Use a better plastic? Plastics can always be scratched, and there isn't
really
anything more suitable for DVDs and CDs than polycarbonate.
Actually as I said LEXAN. The make it all the way up to bullet
proof.

I still have some of the tapes in my archive vault today. They still
play with the same highs as when I recorded them nearly 25 years ago.
And that's just one superior plastic, one I might ad that is nearly 40
years old.

A superior plastic for magnetic tape, but what about optical discs?

Also, how can Lexan be implemented without causing problems?

Can lexan be melted down at a certain temperature point with desired fluidity
and at a safe pressure to where it won't cause problems with current injection
molding equipment without expensive retrofitting and to where acceptable discs
can be crafted?

How would it react to being chilled down immediately after the casting?

For injection molding of discs, all it takes is a very minor deviation in
pressure, temperature, and timing to completely and utterly ruin the yields.
If the injection molding is not done properly, you will have discs that are
highly susceptible to cone warp, which is where the disc starts to have a
tendency to warp into a dome shape.

There are specific reasons why polycarbonate was chosen over other plastics.
In short, it had a balance of qualities that were needed to make a pressed disc
easily, economically, reliably, and safely with minimum problems.

The process of manufacturing is easy, but the decision for what kind of
materials to use was not.

Consider it cost pennies to actually mass produce the cd's and dvd's
on the market today.
Yet look at the retail price.
Still the real point of it is they WANT to sell you the same product
over and over again.

While I do agree that they charge too high of a premium on something that is
cheap to mass-produce, your reason as to why they do this, in my opinion, is
grossly incorrect.

They do this because there is a perceived superiority over the 4-track
CompactCassette format and the vinyl LP.
To marketing, that means that the consumer may see a justification for the
higher price through the quality difference, so they take advantage of that.
After all, regular consumers didn't really know just how cheap it is to make
CDs until recently.

And, as usual, big businesses are always too slow and aloof to properly react
to changes in the market, likely because they are blinded by the bottom line
and are unable, and also unwilling, to make needed changes for the long term
benefits.

I'll believe their line of crap about business costs being awful when
I see a record/film company exec driving a vw bug and wearing suits
from K-mart.

Executives don't have to worry about that. It's always the **employees** that
get screwed when a company has problems.

Just look at Michael Eisner. Disney is having real problems, yet Mr. Eisner is
still comfortable despite his mismanagement of Buena Vista Corporation
(corporate parent of The Walt Disney Company). But, the people who work under
him are surely suffering.

(Heaven's Gate is) really not a legitimate argument.

Actually, it is. It helps to explain why the corporate side of the
entertainment business will do anything that is possible to minimize risks to
their profitability, real or unfounded, including making formulaic films and
annoying copy protection.

Although all of this crap really started when Paramount fell to Gulf+Western in
1966, it really hit full circle in the 1980s beginning with "Heaven's Gate" and
its effects on United Artists.

On an off-note, the executives meddling in creative affairs would have some of
the biggest impact on Universal, if films like "Legend," "Howard the Duck," and
"Dune" are anything to go by. I've observed that the best Universal films from
the 1980s were usually ones that were released through Universal, instead of
being produced or commissioned by Universal. (Although, to be fair, "Dune" was
released by Dino De Laurentiis through Universal.) - Reinhart

That's purely sematics you're trying to argue.
It can be said they're cheap because the maker wouldn't spent a few
cents more for the proper rated cap.

It doesn't mean the part is cheap, as in shoddy. It means that the part was
simply unsuitable to the demands that would be placed on it in the circuit.

Just more cut cornering.

Or a design oversight. - Reinhart

No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)
And while it's certainly not cost effective, we've had the technology
to grow synthetic diamonds.(It's done in a solution.)
That tech know how has been around since the 50's.
Esentially what I'm trying to say is that we have tons of
technological solutions for making a cost effective scratch proof
cd/dvd.



I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, yeah Lexan is more scratch resistant
than polycarbonate but it still scratches quite easily. I work a fair bit
with lexan and acrylic, the lexan is far easier to cut and drill and far
more shatter resistant, it does scratch much more easily than acrylic
though. Neither is as flexible as polycarbonate. Every material has
advantages and disadvantages.

You show all the signs of one who's completely enamored to all things
high tech. If it's not the latest and greatest you don't want it.
You'll always be caught in that viscious circle of keeping up with the
jones.
Which is exactly where the retailer want you.

I guess that DOESN'T explain why I keep a stockpile of VHS and Beta VCRs and
still use a Sony DVP-S360 DVD player, which is a 1999-2000 year player and was
the low end model for Sony at that time. Still works perfectly, too. No need
for a new DVD player. Although, I have three spare DVD players. Two Toshiba
SD-1700 players, both with the bad caps replaced and one with minor power
supply repair, works perfectly and has their remotes. One Panasonic DVD-A110
with remote. Someone gave it to me when it stopped reading discs. I called
Panasonic and they honored a warranty service on it, even though it was years
out of warranty, so I ended up with a free working DVD player at Panasonic's
expense.

As for getting better things, I'm quite resourceful, and having luck never
hurts.

I got my Sony STR-DA4ES receiver for $300 complete with manual and remote, and
that Elevated Standard model retailed for over $1000 in 2002 and still enjoys a
high price on retail and used markets. I enjoy 7.1 surround sound and superb
stereo sound because of this 44 pound beast! Excellent shape.

My stereo mains are a set of Optimus Mach Threes. Yeah, they're RadioShack
speakers, with one minor detail: they were speakers that RS managed to get
right. The sound is neutral and accurate, but very smooth. Love listening to
stuff from classical and new age to pop and hard rock, and these speakers plays
all with aplomb and very efficiently so there's no reason to replace them with
a set of Infinity or NHT speakers.

Surround and center speakers are KLH, and they're not bad for cheapies. I
place a greater priority on stereo reproduction than surround sound, so I am
more than content with KLH speakers for the surrounds, but would like a better
center channel speaker.

My turntable, a 1983 model Technics SL-7, was purchased for $10. I replaced
the belt for the pickup kicker mechanism and cleaned it up inside and out, and
it looks like it came fresh from the factory with nary a scratch or blemish in
sight. The Ortofon cartridge and stylus were still good. Excellent shape.

My tape deck, a 3 head JVC TD-V711 SuperDigifine, I bought for $15 bucks from a
seller who was convinced it was worthless just because it was a tape deck.
Excellent shape.

My 1994 model Onkyo DX-C106 CD changer I essentially bought for $25. I applied
a slight modification by changing the JRC 4560 opamps with Burr-Brown AD2604
opamps in the analogue section for improved sound quality. Excellent shape.

My primary monitor, a 1999 model Sony KV-27S66, was built from two defective
sets of the same model. Calibrated to THX OptiMODE and is capable of working
with 16x9 anamorphically enhanced DVDs. Not bad for $60 ($30 for the two TVs
and $30 for the remote. Sony graciously shipped me a copy of the user manual
for free, as they assumed I paid a lot to get the set repaired). Excellent
shape.

My primary VHS VCR, a 1990 model Sony SVO-160, was given to me. Power supply
was rebuilt with new capacitors and the capstan bearing problem was fixed. I
spent $25 on getting the remote and manual. Excellent shape. Has the best
picture and hi-fi sound of any VHS deck I've used with only one possible
exception: the Panasonic AG-1980 S-VHS Editor.

My primary SuperBeta VCR, 1985 model Sony SL-HF400, was purchased for $225.
Unit is mint with remote and was barely used. If you don't have a large number
of Beta tapes, then you wouldn't understand why I thought this wasn't a bad
deal.

My primary LaserDisc player, a 1997 model Pioneer DVL-700 with remote, was
purchased for $75 from a pawn shop. Resurfaced the spindle hub friction
material to restore lost grip on the LaserDisc, which fixed the slippage
problem that is fairly common on that chassis, which was also used on players
like the Pioneer ELITE CLD-99 and Pioneer CLD-D704. Excellent shape and one of
the finest LD players I've used.

My PlayStation 2 was bought new. Had to get the TOSLink cable and the S-Video
cable to integrate it into my rig the way I wanted it to.

My Microsoft X-Box was bought used for $120 including two games and two
controllers. Had to replace the optical pickup (Samsung DVD drive with Seagate
HD, IDE cable replaced with UDMA cable) and bought an A/V pack to connect it to
my rig using S-Video and TOSLink.

My Nintendo GameCube was obtained by trading a VCR with a friend. The GameCube
had a faulty optical pickup, but Nintendo honored the warranty, even though it
was over by two months. So, I ended up with a refurbished GameCube for the
price of a VCR.

