Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio.
I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. Old receivers used to run the pre-amp output and the amp input out the back. As shipped, the outputs and inputs were shorted together but the short could be removed and an equalizer inserted into the loop. Are there any HDMI compatible receivers that offer that feature? Also, I have been looking for a receiver that offers HD radio and I haven't found any. Any suggestions? Thanks. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On 05/27/2013 07:18 PM, root wrote:
Jeff wrote: On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC), wrote: It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. You might consider watching TV on your computah. Buy an ATSC tuner card or USB dongle for the receiver part. The audio can be processed by the computer using the usual sound card software, which generally includes an equalizer. I am watching TV on the computer, the TV is acting as a monitor only. The hdmi signal goes to the receiver and thence to the TV. I have a workaround for problem sources: I am using mplayer (linux) for a player and I can specify the audio out to go either through the sound card or through the video card via hdmi. The sound card connects to the receiver through an equalizer. For problem sources I just send the sound through the sound card as you suggest. I have to send the video directly to a different input on the TV. For that I have ordered an hdmi splitter from Monoprice. Thanks for responding. What you can't just reassign an unused input on the receiver to the output of the equalizer. Not every mother****er outputs audio on HDMI and still must use either analog outputs or coaxial or optical. Particularly when you are doing a DVI to HDMI conversion. For example you can reassign the tape deck input to whatever HDMI input the video card is connected to, because in my opinion if you are still using cassette tapes in 2013 then you must have been raped by a Catholic priest as a child. I've seen plenty of receivers that have this functionality and the TV I had allowed you to reassign the analog audio input from any composite, S-Video or component input to one of the HDMI inputs of your choice. This TV also had alalog output which could have also been fed into said qualizer. That is, the TV i had before I bashed it to pieces. |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
Many TVs now have equalizers built in. Check the audio menu for one, alot of people have it and don't even know it.
If you live in an area where TV has gone digital and you have an older TV, if it has video jacks and your convertor or cable box has video out, the equalizer can go right between there. Another thing is that most TV speakers suck. If you have a regular stereo for music, try hooking that up. There should be some source of audio smewhere, even if you have to dig ut an ancient VCR that has an NTSC tuner or something like that. Another big problem with TV sound is the mixing. The music is too loud and the dialogue too soft, and there is too much ambience. Sometimes it helps to switch it to mono. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC), root
wrote: It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. You might consider watching TV on your computah. Buy an ATSC tuner card or USB dongle for the receiver part. The audio can be processed by the computer using the usual sound card software, which generally includes an equalizer. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC), root wrote: It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. You might consider watching TV on your computah. Buy an ATSC tuner card or USB dongle for the receiver part. The audio can be processed by the computer using the usual sound card software, which generally includes an equalizer. I am watching TV on the computer, the TV is acting as a monitor only. The hdmi signal goes to the receiver and thence to the TV. I have a workaround for problem sources: I am using mplayer (linux) for a player and I can specify the audio out to go either through the sound card or through the video card via hdmi. The sound card connects to the receiver through an equalizer. For problem sources I just send the sound through the sound card as you suggest. I have to send the video directly to a different input on the TV. For that I have ordered an hdmi splitter from Monoprice. Thanks for responding. |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
wrote in message ... Many TVs now have equalizers built in. Check the audio menu for one, alot of people have it and don't even know it. snip Another big problem with TV sound is the mixing. The music is too loud and the dialogue too soft, and there is too much ambience. Sometimes it helps to switch it to mono. The sound engineering on today's movies and TV programs just plain sucks. tm |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On 05/27/2013 07:31 PM, tm wrote:
wrote in message ... Many TVs now have equalizers built in. Check the audio menu for one, alot of people have it and don't even know it. snip Another big problem with TV sound is the mixing. The music is too loud and the dialogue too soft, and there is too much ambience. Sometimes it helps to switch it to mono. The sound engineering on today's movies and TV programs just plain sucks. tm Not just the sound engineering but the picture engineering and the script engineering and just about everything else engineering. The only thing that TVs and DVD players are good for these days is a good crack with a baseball bat. |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On Mon, 27 May 2013 19:18:08 +0000 (UTC), root
