Any body got one of these?
I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
all 6 lamps.
Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
my ordinary flashlights are better.
So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
of these? What is your opinion/experience?
Thanks,
Bill Leonhardt
Leon wrote:
>
> IMHO LED's get toooooo much recognition. For now, they are simply less
> effective when used in a flash light. They are pathetic when it come to
> casting a light on something although they are great for signal lights. I
> have seen several LED flash lights that perform poorly when compared to a
> regular incandescent flash light.
Depends on the LED.
I have an LED aviation flashlight, LED bicycle lamps, and an LED strobes
on my airplanes that kick serious ass. The aviation flashlight is TOO
BRIGHT for cockpit use, with a single LED and (2) AAA cells, so I have
tape over the face of it. It makes a 2xAA cell MagLite look like an
antique, not to mention 10 times the battery life.
The LED strobes are "insanely" bright, and current biz-jets and small
aircraft come factory equipped with LED markers and strobes.
My red/blue/green/white flashlight was $50, and the Whelan Engineering
tail strobe was $600. Think of that, then think of Stanley as a brand.
What level of LED quality do you think Stanley would spec? Then
realize that the Stanley flashlight retails for about $25. <G>
"A late holiday president"? Freudian slip Bill?
Bill Leonhardt wrote:
> Any body got one of these?
>
> I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
> holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
> 6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
> all 6 lamps.
>
> Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
> on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
> my ordinary flashlights are better.
>
> So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
> of these? What is your opinion/experience?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Leonhardt
Leon wrote:
> Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
Not worth it IMHO. The LED torches using better LEDs designed
especially for torches and with suitable reflectors built in beat the
pants off any converted twin AA Maglite I've seen.
If you aren't convinced by LED torches yet, just try a Surefire.
Doug Payne wrote:
> On 17/01/2007 4:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
> > My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
> > are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
>
> Yep, I think so. I value my time (highly), and and just couldn't be
> bothered trying to find endless variations of upgrade, so I went whole
> hog and bought the Surefire. Haven't been sorry.
Over $ 100.00 for a wee flashlight! Who knew?
Swingman wrote:
> I'll ask when I call this week to see if they've yet been able to teach my
> grandson another word besides "COW!" ... (that's what they get for coming to
> Texas!) ;)
>
Mmmmm... one would have thought it would have been "BULL!"
...as it was too easy, I decided not to send this reply, but I had
already hit the 'send' button.
*smirks*
r
Doug Payne wrote:
> On 17/01/2007 10:35 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> > Doug Payne wrote:
> >> On 17/01/2007 4:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
> >>
> >>> My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
> >>> are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
> >> Yep, I think so. I value my time (highly), and and just couldn't be
> >> bothered trying to find endless variations of upgrade, so I went whole
> >> hog and bought the Surefire. Haven't been sorry.
> >
> > Over $ 100.00 for a wee flashlight! Who knew?
>
> I view it the same way I view good hand tools. I rely on a flashlight,
> so I buy something that's gonna work well for me. Same as buying a good
> quality hand plane or chisel instead of an el-cheapo. Everyone has their
> own economies :-)
There is all kinds of evidence around my house which will show that I
subscribe to that way of thinking.
I just never gave any thought to the fact that a flashlight could be
engineered to the point where they could ask $375.00 for one...with a
straight face.
As a reformed audiophile, I have seen people's sphincters getting
reamed by the likes of MonsterCable. 'Interconnects' for audio
equipment for a few hundred dollars which sounded the same in
blind-fold situations as their 20 dollar competition....even with a gun
to the head OR the threat of being shown a nude picture of Bea Arthur!
I always thought a flashlight was just that. Now I'm finding out that
some flashlights will show the molecular structure of moose-snot in the
middle of the night! (<-----that is a Canadian thing..try not to read
too much into that..*G*)
In all seriousness, I did NOT need another thing to add to my list of
'wants', which tend to evolve into 'needs'.
$ 200.00 tops! Not a penny more!.. unless the $ 375.00 unit goes on
sale at ...$ 275.00???... 300 and that's final!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I need my farking head checked..I actually want one of
those....*shakes head in disbelief*)
I have several of these flashlights...and I do agree with the review.
Good flashlight.
Great design.