My CED player, an RCA SJT-200, was bought from a flea market for $10. Cleaned
and rebuilt with a new belt and fresh lube brought it back to life. Stylus has
plenty of life left to play those needlevision discs, to which I have a
collection.

There is a lot more. Anyways, my system as a whole is probably worth in excess
of $3000 and is capable of playing VHS, Beta, LaserDisc, CED, DVD, LP, CD, and
CompactCassette. But, I spent a fraction of that by simply being at the right
place at the right time and I'm quite content with my equipment. Some of my
equipment are simply superior to what's sold new today unless you go much
higher end than what Best Buy sells, and I got almost everything with pennies
on the dollar.

I love high tech, but I don't nosedive into something like that unless I
absolutely need to. Since my current TV/monitor is still working perfectly, I
don't watch broadcasts on it but use it strictly as a monitor, and can enjoy
anamorphic DVDs on it complete with the 30% virtual resolution increase, albeit
with no progressive scan but having a detailed and sharp image nonetheless, I
have no need for a new HDTV at this time.

So much for your theory about me. If anything, I compete for getting the
biggest bang for the buck instead of just getting the best. I usually end up
getting some high end stuff AND saving money. You can't beat that combination.


And, I'm willing to bet that the other techies here have also had great
success, perhaps greater, at building their systems by getting the right stuff
for great prices and using their capabilities to get broken high end stuff for
a low price or for free and to repair them for resale or use. - Reinhart

Still you must go back and read again. The difference is not
discernable on th e average home tv.

Whatever.

Besides, my TV isn't an average home TV, so why should I care what you think?

I don't have a beef with people doing what they want, I'm just saying that I
have no need to do what you think is a great idea.

I don't need S-VHS copies of my DVDs because I take care of my DVDs. Under
proper care, DVDs will not wear out from normal use.

And, why would I want to copy DVDs for illegal distribution, if you are
thinking of it that way?

Yeah! I've seen such crap in the retail outlets. A kit form of a5.1
theatre is mostly crap with compromises inherent.

If you buy **** from Apex, Coby, Audiovox, or Bose, then I can see why you'd
have such scorn.

But, systems from Panasonic, Pioneer, and JVC aren't as bad as you make them
out to be and they don't cost an arm and a leg. Perfect for those who just
want a decent sounding 5.1 system for movies in a small-to-medium sized room.

And, as you've implied, the average consumer may not care about quality. As
long as THEY think it sounds good, then more power to them. But, I've heard
the sound of box solutions from Pioneer, Panasonic, and JVC. While they're not
as good as my rig driven by an STR-DA4ES, I was suprised that they did sound
pretty good for what you'd get.

You can't honestly say that a small polystyrene box you can hold in
your hand is actually a sub woofer.

Now you're feeding words in my mouth.

Since when did I ever make a bull**** remark that a cube speaker can accomodate
a subwoofer?

If anything, a subwoofer is required to complement a cube speaker, to fill in
the lower end that those "speakers" are incapable of reproducing. (Which is a
sleazy tactic that Bose does to push their Acoustimass modules on the sales
floor.)

In order to have quality THX certified QUALITY sound in their dens the
consumer is looking at a couple of thousand bucks for an out of the
box solution.

For a true THX certified system, EVERYTHING from the speaker cable to the
actual room acoustics have to conform to the standard. This means you will
spend more than a couple of thousand bucks for a true THX system.

And, IMO, THX certified equipment for the home is almost a complete waste of
money. THX for the home is not like THX for the theatre circuit or THX for
post-production studios, where strict quality control is mandatory.

For the home, THX only means you potentially spent a lot more than you should
have for your equipment.

Home THX will certify anything that pays for the brand. There is a Kenwood
receiver, the KRF-X9992D, that's THX Ultra certified, which is the highest
possible THX certification for home equipment. But it doesn't deserve it
because of some screwy design decisions and horrendous design shortcuts. For
instance, if the ventilation fan fails, the whole output section will overheat.
Also, the DSP electronics are all located overhead of the heatsinks, which
means they get a big dose of heat radiated from the output sections when the
receiver is running. There are also no condensor capacitors for the primary
power supply and the secondary power supply is underdesigned. This thing uses
a lot of transmission ribbons and all cabling are organized in an almost
totally haphazard fashion. Overall, this sucker is an expensive example of
what not to do with receiver design. Yet, it manages to get THX Ultra
certification?

Sorry, but if THX allows big ass ****ups like this, then I don't have faith in
their standards for the home.

I'll stick with my Sony ES receiver, thank you. Better design and build
quality with better sound for about half the price. (Although, I paid less
than half the MSRP for my Sony ES receiver.)

If Sony ES weren't an option, I'd go with Harman/Kardon, Denon, or Onkyo
(preferrably without THX). - Reinhart

James Sweet wrote:
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)

I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, yeah Lexan is more scratch
resistant than polycarbonate but it still scratches quite easily. I work a
fair bit with lexan and acrylic, the lexan is far easier to cut and drill
and far more shatter resistant, it does scratch much more easily than
acrylic though. Neither is as flexible as polycarbonate. Every material
has advantages and disadvantages.

What th'....

If you actually do go to GE Labs

http://www.gelexan.com/gelexan/

you'll see that Lexan *is* polycarbonate. (It's in the very title of the
above web page: "Lexan (R) Polycarbonate Resin from GE Plastics.")

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful
than the sun."
"Why?", he was asked.
"Because at night we need the light more."

And you ignore all the self-righteous members of this group who insist on
how carefully they take care of their discs without even mentioning those
who buy rare ones second hand?? How do contributors to this thread who
handle their discs with kid gloves respond to that?

BTW, I have never been inside my unbelievably slow-reacting Apex DVD player
which I bought for $15 but assume from this thread that it has only a simple
computer IDE cable in it which makes it obviously easy to swap for one which
has a normal 2 IDE device chain so anyone can then add a spare HD to that
chain (although IS there a spare power supply cable in there and if so,
why???): But how on earth do you then configure it so easily and how do you
then connect it to the computer so that you can DO anything with that added
drive?

Licensed to Quill


"gothika" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jun 2004 06:29:18 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

yeah well... If I purchase a copy of a DVD and choose to make a use
copy in order to archive the original that's my right.

Well, if I were to make a backup of a DVD, I'd do it with DVD-R, not VHS.

If the film and recording industry didn't really want us to make
copies they'd make the medium more durable.

How do you propose making the medium more durable?
Like I said a thin coating of high grade Lexan over the surface would
do just fine. Might try making the actual disc material out of it as
well.

I've not had that problem because I handle all of my discs with care.
And, the
interesting part about being careful with your DVDs and CDs is that it's
actually easy! It's just a matter of developing good handling habits and
remembering to always put the disc back into its case when not in use.

But, I suppose that's too simple for anyone to follow, eh?
No but you make gross assumptions about others you know nothing about.
First off the main market(at least the one the dvd/video market is
spending millions to market to.) are families. Last time I checked
this meant children who as well all know are anything but careful.
Then there are those whose manual dexterity isn't as nimble as the
average 14-24 yr old computer nerd. This would include the elderly and
the handicapped.(Not to ring my own bell here but that'd include me.
I have a condition much like carpal tunnel. Nerve damage that makes
handling things like cds and dvds a bit difficult at times.)
Not to mention that the surface of commercial dvds are so soft that
even errant dust in the works will eventually scratch them.(The avrage
family house has nearly 10 pounds of dirt free floating in the air.)


Instead their plan is to make it more fragile in the hopes that it'll
get damaged forcing the consumer to "of course" buy it again.

Oh, a conspiracy theory, eh? You'd better be careful before Jack Valenti
decides to make you the next Jimmy Hoffa. (sarcasm off)
If corporate tactics are a conspiracy I guess so then.

Just another case of greedy *******s wanting to have their cake and
eat it too.

And I can guess that you don't take good care of your discs and also
allow them
to be handled by idiots.
No. try readig my reply above on that issue.

They spend almost no money on R&D towards building a scratch proof
CD/DVD.

Because how can you make such a disc?

