On 5/9/2019 15:21, Howard Stone wrote:

The speakers I have are really annoying because, to get them sounding as good as they should, they need to be positioned in places I don't want them to be. 1m from walls etc.

I want my speakers low down and unobtrusive, or high up on bookshelves. I want them hiding away in corners and right up against walls. And I want speakers which are flexible, which can be moved anywhere.

Are there any solutions to this problem? Solutions I can implement myself without taking a degree in acoustics?

Here's an idea. Can I use DSPs to compensate for all the bass boom I get out of classic speakers if I put them where I want them to be rather than where they want to be? And can I do it simply and affordably?

This is the biggest weakness of classic speakers IMO, and why Quad, Rogers, Spendor etc really don't give people what they want. I'm hoping that 21st century technology will come to the rescue.

I don't know about the "low", but Audio Note AN-K, AN-X would fit the
"small" and do well in the corner.

The low part is difficult because (generally) the tweeter ought to be
about ear height. While not optimal, this can be ameliorated somewhat by putting them in a bookshelf.

The AN-E series are much nicer but bigger and more expensive and not
suited to being on bookshelves, but are really designed for corner
placement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The speakers I have are really annoying because, to get them sounding as good as they should, they need to be positioned in places I don't want them to be. 1m from walls etc.

I want my speakers low down and unobtrusive, or high up on bookshelves. I want them hiding away in corners and right up against walls. And I want speakers which are flexible, which can be moved anywhere.

Are there any solutions to this problem? Solutions I can implement myself without taking a degree in acoustics?

Here's an idea. Can I use DSPs to compensate for all the bass boom I get out of classic speakers if I put them where I want them to be rather than where they want to be? And can I do it simply and affordably?

This is the biggest weakness of classic speakers IMO, and why Quad, Rogers, Spendor etc really don't give people what they want. I'm hoping that 21st century technology will come to the rescue.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 6:21:40 PM UTC-4, Howard Stone wrote:

The speakers I have are really annoying because, to get them sounding as good as they should, they need to be positioned in places I don't want them to be. 1m from walls etc.

I want my speakers low down and unobtrusive, or high up on bookshelves. I want them hiding away in corners and right up against walls. And I want speakers which are flexible, which can be moved anywhere.

As it happens, and apart from (very) exceptional room acoustics, your dilemma was addressed quite specifically by no less than Acoustic Research and Edgar Villchur back in the dim and distant 1960s. And, much of the ARs designs historically were based on
solving placement issues.

All of the above based on minimum 8"/200 mm woofers and against the wall in "conventional" box-type front-firing speakers. Smaller woofers are hopeless in delivering clean bass unless in many multiples - which brings on more problems than it solves.

As follows:

Starting on the LONG wall of the listening room:

a) Place speaker A at the 1/4 point from one corner. Makes no difference which. The woofer should be at least one (1) woofer diameter off the floor - making the center-line at 1.5 diameters. The tweets should be IN or UP.
b) Place speaker B at the 1/3 point from the opposite corner.
c) While playing a full-range, well-recorded, familiar signal at normal/slightly lower volume, tweak Speaker B to achieve the best sound-stage. 95% of the time, B will move closer to A. Starting out, your sound-stage will be ~2/3 as wide as the distance
between the speakers and about as deep as half the distance between them.
d) Once you have achieved a comfortable sound-stage, tweak either/both speaker heights to achieve the best possible signal balance. If you have wide-dispersion (as in dome) tweets (and, ideally mid-ranges) *YOUR* ear level will not be critical.

And, this should do it - excepting very strange rooms or strangely shaped rooms.

Notes:

1. At no time should the speakers be symmetrical on a given wall _UNLESS_ there is something between them (such as a fireplace) that renders their relationship asymmetrical within the room. Symmetrical placement invites standing waves, cancellation waves
and other forms of interference. For the same reason, no speaker should be placed at a mind-point between two walls.
2. Exactly the same exercise obtains on the short wall, except that bass will be enhanced, sometimes too much.
3. Exactly the same exercise obtains from the ceiling rather than the floor - but the speakers should be bass-up if vertical in that exercise. No change if on their sides - tweets in.
4. With good speakers (clean response curve) final placement will very much depend on the listener and his/her preferences. And, therefore why the exercise should be with all settings "FLAT" and with familiar and full-range signal. Changes from a good
start will not require changes in speaker location(s).