TMT
J. Clarke wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2007 06:15:51 -0800, "Bill Leonhardt" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Any body got one of these?
> >
> >I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
> >holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
> >6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
> >all 6 lamps.
> >
> >Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
> >on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
> >my ordinary flashlights are better.
> >
> >So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
> >of these? What is your opinion/experience?
>
> There's a review of it at
> <http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/stanley_max-t.htm>. There
> are comparison charts on that site--with all six LEDs going on fresh
> batteries it should be more or less comparable to a mini-maglite.
>
> LED flashlights generally aren't bright--their strengths are the
> evenness of the illumination, longevity, and battery life--with 9
> batteries in it that Stanley should run for days on one LED.
>
> Use it for a while and I think it will grow on you--first time I tried
> an LED flashlight I was hooked, but I still keep a fairly powerful
> incandescent for those situations in which I really need brightness or
> a long reach.
>
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Bill Leonhardt
Leon wrote:
> "Bill Leonhardt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
snip
>> So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
>> of these? What is your opinion/experience?
>
>
> IMHO LED's get toooooo much recognition. For now, they are simply less
> effective when used in a flash light. They are pathetic when it come to
> casting a light on something although they are great for signal lights. I
> have seen several LED flash lights that perform poorly when compared to a
> regular incandescent flash light.
>
> The only advantage is that they last a long time and use less electricity,
> but if you cannot see....
>
I bought a little 3 AAA cell flashlight with a 2 watt LED. It is about
the same
as a two AA cell Mag Light. So I got a 2 AA cell MagLight with a 3 watt
LED. Cannot
tell the difference between it and the other with a regular bulb, other
than the batteries last at least twice as long. It focuses just like a
regular MagLight.
Then I got a replacement LED Bulb for my large MagLight with good
results. Two savings are longer battery life and indefinite bulb life.
If you have ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to
bring a spare you know what I mean.
Now the lights with 3-9 small leds are toys.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
An aquarium is interactive television
for cats.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Then I got a replacement LED Bulb for my large MagLight with good
>> results. Two savings are longer battery life and indefinite bulb life. If
>> you have ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to bring
>> a spare you know what I mean.
>
>
> Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
>
I've seen them at Home Depot.
Gary
Leon wrote:
> "Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Then I got a replacement LED Bulb for my large MagLight with good results.
>> Two savings are longer battery life and indefinite bulb life. If you have
>> ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to bring a spare
>> you know what I mean.
>
>
> Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
>
>
Gulp! WalMart
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
An aquarium is interactive television
for cats.
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Gerald Ross" wrote
>
>> If you have ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to
>> bring a spare you know what I mean.
>>
>
> I just got this strong visual of an advertising campaign with this salt of
> the earth coon hunter standing there with his dogs and guns, holding up a
> LED flashlight.
>
> Something along the lines of, "Even us old time coon hunters can embrace a
> new technology". Which would be followed by sipping a strong, clear liquid
> from an old mason jar.
>
>
>
Don't knock it. I've sipped some that was just like vodka.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
An aquarium is interactive television
for cats.
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
>
> Not worth it IMHO. The LED torches using better LEDs designed
> especially for torches and with suitable reflectors built in beat the
> pants off any converted twin AA Maglite I've seen.
>
> If you aren't convinced by LED torches yet, just try a Surefire.
>
Actually the upgrades I've seen for the AA are just 3 little LED's. I
bought the model that comes with the single bright LED. How much is a
Surefire? How much for the battery? The military uses something like
that but cost is no object for them.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
An aquarium is interactive television
for cats.
"Doug Payne" wrote in message
> :-) I wasn't disappointed by the price, only by the light output or lack
> thereof. The mini-mag LED upgrade is fine if you don't need lots of light.
The two I have are both very recent "upgrades" (late Nov 06), and yours and
Andy's comments make me wonder if there's been a recent improvement? I do
know that my SIL tried one that was disappointing, then returned it for
another, but I wasn't paying much attention at the time.
I've got two identical AA Maglites on my desk as we speak. One with, and one
without, the "upgrade". There is no comparison as to the light output. The
upgrade LED is much brighter, not even close.
The one in my the truck is a much larger 3 cell, and it too is far more
powerful with the LED. Very noticeable difference, as I use it nightly when
I close up houses that are under construction after the subs leave.