Use a better plastic? Plastics can always be scratched, and there isn't
really
anything more suitable for DVDs and CDs than polycarbonate.
Actually as I said LEXAN. The make it all the way up to bullet
proof.(The helmets of the Apollo astronauts were made of Lexan as well
as the gold plated transparent visor shields on them.)
GE marketed a cassette tape back in the late 70's early 80's made of
high grade shock proof Lexan(same grade as the football helmets were
made of.) with a tape formulation that was extremely heat resistant.
We in the film and sound industry loved 'em. You couldn't kill them.
The cost was only slightly higher than the comparable hifi brand names
on the market.(As I recall I payed about 1.50-2.00 bucks more over the
same maxell/denon/tdk tape of the same bias and size.)
I still have some of the tapes in my archive vault today. They still
play with the same highs as when I recorded them nearly 25 years ago.
And that's just one superior plastic, one I might ad that is nearly 40
years old.
There are newer plastics that've been developed since that would work
just as well and probably cost even less. HDPE is one that comes to
mind.(No it is made in rigid formulations)


Apply some sort of scratch resistant coating on the irridescent side?
You can
end up actually altering the optical properties of the disc, rendering it
unplayable. The polycarbonate layer also acts as a lens of sort which
works
with the objective lens on the pickup to focus the beam on the track
path.
This is why these discs don't have a lexan coating as you've suggested as
applying such a coating alters the optical characteristics of the disc,
which
can cause problems.
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)
And while it's certainly not cost effective, we've had the technology
to grow synthetic diamonds.(It's done in a solution.)
That tech know how has been around since the 50's.
Esentially what I'm trying to say is that we have tons of
technological solutions for making a cost effective scratch proof
cd/dvd.


Yet throw oddles of money at encryption schemes and copy
guard technology to prevent the consumer from making copies.

In one way, all of these provisions makes it hell for the consumer to
practice
his fair use rights. Then again, I can't really blame the studios as
they are
just simply doing what they can to protect the profitability of their
products.
They are businesses, after all. However, I do agree that they should
stand
back and get a fresh look at the problem and find real solutions that
won't
cripple the consumer.
Consider it cost pennies to actually mass produce the cd's and dvd's
on the market today.
Yet look at the retail price.
Still the real point of it is they WANT to sell you the same product
over and over again.
That was a market model that the recording industry built in the 60's
and 70's.
One the film and music industry are loathe to abandon.
I'll believe their line of crap about business costs being awful when
I see a record/film company exec driving a vw bug and wearing suits
from K-mart.

But, that will never happen because every movie studio fears the
possibility of
making a "Heaven's Gate" and would like to brace themselves for a
finnancial
bath, just in case.

That's really not a legitimate argument.
whenever a film is signed on to be made all sorts of insurance and
bonds are contracted to avoid any possibility of financial loss of the
prinicipal.
The "financial bath" is really just the lost opportunity to rake in
millions in box office and secondaries.
The attitude of the investors is that if they lay out millions then
they expect to see at least double that in intial profit in the first
year. Or even in the few weeks of first release.
(Or box office receipts if the contract deal only allow for first run
profits for principal investors. i.e. no monies for them on video or
cable etc..)
They get very unhappy if they don't make 2-3 times over their
principal.

"Heaven's Gate" was a motion picture released in 1980. It cost over $40
million to produce, but it flopped big-time. The finnancial loss of the
film
was so staggering that it pretty much killed United Artists, the studio
that
commissioned the motion picture's production. Or, at least, forced
Transamerica, UA's corporate parent, to sell UA to MGM to recover its
losses
and answer to its investors. - Reinhart

That was a studio film that was backed pretty much by the studio
itself.
What really crippled the studio was the perceived loss of
insurability.
If you can't make a huge profit on a film no Completion bond company
will carry you. i.e. you can't make films because no investor will go
near you.
you stop making films for even a short time your stock goes down.
Your stock goes down, stockholders make a run to sell.
You crash.
The 40 million it cost to make Heaven's Gate was mostly just inflated
hype and over pay.
Heaven's Gate was supposed to do what Star Wars did for science
fiction films usher in a new golden era for box office westerns.
The viewing public was just not in the mood for westerns at that time.
The same film could have been made for as little as 9 million.
That wouldn't draw the curiosity of the potential viwers though.(the
mindset being that if it cost big bucks to make it MUST be good.)
They were also banking on Michael Cimino's box office rep, which was a
bit over inflated.(He did make The Deerhunter and Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot)
Yet soon proved to be a bit of a flash in the pan and just could not
keep up the level of box office draw the execs wanted.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:49:23 -0500, gothika
wrote:

It was a rhetorical reply. Which means it doesn't really need a
responce, especially a snippy little quip.

The quip was intended to point out that, in the wide world, there are
many people who have no reason to copy DVDs. Some do.

The number of those ripping their own DVD's vs not are far greater.

I doubt it but I have no data. Do you?

Why else the proponderance of ripping software coming out?

Preponderance? They are available, of course, but, again, no data.

BTW, this post does not require any response as it represents only my
opinions unless, of course, you have some hard numbers to deny or
support my contentions.

Kal

And you ignore all the self-righteous members of this group who insist on
how carefully they take care of their discs without even mentioning those
who buy rare ones second hand??

I buy second hand discs, but after I give them an inspection to ensure that the
lacquer layer is intact and the irridescent side is undamaged or only scratched
to a minor degree. If it's damaged in a way that I find unacceptable, even if
it's rare, I won't buy it. Simple.

Secondly, you blow the whole concept of careful handling of discs utterly and
totally out of proportion.

You don't even need "kid gloves." All that's involved with careful handling is
holding the discs by the edges and touching nothing else of the disc while it's
on its way to the player or its storage case.

That's it! It's as simple as that and that's also how LPs are usually handled,
yet people like you cannot comprehend this and still contend that it's some
unwieldly and complicated process.

Quite frankly, I think you are lazy, ignorant, and really full of ****.

And I'd love to see just what kind of condition your DVD collection is in.

BTW, I have never been inside my unbelievably slow-reacting Apex DVD player
which I bought for $15 but assume from this thread that it has only a simple
computer IDE cable in it which makes it obviously easy to swap

What model is it?

There are Apex players that use standard IDE drives, but there are also Apex
players that do not. It depends on the model number. Apex does not make their
own players, but takes players from other brands and slaps their name on them.
- Reinhart

"John Miller" wrote in message
...
James Sweet wrote:
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)

I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, yeah Lexan is more scratch
resistant than polycarbonate but it still scratches quite easily. I work
a
fair bit with lexan and acrylic, the lexan is far easier to cut and
drill
and far more shatter resistant, it does scratch much more easily than
acrylic though. Neither is as flexible as polycarbonate. Every material
has advantages and disadvantages.

What th'....

If you actually do go to GE Labs

http://www.gelexan.com/gelexan/

you'll see that Lexan *is* polycarbonate. (It's in the very title of the
above web page: "Lexan (R) Polycarbonate Resin from GE Plastics.")


Lexan is a GE trademark and is a bit different than standard polycarbonate.
The local plastics shop stocks both and the Lexan sheets are significantly
different.

"LASERandDVDfan" wrote in message
...
And you ignore all the self-righteous members of this group who insist on
how carefully they take care of their discs without even mentioning those
who buy rare ones second hand??

I buy second hand discs, but after I give them an inspection to ensure
that the
lacquer layer is intact and the irridescent side is undamaged or only
scratched
to a minor degree. If it's damaged in a way that I find unacceptable,
even if
it's rare, I won't buy it. Simple.

Secondly, you blow the whole concept of careful handling of discs utterly
and
totally out of proportion.

You don't even need "kid gloves." All that's involved with careful
handling is
holding the discs by the edges and touching nothing else of the disc while
it's
on its way to the player or its storage case.

That's it! It's as simple as that and that's also how LPs are usually
handled,
yet people like you cannot comprehend this and still contend that it's
some
unwieldly and complicated process.

Quite frankly, I think you are lazy, ignorant, and really full of ****.

And I'd love to see just what kind of condition your DVD collection is in.


While you have a few good points, I'm not really sure what you're going on
about. Obviously you're vastly superior to the average person and you
obviously only let other super-beings into your residence. That's fine but
there's no point in going on about it trying to boost your ego or whatever.
The rest of us have normal social lives, friends with kids, people who are
not perfect, etc. I take good care of my DVD's but it hasn't stopped
careless people and defective players from damaging a few. I live in the
real world where nobody is perfect and accidents happen on occasion, some
people are clumsy or have bad habbits handling things, I wish they weren't
but it's not a reason to lock up my entire house and never have people over.

Fortunately, if the drives go, you can just use a standard E-IDE DVD-ROM
drive.

I've had success using a Lite-On LTD-163 with an Apex AD-500W, which is a
superior drive to the DVS product that's originally used in this model.

As for turning off MacroVision and region discrimination, you have to swap
the
original BIOS chip with an EEPROM containing a hacked player OS. -
Reinhart

I will have to keep an eye out for some replacement drives. I know it is
only a matter of time before they do fail. I think two years is pussing my
luck. They are cheap players.

I will have to keep an eye out for some replacement drives. I know it is
only a matter of time before they do fail. I think two years is pussing my
luck. They are cheap players.