And to repeat: NOT SYMMETRICAL!

Once you have found a configuration that pleases you - give it a week. Mark the locations in some way, then start over but with a different signal. If you wind up at the same points, you are done. And, of course, inches do make a difference - and why you
should give it time until you are very happy with the result.

Side note: AR added a center-channel to its flagship receiver as back when stereo was "new", recording engineers often exaggerated separation as an "Oh, WOW!" factor. And David Hafler designed the Hafler Circuit to address that issue, which evolved into
the Poor Man's Quadraphonic system. Be careful that the signal you use is well engineered *and* well recorded.

Best of luck - you don't need any "stinking DSP" for good sound!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-4, Ed Presson wrote:

Do you have any ideas about how these recommendations apply to dipole speakers?

As it happens, I keep Maggies (MGIIIa) on the main system. By default, and after much finagling, they wound up in the corners, 45 degrees splayed and with the back-foot about 18" from the wall on the short wall of a 17' x 27' x 10' room. They need all
the bass reinforcement they can get, and the treble is so well dispersed that the backs firing into a corner give a very nice depth-of-field. That they are fed by a brute-force power-amp helps a great deal as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter,

Thanks for the post on the AR recommendations. Somehow, I never saw their results this complete, although I'm old enough.

Do you have any ideas about how these recommendations apply to dipole
speakers?

Ed Presson

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message news:gjtah2F7ktaU1@mid.individual.net...

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 6:21:40 PM UTC-4, Howard Stone wrote:

The speakers I have are really annoying because, to get them sounding as
good as they should, they need to be positioned in places I don't want
them to be. 1m from walls etc.

I want my speakers low down and unobtrusive, or high up on bookshelves. I want them hiding away in corners and right up against walls. And I want speakers which are flexible, which can be moved anywhere.

As it happens, and apart from (very) exceptional room acoustics, your
dilemma was addressed quite specifically by no less than Acoustic Research
and Edgar Villchur back in the dim and distant 1960s. And, much of the ARs designs historically were based on solving placement issues.

All of the above based on minimum 8"/200 mm woofers and against the wall in "conventional" box-type front-firing speakers. Smaller woofers are hopeless
in delivering clean bass unless in many multiples - which brings on more problems than it solves.

As follows:

Starting on the LONG wall of the listening room:

a) Place speaker A at the 1/4 point from one corner. Makes no difference
which. The woofer should be at least one (1) woofer diameter off the floor - making the center-line at 1.5 diameters. The tweets should be IN or UP.
b) Place speaker B at the 1/3 point from the opposite corner.
c) While playing a full-range, well-recorded, familiar signal at normal/slightly lower volume, tweak Speaker B to achieve the best
sound-stage. 95% of the time, B will move closer to A. Starting out, your sound-stage will be ~2/3 as wide as the distance between the speakers and
about as deep as half the distance between them.
d) Once you have achieved a comfortable sound-stage, tweak either/both
speaker heights to achieve the best possible signal balance. If you have wide-dispersion (as in dome) tweets (and, ideally mid-ranges) *YOUR* ear
level will not be critical.

And, this should do it - excepting very strange rooms or strangely shaped rooms.

Notes:

1. At no time should the speakers be symmetrical on a given wall _UNLESS_
there is something between them (such as a fireplace) that renders their relationship asymmetrical within the room. Symmetrical placement invites standing waves, cancellation waves and other forms of interference. For the same reason, no speaker should be placed at a mind-point between two walls.
2. Exactly the same exercise obtains on the short wall, except that bass
will be enhanced, sometimes too much.
3. Exactly the same exercise obtains from the ceiling rather than the
floor - but the speakers should be bass-up if vertical in that exercise. No change if on their sides - tweets in.
4. With good speakers (clean response curve) final placement will very much depend on the listener and his/her preferences. And, therefore why the
exercise should be with all settings "FLAT" and with familiar and full-range signal. Changes from a good start will not require changes in speaker location(s).