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC), root wrote: It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. You might consider watching TV on your computah. Buy an ATSC tuner card or USB dongle for the receiver part. The audio can be processed by the computer using the usual sound card software, which generally includes an equalizer. I am watching TV on the computer, the TV is acting as a monitor only. The hdmi signal goes to the receiver and thence to the TV. I have a workaround for problem sources: I am using mplayer (linux) for a player and I can specify the audio out to go either through the sound card or through the video card via hdmi. The sound card connects to the receiver through an equalizer. For problem sources I just send the sound through the sound card as you suggest. I have to send the video directly to a different input on the TV. For that I have ordered an hdmi splitter from Monoprice. That may possibly produce some additional audio delay and possibly produce lip sync problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_to_video_synchronization That's why I suggested an ATSC tuner, instead of breaking the audio out through the computah. MPEG has PTS and DTS time stamps, which can usually be used by the software to provide the necessary lip sync. Breaking out the audio separately and running it through an equalizer, will add some additional audio delay. It won't be much as video delays are much larger, but it might be noticeable if the audio processing is complex. Audacity (on Windoze XP) gives me about 200 msec latency with no filters and as much as several seconds latency with a random assortment of filters and effects enabled. 200 msec might not be a problem. Several seconds will be fatal: http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Latency_Test Also, I've been experimenting with different cheap computah speakers, mostly Logitech. Nothing scientific, just testing by ear using mostly Pandora. None of them sound as good as the much larger speakers on my hi-fi. Built in TV speakers are worse. If you want quality audio, build your system starting with good speakers, and work backwards towards the TV. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On Mon, 27 May 2013, root wrote:
It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. Old receivers used to run the pre-amp output and the amp input out the back. As shipped, the outputs and inputs were shorted together but the short could be removed and an equalizer inserted into the loop. Are there any HDMI compatible receivers that offer that feature? Also, I have been looking for a receiver that offers HD radio and I haven't found any. Any suggestions? Thanks. Get hearing aids. At least, see if you need them. Otherwise you're just compensating for bad hearing. The hearing aids will help generally, not just for tv. Michael |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:31:58 -0400, tm wrote:
wrote in message ... Many TVs now have equalizers built in. Check the audio menu for one, alot of people have it and don't even know it. snip Another big problem with TV sound is the mixing. The music is too loud and the dialogue too soft, and there is too much ambience. Sometimes it helps to switch it to mono. The sound engineering on today's movies and TV programs just plain sucks. +1! |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"Allodoxaphobia" The sound engineering on today's movies and TV programs just plain sucks. +1! ** -1 from me. The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs and movies on TV is excellent. I am referring to digital sources and normal stereo heard through hi-fi speakers an a room that has little reverberation. If you are watching in an almost bare room, running 5.1 surround et alia and use cheap crappy speakers ( eg Bose) - then YOU have the created problem. All bets are OFF if you are using the speakers included with flat screens - as they fire downwards or backwards and sound like pox. .... Phil |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs
and movies on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of. |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"William Sommer****** ****wit TROLL" The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs and movies on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. ** As it can only ever be. But neither is it an isolated or uninformed one. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of. ** So ****ing what ? CDs are capable of a much higher technical performance than is NEEDED for the reproduction of music. TV sound is not CD related anyhow. .... Phil |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