About the only difficulty would be in figuring out how to secure the drive to
the player chassis. But, there are ways to do it. Once that's figured out,
the rest is cake with icing on top. - Reinhart

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:23:21 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


"John Miller" wrote in message
...
James Sweet wrote:
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)

I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, yeah Lexan is more scratch
resistant than polycarbonate but it still scratches quite easily. I work
a
fair bit with lexan and acrylic, the lexan is far easier to cut and
drill
and far more shatter resistant, it does scratch much more easily than
acrylic though. Neither is as flexible as polycarbonate. Every material
has advantages and disadvantages.

What th'....

If you actually do go to GE Labs

http://www.gelexan.com/gelexan/

you'll see that Lexan *is* polycarbonate. (It's in the very title of the
above web page: "Lexan (R) Polycarbonate Resin from GE Plastics.")


Lexan is a GE trademark and is a bit different than standard polycarbonate.
The local plastics shop stocks both and the Lexan sheets are significantly
different.

I did mention that they make different grades of the stuff didn't I?
I've used the bullet proof stuff myself, you damn sure don't scratch
that.
I still have some of those old cassettes with the lexan shells and
they have absolutely no scratches.(most over 20 years old to boot.)

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:28:29 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


"LASERandDVDfan" wrote in message
...
And you ignore all the self-righteous members of this group who insist on
how carefully they take care of their discs without even mentioning those
who buy rare ones second hand??

I buy second hand discs, but after I give them an inspection to ensure
that the
lacquer layer is intact and the irridescent side is undamaged or only
scratched
to a minor degree. If it's damaged in a way that I find unacceptable,
even if
it's rare, I won't buy it. Simple.

Secondly, you blow the whole concept of careful handling of discs utterly
and
totally out of proportion.

You don't even need "kid gloves." All that's involved with careful
handling is
holding the discs by the edges and touching nothing else of the disc while
it's
on its way to the player or its storage case.

That's it! It's as simple as that and that's also how LPs are usually
handled,
yet people like you cannot comprehend this and still contend that it's
some
unwieldly and complicated process.

Quite frankly, I think you are lazy, ignorant, and really full of ****.

And I'd love to see just what kind of condition your DVD collection is in.


While you have a few good points, I'm not really sure what you're going on
about. Obviously you're vastly superior to the average person and you
obviously only let other super-beings into your residence. That's fine but
there's no point in going on about it trying to boost your ego or whatever.
The rest of us have normal social lives, friends with kids, people who are
not perfect, etc. I take good care of my DVD's but it hasn't stopped
careless people and defective players from damaging a few. I live in the
real world where nobody is perfect and accidents happen on occasion, some
people are clumsy or have bad habbits handling things, I wish they weren't
but it's not a reason to lock up my entire house and never have people over.

Thank you James for defending the position of us mere mortals.
I did give Rheinhart a couple of examples of how delicate discs can
get scratched by persons of lesser capabilities than those possessed
by him.
I guess in his world there are no beings who are less than perfect.

On 27 Jun 2004 01:24:41 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

While you have a few good points, I'm not really sure what you're going on
about. Obviously you're vastly superior to the average person and you
obviously only let other super-beings into your residence.

It's most definitely not a matter of superiority. It's only a matter of just
doing what's necessary to properly handle a DVD, which isn't much at all. Yet,
why do people complain about it?

There are some dimwits on this forum that are making a big deal out of handling
a DVD, and they go on about with some bull**** theories about how it's the
industry's way to milk their customers for all their worth.
The theory is certainly NOT bull****. You're reply does show an
abysmal lack of actual knowledge and experience when dealing with the
business world.
to call someone a dimwit(you've called them far worse, troll.) while
safely shielded behind the anonymity allowed by this medium does
reveal you immaturity and arrogance.
Care to actually meet in person?

That explanation is, quite frankly, worth less than spit and shows a lack of
understanding of the technology as well as an inability to follow simple
directions to protect DVDs and CDs from preventable damage.
I guess that the conditions of the real world don't apply on that
aerie peak you inhabit.
down here us mere mortals have to contend with the real world and all
the accidents that happen on a day to day basis.

If you think you're better at the subject, then please cite your explanations
on why people seem unwilling to do something as simple as only hold a disc by
the edges and always storing the disc in its case when not in use.
It's not failing to hold the disc by the edges, it's that some don't
have the manual dexterity for one reason or another to make what is
for you a simple/fool proof task a sure thing.
That'd be anyone with handicaps involving the use of their hands or
just anyone with arthritis.
As for jewel cases. You're saying that they're airtight and dust
proof?
That certainly is NOT the case, anyone here can tell you that.

That's all you have to do when handling a DVD. I mean, if someone can't
understand that, then that shows something sorely lacking in mental
development.
Maybe YOUR mental development.
The fact that you have to attack everyone's intellect shows an
emotional deficiency on your part.
Like I said a brat.

If someone does know that but just won't do it, then that's a sign of laziness.

It's all clear and to the point.

That's fine but
there's no point in going on about it trying to boost your ego or whatever.

What the hell does this have to do with ego?
Well... it's certainly percieved as such. How else would you explain
your attempts to put others down, other than an attempt to raise your
self-perception?

The rest of us have normal social lives, friends with kids, people who are
not perfect, etc.

Oh, so that means that a person who does something as simple as holding the
disc by the edges has some social problem?

And I guess that obeying traffic laws is also a sign of a social problem too,
eh?

I live in the
real world where nobody is perfect and accidents happen on occasion, some
people are clumsy or have bad habbits handling things

And your point is?
That was his point. you're trying to pass off obstinance as
obliqueness.

Going into some philosophical base to explain why people can't do something as
simple as handling a DVD properly is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

Why do people like you have to make such a big deal out of it? It's all simple
physics.
You must be young to have such a black&white outlook on everything.
Everything in this world is not as simple as one's and zero's, no
matter how hard to try and twist your world view to make it so.
Some individuals simply don't have the manual dexterity that others
are fortunate to have.
would you now say they shouldn't be allowed to have CD's/DVD's?

You don't handle a DVD properly, it can get damaged. You don't store it in its
container when not in use, it can get damaged.

To prevent damage to a DVD, simply handle the disc only by the edges and always
place it back in its case when not in use.

This is all that's done to handle a DVD and a CD properly.

Follow it instead of making stupid excuses for not trying something that's
easier than tying shoe laces.

I wish they weren't
but it's not a reason to lock up my entire house and never have people over.

And what does this have anything to do with the discussion? - Reinhart

On 27 Jun 2004 01:26:31 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

I will have to keep an eye out for some replacement drives. I know it is
only a matter of time before they do fail. I think two years is pussing my
luck. They are cheap players.

About the only difficulty would be in figuring out how to secure the drive to
the player chassis. But, there are ways to do it. Once that's figured out,
the rest is cake with icing on top. - Reinhart

Simple:
Aluminum angle brackets cut to size. Try either one or two inch 1/16
angle cut and drilled to size.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:29:04 -0400, "Licensed to Quill"
wrote:

And you ignore all the self-righteous members of this group who insist on
how carefully they take care of their discs without even mentioning those
who buy rare ones second hand?? How do contributors to this thread who
handle their discs with kid gloves respond to that?

BTW, I have never been inside my unbelievably slow-reacting Apex DVD player
which I bought for $15 but assume from this thread that it has only a simple
computer IDE cable in it which makes it obviously easy to swap for one which
has a normal 2 IDE device chain so anyone can then add a spare HD to that
chain (although IS there a spare power supply cable in there and if so,
why???): But how on earth do you then configure it so easily and how do you
then connect it to the computer so that you can DO anything with that added
drive?

Licensed to Quill

The units I have do have IDE cables and standard molex connector power
cables.
It'd be a fairly simple job to put panel mount connectors on the back
of the unit, allowing one to run external cabling from an aux. power
supply and IDE ribbon from your computer to chain it up to the IDE
drive on the mobo.
I have a external ide slot connector mounted on my computer for easily
hooking up HD's and an ATX power supply in a small case for powering
them.

"gothika" wrote in message
.. .
On 25 Jun 2004 06:29:18 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

yeah well... If I purchase a copy of a DVD and choose to make a use
copy in order to archive the original that's my right.

Well, if I were to make a backup of a DVD, I'd do it with DVD-R, not VHS.

If the film and recording industry didn't really want us to make
copies they'd make the medium more durable.

How do you propose making the medium more durable?
Like I said a thin coating of high grade Lexan over the surface would
do just fine. Might try making the actual disc material out of it as
well.