And to repeat: NOT SYMMETRICAL!

Once you have found a configuration that pleases you - give it a week. Mark
the locations in some way, then start over but with a different signal. If
you wind up at the same points, you are done. And, of course, inches do make
a difference - and why you should give it time until you are very happy with the result.

Side note: AR added a center-channel to its flagship receiver as back when stereo was "new", recording engineers often exaggerated separation as an
"Oh, WOW!" factor. And David Hafler designed the Hafler Circuit to address
that issue, which evolved into the Poor Man's Quadraphonic system. Be
careful that the signal you use is well engineered *and* well recorded.

Best of luck - you don't need any "stinking DSP" for good sound!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 6:21:40 PM UTC-4, Howard Stone wrote:

The speakers I have are really annoying because, to get them
sounding as good as they should, they need to be positioned in
places I don't want them to be. 1m from walls etc.

I want my speakers low down and unobtrusive, or high up on
bookshelves. I want them hiding away in corners and right up
against walls. And I want speakers which are flexible, which
can be moved anywhere.

Are there any solutions to this problem? Solutions I can
implement myself without taking a degree in acoustics?

You only infer, somewhat, below, what you find "really annoying"
about the results. In fact, you use the phrase:

"The speakers I have are really annoying"

What do you find annoying about THEM? Ignoring the inconvenience
of placement, for them moment, do they sound similarly annoying
placed where they're "supposed" to be placed?

Here's an idea. Can I use DSPs to compensate for all the bass
boom I get out of classic speakers if I put them where I want them
to be rather than where they want to be? And can I do it simply
and affordably?

Well, maybe. If the problem is simply dues to the low-frequency
interaction with the proximal wall surfaces, maybe. But, if it's
the kind of problem you might get, say, when trying to put the
speakers in a resonant situation like in bookshelf cavities, no,
you'll always have that problem and DSP will turn a relatively
simple acoustical problem into a complex electronic/acoustical
problem.

But, having worked a lot on speakers, I do not have a clear picture
on what the "really annoying problem" you're hearing is.

This is the biggest weakness of classic speakers IMO, and why
Quad, Rogers, Spendor etc really don't give people what they
want.

Well, Quad, Rogers, Spendor, and KEF and B&W actually have given a
fairly large number of people what they want: that's why some of
them are selling their wares in conmparatively high numbers.

Further, the room problems due to placement of things like Quads (the electrostats) is VERY different than the problems presented by
the other examples you give.

I'm hoping that 21st century technology will come to the rescue.

Well, as I told several clients, there may not be a technological
solution to your kind of problem. But, you have to define your problem
a bit better, though.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thanks for all these interesting , stimulating.

The « really annoying » thing is just that the speakers can’t be hidden away in corners or low down or flat against a wall in some unintrusive position without effecting the sound negatively,

I’ve just had a brief opportunity to think about the AR ideas, but placing the speaker one woofer diameter from the floor leaves them pretty low. Won’t there be a lot of boom from the floor?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Howard Stone wrote:

Thanks for all these interesting , stimulating.

The « really annoying » thing is just that the speakers can’t be hidden away in corners or low down or flat against a wall in some unintrusive position without effecting the sound negatively,

I’ve just had a brief opportunity to think about the AR ideas, but placing the speaker one woofer diameter from the floor leaves them pretty low. Won’t there be a lot of boom from the floor?

Howard:

The initial placement is the minimum point of departure, not the final resting place. And, it is a function of woofer size, room size & shape and a number of other factors such that the final result is unlikely to be the first-look.