When he embarked on this project while visiting from the UK, of the two, the
latter was the one I was worried about him messing with ... needlessly as it
turned out.
My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
On 17 Jan 2007 09:42:39 -0800, "Andy Dingley <[email protected]>"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Leon wrote:
>
>> Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
>
>Not worth it IMHO. The LED torches using better LEDs designed
>especially for torches and with suitable reflectors built in beat the
>pants off any converted twin AA Maglite I've seen.
>
>If you aren't convinced by LED torches yet, just try a Surefire.
Uh, Andy, there's only one manufacturer of Luxeon LEDs, the people who
do the Maglite conversions get them from the same place that Surefire
does and there's nothing special about the ones that they sell to
Surefire except maybe that they get picked for color match.
"Leon" wrote in message
> Was there a moving van waithing at the air port? ;~)
I asked that ... apparently SIL's father has a "people van" and met them at
the airport ... whatever that is, but probably exactly what it sounds like.
> Cow. ;~) Wouldn't it be a hoot had he gone back with "y'all".
I tried ... lord, how I tried!
> > ITMT, and before you leap, you're welcome to stop by and swap 3 cells
for
> > a
> > couple of days to see if it suits you.
>
> I may do that. Too nasty to work out side and I am getting bored quickly.
> With our kids back in school it is kinda quiet. If I get the urge I'll
> call before I come.
Any time ... the granite, but not the backsplash, is in in that last kitchen
we did. Although it looks like all the others, you may want to check out
your handiwork.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The one in my the truck is a much larger 3 cell, and it too is far more
> powerful with the LED. Very noticeable difference, as I use it nightly
> when
> I close up houses that are under construction after the subs leave.
>
> When he embarked on this project while visiting from the UK, of the two,
> the
> latter was the one I was worried about him messing with ... needlessly as
> it
> turned out.
>
> My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
> are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
Swingman, did you SIL get the upgrade parts here or in England? If here,
where? I have a 3 cell mag light that I would like to upgrade.
Thanks.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> Not worth it IMHO. The LED torches using better LEDs designed
> especially for torches and with suitable reflectors built in beat the
> pants off any converted twin AA Maglite I've seen.
>If you aren't convinced by LED torches yet, just try a Surefire.
Have one that stays in the studio ... impressive, and you would expect it to
be at about ten times the cost (less than $10) of an "LED upgrade kit" for a
MagLite here in the US.
With the "Nite Ize" upgrade kit for the MagLite, the made for flashlights
LED and a "suitable" reflector are included ... you could not do the
conversion otherwise.
While not a Surefire, my bet is that a $10 upgrade to a tool that you
already own, and that improves bulb performance/life, provides longer
battery life, and lets you use weak batteries recycled from other equipment,
will probably be considered "worth it" by those who do it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
Swingman wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>, and perpetuated by
> marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
> taken into account is the simple fact that:
At the NRC in Ottawa we used: "he can't tell a door bell from a
decibel"
Transducers fall under the EE side of research and consequently
psycho-acoustics.
My mentor at the time, Dr. Floyd Toole, went on to Harman International
where he applied the NRC's findings to JBL's research.
One time, early on, it dawned on me that the recording process is like
a stack of glass panes, where each pane represents a component in the
audio chain. From Ella's vocal chords to my ears is a loooong series of
components, mics, wires, transistors, tubes, interconnects, wires, 'a
recording engineer's idea of what is right' amplifiers, speakers, Rob's
ears. Rob's ears in Rob's room, NOT the ballroom where Ella sang...MY
room.
If each and every one of those panes of glass (let's say 50 of them?)
was perfectly clean/flat.. even 50 would cloud the original view. ONE
dirty pane and it no longer matters how clean the others are. If the
studio monitors are bass shy, the engineer jacks up the low-end and the
original picture is thereby NO LONGER ORIGINAL. He has added an opinion
and a compensation.
>
> ANYONE who wasn't in that SPECIFIC control room, and listening to the
> subject mix over that SPECIFIC set of speakers, has absolutely NO earthly
> idea of what ANY recording is intended to sound like!