I've not had that problem because I handle all of my discs with care.
And, the
interesting part about being careful with your DVDs and CDs is that it's
actually easy! It's just a matter of developing good handling habits and
remembering to always put the disc back into its case when not in use.

But, I suppose that's too simple for anyone to follow, eh?
No but you make gross assumptions about others you know nothing about.
First off the main market(at least the one the dvd/video market is
spending millions to market to.) are families. Last time I checked
this meant children who as well all know are anything but careful.
Then there are those whose manual dexterity isn't as nimble as the
average 14-24 yr old computer nerd. This would include the elderly and
the handicapped.(Not to ring my own bell here but that'd include me.
I have a condition much like carpal tunnel. Nerve damage that makes
handling things like cds and dvds a bit difficult at times.)
Not to mention that the surface of commercial dvds are so soft that
even errant dust in the works will eventually scratch them.(The avrage
family house has nearly 10 pounds of dirt free floating in the air.)


Instead their plan is to make it more fragile in the hopes that it'll
get damaged forcing the consumer to "of course" buy it again.

Oh, a conspiracy theory, eh? You'd better be careful before Jack Valenti
decides to make you the next Jimmy Hoffa. (sarcasm off)
If corporate tactics are a conspiracy I guess so then.

Just another case of greedy *******s wanting to have their cake and
eat it too.

And I can guess that you don't take good care of your discs and also
allow them
to be handled by idiots.
No. try readig my reply above on that issue.

They spend almost no money on R&D towards building a scratch proof
CD/DVD.

Because how can you make such a disc?

Use a better plastic? Plastics can always be scratched, and there isn't
really
anything more suitable for DVDs and CDs than polycarbonate.
Actually as I said LEXAN. The make it all the way up to bullet
proof.(The helmets of the Apollo astronauts were made of Lexan as well
as the gold plated transparent visor shields on them.)
GE marketed a cassette tape back in the late 70's early 80's made of
high grade shock proof Lexan(same grade as the football helmets were
made of.) with a tape formulation that was extremely heat resistant.
We in the film and sound industry loved 'em. You couldn't kill them.
The cost was only slightly higher than the comparable hifi brand names
on the market.(As I recall I payed about 1.50-2.00 bucks more over the
same maxell/denon/tdk tape of the same bias and size.)
I still have some of the tapes in my archive vault today. They still
play with the same highs as when I recorded them nearly 25 years ago.
And that's just one superior plastic, one I might ad that is nearly 40
years old.
There are newer plastics that've been developed since that would work
just as well and probably cost even less. HDPE is one that comes to
mind.(No it is made in rigid formulations)


Apply some sort of scratch resistant coating on the irridescent side?
You can
end up actually altering the optical properties of the disc, rendering it
unplayable. The polycarbonate layer also acts as a lens of sort which
works
with the objective lens on the pickup to focus the beam on the track
path.
This is why these discs don't have a lexan coating as you've suggested as
applying such a coating alters the optical characteristics of the disc,
which
can cause problems.
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)
And while it's certainly not cost effective, we've had the technology
to grow synthetic diamonds.(It's done in a solution.)
That tech know how has been around since the 50's.
Esentially what I'm trying to say is that we have tons of
technological solutions for making a cost effective scratch proof
cd/dvd.


Yet throw oddles of money at encryption schemes and copy
guard technology to prevent the consumer from making copies.

In one way, all of these provisions makes it hell for the consumer to
practice
his fair use rights. Then again, I can't really blame the studios as
they are
just simply doing what they can to protect the profitability of their
products.
They are businesses, after all. However, I do agree that they should
stand
back and get a fresh look at the problem and find real solutions that
won't
cripple the consumer.
Consider it cost pennies to actually mass produce the cd's and dvd's
on the market today.
Yet look at the retail price.
Still the real point of it is they WANT to sell you the same product
over and over again.
That was a market model that the recording industry built in the 60's
and 70's.
One the film and music industry are loathe to abandon.
I'll believe their line of crap about business costs being awful when
I see a record/film company exec driving a vw bug and wearing suits
from K-mart.

But, that will never happen because every movie studio fears the
possibility of
making a "Heaven's Gate" and would like to brace themselves for a
finnancial
bath, just in case.

That's really not a legitimate argument.
whenever a film is signed on to be made all sorts of insurance and
bonds are contracted to avoid any possibility of financial loss of the
prinicipal.
The "financial bath" is really just the lost opportunity to rake in
millions in box office and secondaries.
The attitude of the investors is that if they lay out millions then
they expect to see at least double that in intial profit in the first
year. Or even in the few weeks of first release.
(Or box office receipts if the contract deal only allow for first run
profits for principal investors. i.e. no monies for them on video or
cable etc..)
They get very unhappy if they don't make 2-3 times over their
principal.

"Heaven's Gate" was a motion picture released in 1980. It cost over $40
million to produce, but it flopped big-time. The finnancial loss of the
film
was so staggering that it pretty much killed United Artists, the studio
that
commissioned the motion picture's production. Or, at least, forced
Transamerica, UA's corporate parent, to sell UA to MGM to recover its
losses
and answer to its investors. - Reinhart

That was a studio film that was backed pretty much by the studio
itself.
What really crippled the studio was the perceived loss of
insurability.
If you can't make a huge profit on a film no Completion bond company
will carry you. i.e. you can't make films because no investor will go
near you.
you stop making films for even a short time your stock goes down.
Your stock goes down, stockholders make a run to sell.
You crash.
The 40 million it cost to make Heaven's Gate was mostly just inflated
hype and over pay.
Heaven's Gate was supposed to do what Star Wars did for science
fiction films usher in a new golden era for box office westerns.
The viewing public was just not in the mood for westerns at that time.
The same film could have been made for as little as 9 million.
That wouldn't draw the curiosity of the potential viwers though.(the
mindset being that if it cost big bucks to make it MUST be good.)
They were also banking on Michael Cimino's box office rep, which was a
bit over inflated.(He did make The Deerhunter and Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot)
Yet soon proved to be a bit of a flash in the pan and just could not
keep up the level of box office draw the execs wanted.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:11:13 GMT, John Miller wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)

I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, yeah Lexan is more scratch
resistant than polycarbonate but it still scratches quite easily. I work a
fair bit with lexan and acrylic, the lexan is far easier to cut and drill
and far more shatter resistant, it does scratch much more easily than
acrylic though. Neither is as flexible as polycarbonate. Every material
has advantages and disadvantages.

What th'....

If you actually do go to GE Labs

http://www.gelexan.com/gelexan/

you'll see that Lexan *is* polycarbonate. (It's in the very title of the
above web page: "Lexan (R) Polycarbonate Resin from GE Plastics.")


Thank you for the clarification. I've worked with it over the years
and in the working practice most make a distinction between other
brands of polycarbonates and GE's version(GE did invent it
originally.)
Like I said there are different grades of the stuff.
And there is a world of difference between GE's offerings and the
other brands out there.
I've used cheaper versions such as that made by Cyano for things such
as windows and windshields for motorcycle fairings. It can scratch
quite easily.(Reason tho' is so it can be buffed back out after it
does inevitively get scratches.)
Working with the GE preformed sheets is some degrees tougher and more
exacting, at least for the uninitiated.
Much tougher to buff out if you do manage to scratch it as well.

I was just saying that if the makers of DVD's were to spend a few
pennies more and use a HIGHER grade of Lexan in the coating then
DVD's/CD's wouldn't get scratched as easily.
I reassert that that's unlikely as an indestructable product is the
LAST thing corporate America want's to produce.

Can you really argue with proof of the past 50 years or so?
everyone can recall some product that was discontinued because it just
lasted too long and would simply not wear out.
Autos come to mind for one.
Home appliances for another. Especially Televisions, Refridgerators,
Washers and Dryers as well.
Is it then a leap of intellect to not see the same with pre-recorded
media?
One has only to look at the history of the vinyl LP to see that.
The record industry attempted repeatedly to downgrade the quality of
the vinyl used not simply to save money on production but to make a
product that'd wear out faster.
The idea was to get the individual consumer to buy the same title over
and over. Therefor neverending cycle of profits.
In the late 70's just before the release of the CD medium the process
of degrading vinyl LP's was accelerated even more, to drive consumers
to the new and costly media.(remember the average cost of a player
when they came out was well over 700 dollars, Sony's ran as much as a
thousand. the CD's were even more overpriced some running as much as
25 dollars.)
In order to get consumers to swallow the hugh price tag they had to
make them hate vinyl.
There was once even plans to replace vinyl with cellulose, essentially
cardboard. Fortunately the consumers made their voices heard on that
idea.
Thing was the record industry had become dependent on the repeat sale
business model and simply couldn't afford to let go of it.
Millions would be lost.
so today we have CD's and DVD's that are very susceptable to scratches
and warpage.( I left a CD on my car seat last week and the summer heat
warped it to total uselessness.)