Example: I keep a pair of AR3a speakers in the "wife friendly" system. They are in a room with plaster walls, hardwood floors, two French doors and a bow window, that is 17 x 14 x 10. They wound up 6.5 feet apart, 18" above the floor, ~7' from one wall
and ~4 feet from the the opposite wall. Horizontal distances are ~Center-Line, vertical are to the base of the speaker. I used Kiri Te Kanawa Exultate Jubilate for the horizontal placement, and Jeremiah Clarke Trumpet Voluntary (Kettle Drums) for the
vertical placement. They are being driven by a fully rebuilt vintage AR receiver making a measured 80 watts into the 4-ohm load.

Note also that room furnishings make a difference. There is a Turkish carpet in this room and Afghans in the other. But they are not under the speakers and therefore have no immediate effect. They do serve to dampen the room overall, but that is a good
thing given all the hard finishes.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I dunno - It was pretty clear to me:

Premise: Conventional speakers are awkward boxes that are hard to "disappear" as decorative items.

Request: Are there means-and-methods to reduce this awkwardness?

Secondary: Would a DSP be a proper (first) place to start?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Howard Stone wrote:

Thanks for all these interesting , stimulating.

The « really annoying » thing is just that the speakers can’t be
hidden away in corners or low down or flat against a wall in some
unintrusive position without effecting the sound negatively,

Okay, let me try one more time: to YOU, how do you find the sound
effected negatively?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

They boom if I put them in corners or low down, the most intolerable negative consequence is bass boom.

I have a pair of JR 149s, which I love. Jim Rogers made wall brackets for them and I have a pair. I found a good spot for these speakers, basically either side of a central heating radiator, on the wall, too of the speakers about 2’ from the floor, but
no, the boomed.

Similar experience with another pair of speakers I like, Mission 770. I wanted to put one of them stuffed right into a corner, on proper stands this time. But they boomed.

And with my Spendor SP1s the problem was slightly different when I stuffed one of them into a tight corner. It wasn’t that they boomed, it was that the sound became lifeless, the image became “dead”, “flat”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

I dunno - It was pretty clear to me:

Premise: Conventional speakers are awkward boxes that are hard to
"disappear" as decorative items.

Request: Are there means-and-methods to reduce this awkwardness?

Secondary: Would a DSP be a proper (first) place to start?

Are there any speakers that will work well without being placed well?
There's a lot to be said for smaller (so more domestically
acceptable) main speakers with separate subwoofers.

http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/UnderstandingRoomAcousticsAndSpeakerPlacement.pdf
http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/loudspeakers_and_rooms_for_sound_reproduction.pdf

Andrew.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-4, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

Are there any speakers that will work well without being placed well?
There's a lot to be said for smaller (so more domestically
acceptable) main speakers with separate subwoofers.

http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/UnderstandingRoomAcousticsAndSpeakerPlacement.pdf
http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/loudspeakers_and_rooms_for_sound_reproduction.pdf

Andrew.

I sat on my fingers for some time before answering this one. Lots of snarky stuff came to mind, none of which was worthwhile.

In my office, which is in a basement, carpeted and with a low acoustic-tile ceiling, 16 x 11, I am using an AR Athena system ( https://img.usaudiomart.com/uploads/6/649158150_thumb_0b2e9a89890f6b7b26fc6d8232ae7887.jpg ) with a Dynaco ST35/PAS3X 17-watt
tube based combination. Which works very well. My Granddaughter has my Revox Piccolo sub-sat system in her under-the-eaves room in a 200 year old farmhouse. Also works very well driven from a Revox A720/A722 combination.

So, there is much to be said for sub-sat systems (that are sufficiently robust in the bass) in very awkward rooms. But the bottom line is that were I to be able to place speakers as simple as the Dynaco A25 properly in either of these rooms, they would
blow the sub-sat systems out of the water. That I cannot makes them a valid, even a good option. Needs must when the devil drives.

And any sort of dipole speaker in either location would be an absurdity.