The magic word here is INTENDED. That's what we're doing now, we create
illusions/sounds in such a way that they are pleasing. Computer
controlled voice/pitch compensation (without which Celine would suck
even worse)
We are Photoshopping for the ears. Ear Candy. We love shit that lies,
Kodachrome 'enhanced' yellows and red, we loved it!
Karl Rove should have been a recording engineer. (Sorry..too funny to
pass up.)
Alan Parsons, as an example from a list of hundreds, 'created' Abbey
Road, Dark Side Of The Moon, as we got to know it.
Recording engineers are best when they are musicians themselves. Now
they are also recoding [sic] engineers.
Now, having said all this shit, one of my favourite DVD's these days,
is a bootleg from Live At The Summit. Mid-70's. 3/4" video tape. Two
stationary cameras, sound straight out of the board to the VTR...bad
dynamic range, high distortion, lousy video.
The Who (with Moon) at their best...fu*cking glorious!!! I don't need
no stinking candy.. I like my sound raw....well..I also have a CD where
Larry Carlton makes some sweet candy-like noises.. at least he does it
at instrument level. (Keep your shirts on folks, just an example.)
>
> I guarantee that that is a _infu*&kingarguable FACT that can be put in their
> respective pipes and smoked 'til Roger Nichols and Steely Dan can't be
> uttered in the same breath.
>
> There ... I feel better already. ;)
Amen brother Swing, will there be a collection plate? *G* I have heard
the Light!
Do I like music? Is my play-room warm because of high amplifier idling
currents?
You know what's weird about all this? I listen to my XM via a Milwaukee
contruction-site radio at my shop, and I'm pretty frickin' content.
*slaps self* "It's the music, stupid!"
Doug Payne wrote:
> > What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
> > condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into imagining
> > is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
> > marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
> > taken into account is the simple fact that:
>
> For just a brief minute there I thought I was reading rec.audio.* back
> in the '80s :-)
Can I take my CD player out of the box filled with green sand now?
Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> Nothing I said mattered. They were unimpressed with the chart. It sounded
> clear, so they created a nice high end for something that had no high end. A
> total psycho-acoustic effect.
If the speaker put out meaningful soundpressure at 8K, and had enemic
LF output, the illusion of 'highs' would be there.
Next question would be who/how the charts were created. Was it a
composite including off-axis response as well?
Swingman wrote:
> If you happen to be in that node
> (position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even close
> to the original.
Don't you just love those guys who are trying to fit a 30 Hz wave (38
feet long) into
7-foot car? (Even a 1/4 wave is still almost 10 feet long.)
A goofball, in his riced-out Civic was beside me at the lights a few
days ago, windows up (it's cold) must been some loud in there as *MY*
review mirror was vibrating.
As he looked around, he saw me looking at him and he had such a vacuous
look, that I burst out laughing. When the light turned green, he
retaliated by accelerating away making all kinds of racket...and I blew
his doors off....with my van.
I guess it wasn't his day.
Mythbusters disproved the existence of The Brown Note.
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
> crystal clear high end. And nothing I said would sway them from that
> position.
^^^^^
Key word!
As you well know, and despite the best efforts of acoustic engineers, all
rooms have areas (sometimes quite small, so small that the simple turn of
your head will bring it into play) where a particular frequency combines, or
cancels, to create a standing wave "node". If you happen to be in that node
(position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even close
to the original.
IOW, there are areas in a room where highs that aren't in the original may
indeed be accentuated, or the bass or mids attenuated, to the point of
fooling the ear.
IME, and in keeping with Murphy ... particularly in a strange control room,
there are generally one or two of these nodes _right_ where the mix engineer
sits to mix, and just waiting to bite him in the butt. DAMHIKT. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Swingman" wrote in message
> "B A R R Y" wrote in message
>
>> full on it, while playing rather loud. The spec reader in me didn't
>> _want_ to like it, but I do. <G>
>
> As you know: Well known phenomenon in the studio control room - listen
> long
> enough over a set of speakers and, aurally speaking, anything sounds
> "good".
>
> What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
> condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into
> imagining
> is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
> marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
> taken into account is the simple fact that:
>
> ANYONE who wasn't in that SPECIFIC control room, and listening to the
> subject mix over that SPECIFIC set of speakers, has absolutely NO earthly
> idea of what ANY recording is intended to sound like!
