Astronomical Equipment

"Sirius" wrote in message
...
If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Bad example. Overdriven amp distortion, sustain, compression, and dynamic
response - in other words, "tone" - are a matter of personal taste, and
there is absolutely no question that tube (pre)amps sound different when
pushed to distortion than solid state. You can't sound like
Jimi/Eric/George/Brian/etc. by cranking up a solid state amp. Nor can you
sound like Pantera and all the nu-metal bands using a vintage Marshall or
Fender Twin.

A more apt question would be, "if newer == better, how come everybody's
still using real tube amps instead of modeling software + clean high power
solid state amps?" The answer, naturally, is "straw man." Nobody's arguing
that newer is per se better in every respect.

"Sirius" wrote in message
...
If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Bad example. Overdriven amp distortion, sustain, compression, and dynamic
response - in other words, "tone" - are a matter of personal taste, and
there is absolutely no question that tube (pre)amps sound different when
pushed to distortion than solid state. You can't sound like
Jimi/Eric/George/Brian/etc. by cranking up a solid state amp. Nor can you
sound like Pantera and all the nu-metal bands using a vintage Marshall or
Fender Twin.

A more apt question would be, "if newer == better, how come everybody's
still using real tube amps instead of modeling software + clean high power
solid state amps?" The answer, naturally, is "straw man." Nobody's arguing
that newer is per se better in every respect.

"Sirius" wrote in message
...
If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Bad example. Overdriven amp distortion, sustain, compression, and dynamic
response - in other words, "tone" - are a matter of personal taste, and
there is absolutely no question that tube (pre)amps sound different when
pushed to distortion than solid state. You can't sound like
Jimi/Eric/George/Brian/etc. by cranking up a solid state amp. Nor can you
sound like Pantera and all the nu-metal bands using a vintage Marshall or
Fender Twin.

A more apt question would be, "if newer == better, how come everybody's
still using real tube amps instead of modeling software + clean high power
solid state amps?" The answer, naturally, is "straw man." Nobody's arguing
that newer is per se better in every respect.

Real guitar pickers pick Martin acoustic-- and your guitar should cost more
than your truck.

Next question.

--
----
JAS


"Sirius" wrote in message
...
This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Real guitar pickers pick Martin acoustic-- and your guitar should cost more
than your truck.

Next question.

--
----
JAS


"Sirius" wrote in message
...
This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Real guitar pickers pick Martin acoustic-- and your guitar should cost more
than your truck.

Next question.

--
----
JAS


"Sirius" wrote in message
...
This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

On 12/31/03 19:04 +0900, JAS wrote:

Real guitar pickers pick Martin acoustic-- and your guitar should cost more
than your truck.

My DR cost more than my bicycle. Does that count? ;^)

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

On 12/31/03 19:04 +0900, JAS wrote:

Real guitar pickers pick Martin acoustic-- and your guitar should cost more
than your truck.

My DR cost more than my bicycle. Does that count? ;^)

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

On 12/31/03 19:04 +0900, JAS wrote:

Real guitar pickers pick Martin acoustic-- and your guitar should cost more
than your truck.

My DR cost more than my bicycle. Does that count? ;^)

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Sirius wrote in :

This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?


To me, there's something about sitting there with a star chart, trying to
match the view in your finder, that's unreplaceable.

I can see the appeal in GOTO, but to me, that would take all the enjoyment
out.

Let's look at M57 - there it is! Now let's observe Beta Lyrae. Got it!

It's almost like flipping channels on the TV.

That's my opinion, anyway.