Now, those articles are kinda-sorta beside the point. Interesting, but not really applicable.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-4, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

Are there any speakers that will work well without being placed well?
There's a lot to be said for smaller (so more domestically
acceptable) main speakers with separate subwoofers.

http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/UnderstandingRoomAcousticsAndSpeakerPlacement.pdf
http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/loudspeakers_and_rooms_for_sound_reproduction.pdf

I sat on my fingers for some time before answering this one. Lots of
snarky stuff came to mind, none of which was worthwhile.

In my office, which is in a basement, carpeted and with a low
acoustic-tile ceiling, 16 x 11, I am using an AR Athena system ( https://img.usaudiomart.com/uploads/6/649158150_thumb_0b2e9a89890f6b7b26fc6d8232ae7887.jpg) with a Dynaco ST35/PAS3X 17-watt tube based combination. Which
works very well. My Granddaughter has my Revox Piccolo sub-sat
system in her under-the-eaves room in a 200 year old farmhouse. Also
works very well driven from a Revox A720/A722 combination.

Yes, vintage audio can be very lovely, but the problems described are
to do with physics, not systems.

So, there is much to be said for sub-sat systems (that are
sufficiently robust in the bass) in very awkward rooms. But the
bottom line is that were I to be able to place speakers as simple as
the Dynaco A25 properly

Well, yes, and that's the point: what do you do when you *can't* place
the speakers properly? That is the question being asked, after all.

in either of these rooms, they would blow the sub-sat systems out of
the water. That I cannot makes them a valid, even a good option.
Needs must when the devil drives.

And any sort of dipole speaker in either location would be an absurdity.

Now, those articles are kinda-sorta beside the point. Interesting,
but not really applicable.

Why not? The first article in particular is exactly to the point.

Andrew.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:40:46 PM UTC-4, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

Why not? The first article in particular is exactly to the point.

a) It relies on symmetry.
b) It is focused on sound reinforcement for TV, not 2-channel audio.

Meaning, it is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough towards the OP's issue.

The second article is enlightening, but does not really do any "hand-holding" - again what is needed in this case.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:40:46 PM UTC-4, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

Why not? The first article in particular is exactly to the point.

a) It relies on symmetry.

So does stereo.

b) It is focused on sound reinforcement for TV, not 2-channel audio.

It's about speakers and rooms. The fact that it also talks about more
channels is not really relevant. The physics is essentially the same.

Meaning, it is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far
enough towards the OP's issue.

So, please go ahead. The problem described is exactly what everyone
would expect from putting full-range speakers in a corner.

Andrew.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:49:44 AM UTC-4, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

a) It relies on symmetry.

So does stereo.

I think this is where we part ways. "Stereo" does not depend on symmetry at all. Were it to, a mono signal would suffice, and even be necessary. Stereo is about creating a sound stage that is wider than a single point using information developed from
multiple sources when the recording is made.

The exercise in speaker placement from AR that I summarized is focused on making that sound stage in any given room using some very basic processes. It is NOT focused on balancing sound around a single point - such as a television - where symmetry is a
necessary requirement. Needs drive results, not results drive needs.

As to physics - system capacities have a very real effect on results as well. Good sound is a matter of moving sufficient air, sufficiently accurately to fool the listener into believing it is (at least) the first cousin of original sound. That is the
physics part. But if the system does not have the power, for lack of a better word, to move that air, the entire exercise is futile physics notwithstanding.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:49:44 AM UTC-4, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

a) It relies on symmetry.

So does stereo.

I think this is where we part ways. "Stereo" does not depend on
symmetry at all. Were it to, a mono signal would suffice,

Of course it would not.

and even be necessary. Stereo is about creating a sound stage that
is wider than a single point using information developed from
multiple sources when the recording is made.

Sure, but to do that requires two speakers, as similar as possible, in
a symmetrical arrangement.

The exercise in speaker placement from AR that I summarized is
focused on making that sound stage in any given room using some very
basic processes. It is NOT focused on balancing sound around a
single point - such as a television - where symmetry is a necessary requirement. Needs drive results, not results drive needs.

As to physics - system capacities have a very real effect on results
as well.

Of course. Getting the basic physics right is necessary but not
sufficient. First, fix the room and the speaker placement. Most of the
points that Floyd Toole makes about rooms and speakers are true
regardless of the presence of a television.