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:35:20 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:



No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)
And while it's certainly not cost effective, we've had the technology
to grow synthetic diamonds.(It's done in a solution.)
That tech know how has been around since the 50's.
Esentially what I'm trying to say is that we have tons of
technological solutions for making a cost effective scratch proof
cd/dvd.



I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, yeah Lexan is more scratch resistant
than polycarbonate but it still scratches quite easily. I work a fair bit
with lexan and acrylic, the lexan is far easier to cut and drill and far
more shatter resistant, it does scratch much more easily than acrylic
though. Neither is as flexible as polycarbonate. Every material has
advantages and disadvantages.

They do make scratch proof grades of Lexan as well as differing grades
of rigidity.(The Popemobile uses bulletproof Lexan and you damn sure
won't scratch that with anything less than a .38 special. Very heat
resistant as well.)

On 26 Jun 2004 08:15:17 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

You show all the signs of one who's completely enamored to all things
high tech. If it's not the latest and greatest you don't want it.
You'll always be caught in that viscious circle of keeping up with the
jones.
Which is exactly where the retailer want you.

I guess that DOESN'T explain why I keep a stockpile of VHS and Beta VCRs and
still use a Sony DVP-S360 DVD player, which is a 1999-2000 year player and was
the low end model for Sony at that time. Still works perfectly, too. No need
for a new DVD player. Although, I have three spare DVD players. Two Toshiba
SD-1700 players, both with the bad caps replaced and one with minor power
supply repair, works perfectly and has their remotes. One Panasonic DVD-A110
with remote. Someone gave it to me when it stopped reading discs. I called
Panasonic and they honored a warranty service on it, even though it was years
out of warranty, so I ended up with a free working DVD player at Panasonic's
expense.
I suppose it's a matter of degrees then. At my age I perceive anything
as late as 1999-2000 to be something brand new.
I still have much of the gear I used in the 70's, mostly pro studio
stuff.(Much of it still sought after. I get calls often from artists
wanting to purchase my Ampex studio decks as well as some of my better
mikes.)
I've even been dusting off some of the analog video editing gear I've
had in storage. some 1/2 inch as well as my old 1 inch quad A digital
recorders.


As for getting better things, I'm quite resourceful, and having luck never
hurts.
While I'm retired I still do some repair work for those I know and
quite often get newer gear that way.
I got my Sony STR-DA4ES receiver for $300 complete with manual and remote, and
that Elevated Standard model retailed for over $1000 in 2002 and still enjoys a
high price on retail and used markets. I enjoy 7.1 surround sound and superb
stereo sound because of this 44 pound beast! Excellent shape.\
I have 5.1 in my den, but get it using much older gear.
I have a stand alone 5.1 decoder that I feed into various amps(most
valved). My front and rear stereo speakers are klipshorns.
I built the center using ferrofluids I cannabilised out of a pair of
Dhalquists and went stereo on the rear sub channel through an active
crossover unit I had.(suppose that'd make it a 6.1 tho'.)
Yet for a consumer to have something like this would cost an arm and a
leg. I had most of this in my warehouse.

My stereo mains are a set of Optimus Mach Threes. Yeah, they're RadioShack
speakers, with one minor detail: they were speakers that RS managed to get
right. The sound is neutral and accurate, but very smooth. Love listening to
stuff from classical and new age to pop and hard rock, and these speakers plays
all with aplomb and very efficiently so there's no reason to replace them with
a set of Infinity or NHT speakers.

Yeah the Mach Three's were very decent speakers. I have a bunch of
Radio Shack stuff I bought through a fire sale.(Franchise owner
torched his own store, got caught and the whole store was put on the
auction block.)
I got all the speakers and various sundry amps and CB equipment.
I re-tweeked a pair of the T1000's speakers by having JBL recone and
coil them and replaced the softdomes tweeters with fluid filled leafs.
After retuning the boxes I got a very respectable flat usable 24hz.
Not bad for skinny towers.
Surround and center speakers are KLH, and they're not bad for cheapies. I
place a greater priority on stereo reproduction than surround sound, so I am
more than content with KLH speakers for the surrounds, but would like a better
center channel speaker.
KLH woofers are good in the respect that that they achieve good bass
for short throw speakers. This makes them efficient and very tight as
long as they aren't over powered too much.

My turntable, a 1983 model Technics SL-7, was purchased for $10. I replaced
the belt for the pickup kicker mechanism and cleaned it up inside and out, and
it looks like it came fresh from the factory with nary a scratch or blemish in
sight. The Ortofon cartridge and stylus were still good. Excellent shape.

The SL-7 was a damn fine turntable for the bucks, far outperforming
those costing 3 times as much.
I have a room full of turntables of all sorts.(people would bring them
in as donations over the years.)
I let a friend talk me out of my old Linn and regret it to this day.
I currently use a Sony high-end straight arm and a Denon tangental.
Mostly use them to remaster old out of pressing vinyl tape.
My tape deck, a 3 head JVC TD-V711 SuperDigifine, I bought for $15 bucks from a
seller who was convinced it was worthless just because it was a tape deck.
Excellent shape.
got a room full of cassette decks. My favorites are an older Akai with
glass heads and a Nakamichi with lasermorphous heads.(the glass is
great for very clean highs and the morphous dendrite heads have very
smooth transients.)
I usually run both with a DBX type Ior II compressor to preserve
dymanic range.
My favorite reel units are my Tandberg and my Docoder.


My 1994 model Onkyo DX-C106 CD changer I essentially bought for $25. I applied
a slight modification by changing the JRC 4560 opamps with Burr-Brown AD2604
opamps in the analogue section for improved sound quality. Excellent shape.
I use a NAD reference unit, though I've always felt it was over
rated.(I let my old swiss made Tandberg go when I sold my recording
studio back in 85.)

My primary monitor, a 1999 model Sony KV-27S66, was built from two defective
sets of the same model. Calibrated to THX OptiMODE and is capable of working
with 16x9 anamorphically enhanced DVDs. Not bad for $60 ($30 for the two TVs
and $30 for the remote. Sony graciously shipped me a copy of the user manual
for free, as they assumed I paid a lot to get the set repaired). Excellent
shape.

I have a Sony monitor as well, a Sony Vio with the built in Stereo and
sub. A friend donated it when he up graded from 17" to 19".
I have a Big HP 19 inch that I started out with but it just sitting in
the corner collecting dust.(I find this 17 does the job for me.)
My primary VHS VCR, a 1990 model Sony SVO-160, was given to me. Power supply
was rebuilt with new capacitors and the capstan bearing problem was fixed. I
spent $25 on getting the remote and manual. Excellent shape. Has the best
picture and hi-fi sound of any VHS deck I've used with only one possible
exception: the Panasonic AG-1980 S-VHS Editor.

Yeah I had a couple of the 1980's back in the late 80's when I did
alot of 1/2 inch editing. They were damn good machines. I's started
out with the lowly 1950's in 86 that were nice for bottom line.)
Like I said I'm dusting off what 1/2 inch I still have, seems there's
still use for them.
I'm currently getting my Sanyo GVR-S955's back in use.(S-VHS editors
that accept dual standard controllers and can do stop frame for
animation.)
My primary SuperBeta VCR, 1985 model Sony SL-HF400, was purchased for $225.
Unit is mint with remote and was barely used. If you don't have a large number
of Beta tapes, then you wouldn't understand why I thought this wasn't a bad
deal.
Yeah I do. I did toss my last Beta dub deck out a couple of years ago,
about 200 or so tapes as well.
ust didn't have a need for them anymore.

My primary LaserDisc player, a 1997 model Pioneer DVL-700 with remote, was
purchased for $75 from a pawn shop. Resurfaced the spindle hub friction
material to restore lost grip on the LaserDisc, which fixed the slippage
problem that is fairly common on that chassis, which was also used on players
like the Pioneer ELITE CLD-99 and Pioneer CLD-D704. Excellent shape and one of
the finest LD players I've used.

My PlayStation 2 was bought new. Had to get the TOSLink cable and the S-Video
cable to integrate it into my rig the way I wanted it to.

My Microsoft X-Box was bought used for $120 including two games and two
controllers. Had to replace the optical pickup (Samsung DVD drive with Seagate
HD, IDE cable replaced with UDMA cable) and bought an A/V pack to connect it to
my rig using S-Video and TOSLink.

My Nintendo GameCube was obtained by trading a VCR with a friend. The GameCube
had a faulty optical pickup, but Nintendo honored the warranty, even though it
was over by two months. So, I ended up with a refurbished GameCube for the
price of a VCR.