"William Sommer****** ****wit TROLL" The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs and movies on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. ** As it can only ever be. But neither is it an isolated or uninformed one. It is. See below. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of. ** So ****ing what ? CDs are capable of a much higher technical performance than is NEEDED for the reproduction of music. You're really displaying your ignorance. Ever made live recordings? Of course not. The sound of most CDs is a travesty of live sound. In fact, it is often so poor that one can make a more-natural-sounding recording with a Compact Cassette deck. (I know, because I've done it.) |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "William Sommer****** ****wit TROLL" The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs and movies on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. ** As it can only ever be. But neither is it an isolated or uninformed one. It is. See below. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of. ** So ****ing what ? CDs are capable of a much higher technical performance than is NEEDED for the reproduction of music. You're really displaying your ignorance. Ever made live recordings? Of course not. The sound of most CDs is a travesty of live sound. In fact, it is often so poor that one can make a more-natural-sounding recording with a Compact Cassette deck. (I know, because I've done it.) I have to agree completely William. Natural sounding analog recordings are why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of local bands. Good frequency response, no tape hiss, and 2 hour recording on one tape. Analog audio to digital and back to analog has always sounded cold, brittle and harsh to me. The VHS HiFi recordings sound better (to me) than compact cassette, even using a dbx II compander. Dolby sucks. The old JVC ANRS system worked well, but only on metal cassette tape. And as we all know, high grade 1/4" reel to reel tape is impossible to find. YMMV. |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"root" wrote in message
... It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. Old receivers used to run the pre-amp output and the amp input out the back. As shipped, the outputs and inputs were shorted together but the short could be removed and an equalizer inserted into the loop. Are there any HDMI compatible receivers that offer that feature? Also, I have been looking for a receiver that offers HD radio and I haven't found any. Any suggestions? Thanks. Onkyo makes receivers with HD radio and internet radio built in. Check them out. I'm very satisfied with mine. |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"Klaatu" "William Sommer****** ****wit TROLL" I have to agree completely William. ** William cannot read or think with any clarity at all. Context is an unknown term to him, following a thread is also impossible. That he why he massively over-snips and blithely changes the subject to one of HIS ****wit hobby horses. These "horses" all look like dead donkeys to me. As do you. ..... Phil |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"All bets are OFF if you are using the speakers included with flat screens -
as they fire downwards or backwards and sound like pox. No respect for Doctor Bose at all what. T |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:30:41 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs and movies on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of." Fact is if your speakers didn't cost at least two grand, they are the weakest link in the system. They cheat on the frequency response measurements because when you put in 30 Hz they count the 60 Hz output. That is distortion, oh, the distortion is the other idiocy. You strive to get amps that only have 0.0000000000000001% distortion while your speakers run about 1% distortion even at one watt. Ridiculous, they sold you a bill of goods. Buncha **** really. |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"Natural sounding analog recordings are
why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of local bands" No you don't, it is a JVC. The later ones made by Goldstar had no such option. I suggest holding on to that this and maybe checking it for capacitor crap from time to time. I used to make live recordings of a band on a Beta HIFI. Get this, I used a pair of headphones as microphones with a Shure mic preamp. Sony MDR-CD5. Just hung them up on the wall. Later when dubbing to cassette I used the pre outs of a Marantz reciever with the quadradial control to expand the stereo image, and it worked of course. I has to re-equalize a bit, but so what. It really didn't sound that bad. It sounded better than some King Biscuit Flower Hour. i also had to run it through Dolby B encode twice just to get it to fit in the dynamic range of a cassette tape, even with HX. Those are clunky ass old slow running machines those Zeniths, but you know what ? They do the job and are reliable. I used to work on VCRs for a living and you know what ? The ones I have the most experience on are the junkiest. I cannot think of any common problems on those right now. I also do not remember the equivalent JVC model nummber, but the FCC ID should not start with AK8. It maybe is AJU or maybe B something, I am not sure anymore. When I was doing VCRs I got so much into the FCC ID I asked for it one the phone before even going, or it coming in. Damn I used to know them by heart. Panasonics, Hitachis, whatever. I would know if I had the parts in stock. Well at least belts and idlers. I did not **** around in business. |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