Good sound is a matter of moving sufficient air, sufficiently
accurately to fool the listener into believing it is (at least) the
first cousin of original sound. That is the physics part. But if the
system does not have the power, for lack of a better word, to move
that air, the entire exercise is futile physics notwithstanding.

Obviously so, yes, and this is not in contention. So why mention it?
What is the point?

Andrew.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Howard:

I sent you an e-mail via google groups earlier. Did you get it?

Please remove spaces and add the appropriate symbols:

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 3 June 2019 19:15:25 UTC+1, Peter Wieck wrote:

Howard:

I sent you an e-mail via google groups earlier. Did you get it?

Please remove spaces and add the appropriate symbols:

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yes I did and I thought I replied. I'm sorry, you must have thought me very rude.

Anyway, thanks for the offer but really I've got way too much hi fi at the moment, it's already annoying my partner. So much as I'd love to I'll say no thank you!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/06/2019 5:11 AM, Howard Stone wrote:

On Monday, 3 June 2019 19:15:25 UTC+1, Peter Wieck wrote:

Howard:

I sent you an e-mail via google groups earlier. Did you get it?

Please remove spaces and add the appropriate symbols:

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yes I did and I thought I replied. I'm sorry, you must have thought me very rude.

Anyway, thanks for the offer but really I've got way too much hi fi at the moment, it's already annoying my partner. So much as I'd love to I'll say no thank you!

It's times like this I regret living in New Zealand. ;-)

--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:16:05 AM UTC-4, ~misfit~ wrote:

On 6/06/2019 5:11 AM, Howard Stone wrote:

On Monday, 3 June 2019 19:15:25 UTC+1, Peter Wieck wrote:

Howard:

I sent you an e-mail via google groups earlier. Did you get it?

Please remove spaces and add the appropriate symbols:

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yes I did and I thought I replied. I'm sorry, you must have thought me very rude.

Anyway, thanks for the offer but really I've got way too much hi fi at the moment, it's already annoying my partner. So much as I'd love to I'll say no thank you!

It's times like this I regret living in New Zealand. ;-)

--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

What is your line voltage in NZ?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/06/2019 12:34 AM, Peter Wieck wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:16:05 AM UTC-4, ~misfit~ wrote:

On 6/06/2019 5:11 AM, Howard Stone wrote:

On Monday, 3 June 2019 19:15:25 UTC+1, Peter Wieck wrote:

Howard:

I sent you an e-mail via google groups earlier. Did you get it?

Please remove spaces and add the appropriate symbols:

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Yes I did and I thought I replied. I'm sorry, you must have thought me very rude.

Anyway, thanks for the offer but really I've got way too much hi fi at the moment, it's already annoying my partner. So much as I'd love to I'll say no thank you!

It's times like this I regret living in New Zealand. ;-)

--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

What is your line voltage in NZ?

240V nominal. My comment was mostly about how hard it is to source any decent 'real' audio
equipment inexpensively here (well for me at least). I mean 80s amps more than anything else. The
few that are around and still working seem to go for silly money and I've been unsuccessful at
finding anything to refurbish. It seems people either scrap them or sell them for more than I have
available.

Cheers.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Look for a private message. Or, e-mail as above.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/06/2019 4:22 AM, Peter Wieck wrote:

p f j w at a o l dot c o m

Look for a private message. Or, e-mail as above.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Got it - and replied.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 8:33:14 AM UTC-4, ~misfit~ wrote:

Got it - and replied.

Nothing received, even in my spam-trap.

remove all spaces. Add appropriate symbols

pfjw at aol dot com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/06/2019 2:42 AM, Peter Wieck wrote:

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 8:33:14 AM UTC-4, ~misfit~ wrote:

Got it - and replied.

Nothing received, even in my spam-trap.

remove all spaces. Add appropriate symbols

pfjw at aol dot com

I've re-sent to the aol account. I'd just replied to a gmail account that sent the email I got
previously.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)