My CED player, an RCA SJT-200, was bought from a flea market for $10. Cleaned
and rebuilt with a new belt and fresh lube brought it back to life. Stylus has
plenty of life left to play those needlevision discs, to which I have a
collection.

There is a lot more. Anyways, my system as a whole is probably worth in excess
of $3000 and is capable of playing VHS, Beta, LaserDisc, CED, DVD, LP, CD, and
CompactCassette. But, I spent a fraction of that by simply being at the right
place at the right time and I'm quite content with my equipment. Some of my
equipment are simply superior to what's sold new today unless you go much
higher end than what Best Buy sells, and I got almost everything with pennies
on the dollar.

I love high tech, but I don't nosedive into something like that unless I
absolutely need to. Since my current TV/monitor is still working perfectly, I
don't watch broadcasts on it but use it strictly as a monitor, and can enjoy
anamorphic DVDs on it complete with the 30% virtual resolution increase, albeit
with no progressive scan but having a detailed and sharp image nonetheless, I
have no need for a new HDTV at this time.

So much for your theory about me. If anything, I compete for getting the
biggest bang for the buck instead of just getting the best. I usually end up
getting some high end stuff AND saving money. You can't beat that combination.


And, I'm willing to bet that the other techies here have also had great
success, perhaps greater, at building their systems by getting the right stuff
for great prices and using their capabilities to get broken high end stuff for
a low price or for free and to repair them for resale or use. - Reinhart

No argument there, I've done the same.
But so many game systems? Sorry but I'd rather take a walk in the
park. Get outside.
Take a good look in the mirror, your a classic techno geek, no matter
what you managed to save in purchase price.
I have all the stuff I have to go towards an end goal. In years gone
by it was in support of my business.
now what I do play with is more hobby and I try to not let it take up
to much of every day.
I wouldn't be getting my film/video suite back up if a couple of
students at the local Fine Arts school hadn't talked me into helping
them get their documentary off the ground.

Just the difference in our ages I suppose.

On 26 Jun 2004 08:55:06 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

Still you must go back and read again. The difference is not
discernable on th e average home tv.

Whatever.

Besides, my TV isn't an average home TV, so why should I care what you think?

I don't have a beef with people doing what they want, I'm just saying that I
have no need to do what you think is a great idea.

I don't need S-VHS copies of my DVDs because I take care of my DVDs. Under
proper care, DVDs will not wear out from normal use.
That remains to be seen. Dyes DO fade with time and use. chemical
compounds do destabilize.


And, why would I want to copy DVDs for illegal distribution, if you are
thinking of it that way?
I didn't ever imply illegal, rather fair use.

Yeah! I've seen such crap in the retail outlets. A kit form of a5.1
theatre is mostly crap with compromises inherent.

If you buy **** from Apex, Coby, Audiovox, or Bose, then I can see why you'd
have such scorn.

But, systems from Panasonic, Pioneer, and JVC aren't as bad as you make them
out to be and they don't cost an arm and a leg. Perfect for those who just
want a decent sounding 5.1 system for movies in a small-to-medium sized room.

And, as you've implied, the average consumer may not care about quality. As
long as THEY think it sounds good, then more power to them. But, I've heard
the sound of box solutions from Pioneer, Panasonic, and JVC. While they're not
as good as my rig driven by an STR-DA4ES, I was suprised that they did sound
pretty good for what you'd get.

You can't honestly say that a small polystyrene box you can hold in
your hand is actually a sub woofer.

Now you're feeding words in my mouth.
Nooo... That's what you usually get with those all-in-one kits.
I've yet to see any of the Panasonic, Pioneer or JVC systems you're
talking about come with a 15 inch sub. and that is what it takes to
get true subwoofer performance.(I don't care what anyone says until
you get below 26hz you aren't even approaching true sub output.)
My klipschhorns put out a flat 22hz. (My subs go down to 18hz and I've
clipped the top end on them to 26hz.)
What's sold today as subs in most outlets are little better than "Bass
emphasizers". and not very low bass at that
To call a boosted 40-50hz note "sub" is ridiculous. Might sound good
to some, bit sub it 'aint!

Since when did I ever make a bull**** remark that a cube speaker can accomodate
a subwoofer?
That's what you get in most of the 5.1 box kits. At the very best you
wind up with a 12inch, mostly tho' it's 6-8"s. And there is no way
drivers that small can carry anything much lower 42hz before razzing
out.
If anything, a subwoofer is required to complement a cube speaker, to fill in
the lower end that those "speakers" are incapable of reproducing. (Which is a
sleazy tactic that Bose does to push their Acoustimass modules on the sales
floor.)
True, but then Bose has always been crap.

In order to have quality THX certified QUALITY sound in their dens the
consumer is looking at a couple of thousand bucks for an out of the
box solution.

For a true THX certified system, EVERYTHING from the speaker cable to the
actual room acoustics have to conform to the standard. This means you will
spend more than a couple of thousand bucks for a true THX system.
Saw a THX unit at a local hifi shop last month that went for just over
1,800.



And, IMO, THX certified equipment for the home is almost a complete waste of
money. THX for the home is not like THX for the theatre circuit or THX for
post-production studios, where strict quality control is mandatory.
True. Lucas does play fast and loose with the standards.
I'm talking about those standards set down by Tomlinson Howard when he
first completed the lab works though.

For the home, THX only means you potentially spent a lot more than you should
have for your equipment.
True, but then that's mostly about retail hype and trickery.
Just as I first asserted there is a huge gap between what is offered
to the average consumer and the real deal.
Especially when you consider what the consumer is able and willing to
pay.(Doesn't stop the retailers from dressing up a dog and calling it
a pony tho'.)


Home THX will certify anything that pays for the brand. There is a Kenwood
receiver, the KRF-X9992D, that's THX Ultra certified, which is the highest
possible THX certification for home equipment. But it doesn't deserve it
because of some screwy design decisions and horrendous design shortcuts. For
instance, if the ventilation fan fails, the whole output section will overheat.
Also, the DSP electronics are all located overhead of the heatsinks, which
means they get a big dose of heat radiated from the output sections when the
receiver is running. There are also no condensor capacitors for the primary
power supply and the secondary power supply is underdesigned. This thing uses
a lot of transmission ribbons and all cabling are organized in an almost
totally haphazard fashion. Overall, this sucker is an expensive example of
what not to do with receiver design. Yet, it manages to get THX Ultra
certification?
That has to do with the signal processing, not with the basic design
of the tuner/amp/power stages.
Though I will not defend anything Kenwood has made in the past 35
years either.

Sorry, but if THX allows big ass ****ups like this, then I don't have faith in
their standards for the home.
Once again it's all about the money.
I agree, if the THX labs really cared about their rep they'd pay alot
more attention to the overall quality of the product they're sticking
their certification badge on.

I'll stick with my Sony ES receiver, thank you. Better design and build
quality with better sound for about half the price. (Although, I paid less
than half the MSRP for my Sony ES receiver.)
Can't totally agree with you there about Sony.
they've been going down the tubes in later years just like many
others, and I've never cared for their customer policies.
Try getting a Sony specific part from them sometime.
I have two or three Sony Receiver/Amps sitting around that fried right
out.(Friends brought them to me for repairs.)
I could either not get the parts or they cost far two much to repair.
Two of them are lat model surround sound units. A 4.1 and a 5.1 unit.
The left channel is out on one as well as the power output stage and
the other tends to overheat and shut down, even after bigger heatsinks
and a faster cooling fan.

If Sony ES weren't an option, I'd go with Harman/Kardon, Denon, or Onkyo
(preferrably without THX). - Reinhart

I don't need S-VHS copies of my DVDs because I take care of my DVDs. Under
proper care, DVDs will not wear out from normal use.
That remains to be seen. Dyes DO fade with time and use. chemical
compounds do destabilize.

That's if you use recordable DVD media.

However, I am referring to PRESS-REPLICATED DVD media. Big difference in that
the information is physically molded onto the polycarbonate disc instead of
being inscribed on a cyanine-based dye substrate.

If I was going to state DVD-R media, I would have specified that.


And, why would I want to copy DVDs for illegal distribution, if you are
thinking of it that way?
I didn't ever imply illegal, rather fair use.

I agree with fair use. But, I don't have a need for copying my DVDs as they
don't get damaged.

Nooo... That's what you usually get with those all-in-one kits.

Go out to the store and really audition some of the systems that are there.
There are some systems that use speakers that are a bit more substantial than
those polypropylene cube squakers and are still relatively economical for
someone who only wants a sound system that's adequate enough for movie
soundtracks.