The sound of most CDs is a travesty of live sound. In fact, it is often so
poor that one can make a more-natural-sounding recording with a Compact Cassette deck. (I know, because I've done it.) I have to agree completely William. Natural sounding analog recordings are why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of local bands. Good frequency response, no tape hiss, and 2 hour recording on one tape. Analog audio to digital and back to analog has always sounded cold, brittle and harsh to me. The VHS HiFi recordings sound better (to me) than compact cassette, even using a dbx II compander. Dolby sucks. The old JVC ANRS system worked well, but only on metal cassette tape. And as we all know, high grade 1/4" reel to reel tape is impossible to find. YMMV. You partly misunderstood. I was not in any way defending analog recording. Note that I said "most" CDs sound poor. There are superb-sounding CDs. Listen, for example, to the CD layer of any hybrid SACD that has good SACD sound. The CD should be nearly as good. One of the reasons SACD "sounds better" than CD, is that producers and engineers know these recordings are going to be listened to by audiophiles on good equipment, so they don't bugger the sound as much. One advantage of video HiFi recording is that it's FM, and not subject to many of the problems of direct analog recording. |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
|
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On May 29, 10:21*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
...snip... Good electrostatic speakers ( eg Quad) can have THD levels of 0.03%, even at 96dB SPL at 1 metre. ... *Phil True, electrostatic speakers seem to provide the best performance for the buck. Back in the 70's there was an engineer that lived in the eastbay, Fremont, CA area that made sets of electrostatic speakers using readily available materials, standard tools, and kitchen appliances. His resulting speakers were 'metalized' mylar shrunk in his oven over a framework. Can't remember his name, and lost all archival records in the 8 HD crashes we went through. Anybody know who this man was? As part of his development during the project, he had taken his speakers to JBL(?) in the midwest for testing in their lab and found that at most levels distortion was barely measurable, at 120dB(?) something like 0.1%, and at 140dB just above 1%. The main problem he ran into was the 'beaming' effect caused by the size of the diaphragm. To minimize that beaming, he actually split the audio into several spectral bands and then drove strips of different widths on the speakers in order to minimize the effect. Higher frequency narrow strip. These speakers in combination with 'direct' recordings gave you an incredible listening experience. It literally was like sitting next to the original musician(s) while they werre playing, but they had recorded many years prior. Sadly, I never saw the speakers marketed, nor any DIY projects for building them yourself. Anybody see such? |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
True, electrostatic speakers seem to provide the best performance for
the buck. Back in the 70's there was an engineer that lived in the eastbay, Fremont, CA area that made sets of electrostatic speakers using readily available materials, standard tools, and kitchen appliances. His resulting speakers were 'metalized' mylar shrunk in his oven over a framework. Can't remember his name, and lost all archival records in the 8 HD crashes we went through. Anybody know who this man was? As part of his development during the project, he had taken his speakers to JBL(?) in the midwest for testing in their lab and found that at most levels distortion was barely measurable, at 120dB(?) something like 0.1%, and at 140dB just above 1%. The main problem he ran into was the 'beaming' effect caused by the size of the diaphragm. To minimize that beaming, he actually split the audio into several spectral bands and then drove strips of different widths on the speakers in order to minimize the effect. Higher frequency narrow strip. These speakers in combination with 'direct' recordings gave you an incredible listening experience. It literally was like sitting next to the original musician(s) while they werre playing, but they had recorded many years prior. Sadly, I never saw the speakers marketed, nor any DIY projects for building them yourself. Anybody see such? "The Audio Amateur" ran many articles on building your own electrostatic speakers. (Graphite was used to make the Mylar conductive.) I believe I have about 20 years of back copies, if anyone wants to buy them en mass. The problem with "beaming" has largely been solved. Acoustat used multiple angled panels. Koss made a four- or five-way system. QUAD subdivides the panel and uses delay lines to create a quasi-spherical "launch". Martin-Logan developed a practical way to make a curved panel. |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
|
