinations. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
I have another, solid state Fender "Stage 1000" that has digital signal processing, etc. Sounds ok, but not like the tube twin. There isn't a chip, processor or digital circuit in it. Ain't nuttin' like transformers and vacuum tubes. Analog baby - analog. :) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
being a sailing geek | Boat Building | |||
Electronic Geek Announces FREE Web Hosting and FREE Web Mail | Electronics |