Panasonic SC-HT400K
Panasonic SC-HT700
Panasonic SC-HT467S
Panasoinc SC-HT405
Panasonic SC-HT425
Panasonic SC-HT900
Sony DAVFC7

Those are some systems I have auditioned. While they certainly aren't hi-fi by
any means, they don't sound that bad and would fit the bill for anybody who
wants something that actually does sound decently and just wants something to
enjoy movie soundtracks, particularly for a relatively small-to-medium sized
listening environment. For stereo reproduction, the very best offerings are
just okay. But, for the average consumer who isn't an audiophile or an audio
enthusiast: they aren't bad choices, they don't cost an arm and a leg, and they
will sound significantly better than the TV speakers.

Panasonic, Pioneer or JVC systems you're
talking about come with a 15 inch sub

Bigger is not always better. Being able to move air more efficiently is what
matters, that is if you are going to use a sub for LFE exclusively as opposed
to stereo music reproduction.

But, if your stereo mains can reproduce good bass by themselves, then it's
pointless to add a sub unless you want to enjoy bass meant to be felt from a
movie soundtrack with an LFE programmed to it.

I don't care what anyone says until
you get below 26hz you aren't even approaching true sub output.

But you will still get bass that can be felt from the LFE with the systems I've
mentioned, which is the whole point for a movie soundtrack subwoofer. Plus,
most bass content are above the 26 Hz range you've described.

That's what you get in most of the 5.1 box kits.

But you do know that there are some kits that are fairly decent.

At the very best you
wind up with a 12inch, mostly tho' it's 6-8"s.

Like I said, bigger isn't always better. You also have to factor the listening
environment. Having a 15 inch sub for most family rooms is overkill.

Saw a THX unit at a local hifi shop last month that went for just over
1,800.

So, you'll get a THX certified component for $1,800. But what about everything
else?

If you want a TRUE THX system, then EVERYTHING has to conform to the standards,
including the listening environment, speakers, and speaker placement.

Just buying one THX component does not make your entire system THX. A CEDIA
rep will tell you that.

That has to do with the signal processing, not with the basic design
of the tuner/amp/power stages.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/blow...d/index-j.html

Can't totally agree with you there about Sony.
they've been going down the tubes in later years just like many
others, and I've never cared for their customer policies.

The thing about Sony is that if you buy higher end, you generally will get
better quality. If you buy an ES class (DA series) or DB series receiver, you
will end up with a decent piece of equipment. Buy a DE series receiver, and
you will end up with a piece of crap.

Try getting a Sony specific part from them sometime

I have and a lot of techs here have before as well, and it's not too bad unless
you are looking for parts for something as obscure as a Sony SL-HF750 SuperBeta
VCR.

But almost every manufacturer has a problem when it comes to their inventories
for parts on obscure and discontinued models.

I have two or three Sony Receiver/Amps sitting around that fried right
out.(Friends brought them to me for repairs.)

Model numbers?

I'm willing to bet they are lower end DE series models, which wouldn't surprise
me why they may be so bad. - Reinhart

I suppose it's a matter of degrees then. At my age I perceive anything
as late as 1999-2000 to be something brand new.
I still have much of the gear I used in the 70's, mostly pro studio
stuff.

My stuff has been a mix of equipment from the 1980s and 1990s and some from the
21st century.

I have 5.1 in my den, but get it using much older gear.

Using a preamp processor to provide the feed to three vintage stereo amps or
six monoblocks?

I would prefer separates for amplification, but I don't have the room, hence
the necessity of a high quality receiver. It won't sound as good, but it still
sounds great. And, I don't have the money or resources to select premium
drivers and build custom enclosures for my speakers, so I make due with what I
can get. It sounds good, at least to me, and I know it's better than most my
friend's setups.

KLH woofers are good in the respect that that they achieve good bass
for short throw speakers. This makes them efficient and very tight as
long as they aren't over powered too much.

Generally, though. KLH sucks. There are few exceptions, though. Such as the
900B. But a lot of KLH speakers I've heard were inefficient and
horrible-sounding. KLH did mean something before, but like so many other
brands that also meant something, they don't mean much now.

I have a room full of turntables of all sorts.(people would bring them
in as donations over the years.)

I used to have a Sansui P-M90 auto-reverse table. Sold it for $250 because I
didn't like the sound quality and the fact that you can't change the pickups,
but FedEx totalled it in transit.
Fortunately, there was insurance coverage.

I let a friend talk me out of my old Linn and regret it to this day.

I can imagine. A Linn is a Rolls-Royce of a turntable, especially their
Sondeks.

My favorites are an older Akai with
glass heads and a Nakamichi with lasermorphous heads.

Have a Nakamichi Dragon? Wish I did.

I usually run both with a DBX type Ior II compressor to preserve
dymanic range.

DBX is a superior compander to Dolby System and, IMO, did things that Dolby is
touting with their S level NR. Only one quirk, and that's with breathing
noise.

I use a NAD reference unit, though I've always felt it was over
rated.(I let my old swiss made Tandberg go when I sold my recording
studio back in 85.)

Sony ES has some very fine CD players, that is if you look at the higher end of
ES components, with stuff that's actually made with a rolled copper chassis and
dual low-leakage transformers. Their audio sections are actually pretty good
but the real cool factor is their transports, which are rock solid and stable
so they'd be ideal to use with an outboard converter.

As for an example of cool 80's CD player, how about Revox or Studer?

I'm currently getting my Sanyo GVR-S955's back in use.(S-VHS editors
that accept dual standard controllers and can do stop frame for
animation.)

And programmable linear editing.

then you wouldn't understand why I thought this wasn't a bad
deal.
Yeah I do. I did toss my last Beta dub deck out a couple of years ago,
about 200 or so tapes as well.
ust didn't have a need for them anymore.

Then I'm sorry for doubting you on this.

But so many game systems? Sorry but I'd rather take a walk in the
park. Get outside.

Well, I love video games, and there are quite a few for those platforms that
have rich and engrossing stories to tell. But, they aren't my life and I do
get out. Mainly, everything is disconnected from the mains to protect them
from Florida thunderstorms.

Take a good look in the mirror, your a classic techno geek, no matter
what you managed to save in purchase price.

I take that as a complement. - Reinhart

Okay, let's put this into perspective here since this is really getting out of
hand.

Handle a disc by the edges and only put the disc in the player or in the case.
Place the case in a cool, dry place for storage.

That's all I do, and I have mint-condition discs, one dating back to 1986, to
show for it.

There's no exacting process involved.
What I did was just do it and eventually it became second-nature, very much
like practicing how to shift gears with a clutch.

That's all there is to it. - Reinhart

common, try nerd-out.com for instructions on what to do



On 24 Jun 2004 09:43:05 -0700, (Gordon
Gaskell) wrote:

Greetings fellow technicians:
I have an Apex dvd player AD-500W with a DVS DSL-710A computer type
disc reader drive. When a video or audio disc is inserted the player
spins and searches the disc for a while then displays "No Disc".
Intermittently it will begin playing a video or audio disc. Any
suggestions to improve the reliability will be appreciated. Thank you.
Gordon Gaskell AAS

common, try nerd-out.com for instructions on what to do

http://www.nerd-out.com/darrenk/

The site is supposedly closed, but this hyperlink provides a backdoor.

Going only to nerd-out.com will only allow you to select two links, one leading
to the forum and the other leading to information on the Apex AD-600A models.
- Reinhart

(LASERandDVDfan) wrote in
:


I agree with fair use. But, I don't have a need for copying my DVDs
as they don't get damaged.

Wow, you must not have kids yet.
We're collecting all the Disney DVDs for them, which is great. The only
problem is when they get a little too enthusiastic with the discs, and they
get scratched. Or buried in the yard. Don't ask. So I've recently started
backing up all 'their' movies.
If you ever do feel the need, for whatever reason, 123 Copy DVD is the best
program out there for it.

Wow, you must not have kids yet.

Well, I mentioned that before in the thread.

Considering my circumstances, I just don't need to make backups at this time.

We're collecting all the Disney DVDs for them, which is great. The only
problem is when they get a little too enthusiastic with the discs, and they
get scratched. Or buried in the yard. Don't ask.

Well, the reason is that you have kids. I've heard of things like a Game Boy
left out in the yard throughout an entire winter. Surprisingly enough, after
the winter and when it was found, it still worked!

So I've recently started
backing up all 'their' movies.
If you ever do feel the need, for whatever reason, 123 Copy DVD is the best
program out there for it.

I don't think making backups are ever a bad idea, considering what the action
is intended for in the first place: to protect your investment in software.

And, thank you for your suggestion. - Reinhart