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"Robert Macy" "Phil Allison" Good electrostatic speakers ( eg Quad) can have THD levels of 0.03%, even at 96dB SPL at 1 metre. True, electrostatic speakers seem to provide the best performance for the buck. Back in the 70's there was an engineer that lived in the eastbay, Fremont, CA area that made sets of electrostatic speakers using readily available materials, standard tools, and kitchen appliances. His resulting speakers were 'metalized' mylar shrunk in his oven over a framework. ------------------------------------------------- ** The diaphragm of an ESL needs to have a VERY high resistance coating - so that charge spreads slowly across the surface and does not move when an external electric field at audio frequency is applied. The resistance needed is in the hundreds of megohms per square. ----------------------------------------------------------- As part of his development during the project, he had taken his speakers to JBL(?) in the midwest for testing in their lab and found that at most levels distortion was barely measurable, at 120dB(?) something like 0.1%, and at 140dB just above 1%. The main problem he ran into was the 'beaming' effect caused by the size of the diaphragm. To minimize that beaming, he actually split the audio into several spectral bands and then drove strips of different widths on the speakers in order to minimize the effect. Higher frequency narrow strip. --------------------------------------------------- ** Ever see a Quad ESL57 ? The tweeter is a 3cm wide strip, mids come from a similar pair of strips each side and there are two, fairly large rectangular bass panels outside them. Horizontal dispersion is at least 15 degrees at the highest frequencies but vertical dispersion is much narrower. Crossovers are simple 6dB/octave and there is some overlapping - despite which transient response is near perfect at any frequency. .... Phil |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
On May 30, 6:11*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
...snip.... ** Ever see a Quad ESL57 ? The tweeter is a 3cm wide strip, mids come from a similar pair of strips each side and there are two, fairly large rectangular bass panels outside them. *Horizontal dispersion is at least 15 degrees at the highest frequencies but vertical dispersion is much narrower. Crossovers are simple 6dB/octave and there is some overlapping - *despite which transient response is near perfect at any frequency. ... * Phil The man I met had NOT known to make strips and his first units had an 'interesting' effect with that beaming. If you placed a flat panel ESL on each side of a person speaking into a microphone; the microphone was in a dead zone so there was no squeal. Then the beaming effect literally projected the sound straight in front of the speaker for a great distance with little noticeable drop in sound level. In other words, perfect as a PA. The person in the front heard about the same level as a person 100 feet further away in the back. Actually a strange effect to witness. |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
" It's good to know that there is only one kind if distortion, and that
it isn't additive. It's a good thing that you don't design electronics. " You know damn well that's not what I said. |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"If you placed a flat panel
ESL on each side of a person speaking into a microphone; the microphone was in a dead zone so there was no squeal. " I read of a similar test used on production models but do not remember the company. The guy making them story also sounds familiar but that was a long time ago I believe. I don't even remember where I lived back then lol. |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Shopping for a receiver
"Natural sounding analog recordings are Anonymous wrote: why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of local bands" No you don't, it is a JVC. The later ones made by Goldstar had no such option. I suggest holding on to that this and maybe checking it for capacitor crap from time to time. I used to make live recordings of a band on a Beta HIFI. Get this, I used a pair of headphones as microphones with a Shure mic preamp. Sony MDR-CD5. Just hung them up on the wall. Later when dubbing to cassette I used the pre outs of a Marantz reciever with the quadradial control to expand the stereo image, and it worked of course. I has to re-equalize a bit, but so what. It really didn't sound that bad. It sounded better than some King Biscuit Flower Hour. i also had to run it through Dolby B encode twice just to get it to fit in the dynamic range of a cassette tape, even with HX. Those are clunky ass old slow running machines those Zeniths, but you know what ? They do the job and are reliable. I used to work on VCRs for a living and you know what ? The ones I have the most experience on are the junkiest. I cannot think of any common problems on those right now. I also do not remember the equivalent JVC model nummber, but the FCC ID should not start with AK8. It maybe is AJU or maybe B something, I am not sure anymore. When I was doing VCRs I got so much into the FCC ID I asked for it one the phone before even going, or it coming in. Damn I used to know them by heart. Panasonics, Hitachis, whatever. I would know if I had the parts in stock. Well at least belts and idlers. I did not **** around in business. Interesting use of a 1970's era Marantz quad unit. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Thanks for Shopping, Come Again! | Home Ownership | |||
Go GO GO !!go to shopping | Electronics Repair | |||
Go GO GO !!go to shopping | Home Repair | |||
Shopping | Home Repair | |||
FOR ALL YOUR SHOPPING NEEDS . . . . .$ | Home Ownership |