>
All this recording stuff brings back memories. I used to be a recording
techie and produced voice only programs.
My favorite story is about some JBL monitors I installed in my studio. They
were the AM radio ones so they had no high end. Which was fine for me
because I was recording voice only material.
I would put on some music now and then. People would walk into the studio
and immediately exclaim that these were wonderful speakers that had a
crystal clear high end. And nothing I said would sway them from that
position. I would show them the frequency response test chart that came with
the speakers when I bought them. I would scream, "See, there is no high end.
These are AM monitor speakers. Which means that they have the same
frequency range as an AM radio."
Nothing I said mattered. They were unimpressed with the chart. It sounded
clear, so they created a nice high end for something that had no high end. A
total psycho-acoustic effect.
Markem wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Look" not any significant improvement in signal quality.
>
> You just brought a smile to an old Shure Brother engineering tech.
>
> Want to berate Dr. Bose please do.
As a former touring sound guy with buddies employed by Mark Levinson /
Madrigal (well, formerly sin JBL came along...) and Sennheiser, looking
at stats and lab measurements, I can also try to berate Dr. Bose all day
long. As pro gear goes, "No highs, no lows, must be Bose!" <G>
However!
1.) NOTHING works and is as durable and all-day comfortable as their
pilot's ANR headsets. Nada! Pilots who actually try them in flight
still willingly plunk down $900+ bucks for them. "Bose Killers" come
and go with the seasons in flying magazines.
2.) I still haven't found anything that sounds as good to a
non-audiophile, with similar performance in a similar package, as those
overpriced Wave table radio / cd players. Is the bass muddy? Yeah.
Can you vary the tone? No. But so many LIKE them!
I know more people who are simply "music lovers", who don't know what
SPL or THD or "Q" mean (and don't want to), who absolutely love the
sound and the size of those things. I've got to admit that they're
plenty listenable in the right room with an Ipod or CD, and it's the
size of a clock radio. My wife has one particular CD, a Krishna Das w/
Walter Becker "chanting" disc that actually sounds incredibly clear and
full on it, while playing rather loud. The spec reader in me didn't
_want_ to like it, but I do. <G>
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Look" not any significant improvement in signal quality.
You just brought a smile to an old Shure Brother engineering tech.
Want to berate Dr. Bose please do.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
> full on it, while playing rather loud. The spec reader in me didn't
> _want_ to like it, but I do. <G>
As you know: Well known phenomenon in the studio control room - listen long
enough over a set of speakers and, aurally speaking, anything sounds "good".
What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into imagining
is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:
ANYONE who wasn't in that SPECIFIC control room, and listening to the
subject mix over that SPECIFIC set of speakers, has absolutely NO earthly
idea of what ANY recording is intended to sound like!
I guarantee that that is a _infu*&kingarguable FACT that can be put in their
respective pipes and smoked 'til Roger Nichols and Steely Dan can't be
uttered in the same breath.
There ... I feel better already. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"B A R R Y" <wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> >
> > As you well know, and despite the best efforts of acoustic engineers,
all
> > rooms have areas (sometimes quite small, so small that the simple turn
of
> > your head will bring it into play) where a particular frequency
combines, or
> > cancels, to create a standing wave "node". If you happen to be in that
node
> > (position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even
close
> > to the original.
>
> Swingman,
>
> Think about that, and this:
> It's all even more interesting if you flew into town this morning in a
> pressurized aircraft.
My sincerest sympathies ... I hope you've been able to recover and, except
for the wooddorker part, lead a normal life?
Like a good little musikian/recording engineer, in the earlier days I
supplemented my income with live sound gigs. Not stadium size events like
you, but a few well known traveling acts in the larger local clubs and at
festivals, so I can definitely feel your pain, to a limited extent.
For the most part I hated it! ... particularly when the drunk fans/lead
singer's GF/Lead guitar players GF, etc, could actually get to you at the
mixing console ... my hats off to you and you have my undying respect and
sympathy.
The latter because you might actually need therapy later in life to deal
with the PTD!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> If the speaker put out meaningful soundpressure at 8K, and had enemic
> LF output, the illusion of 'highs' would be there.
> Next question would be who/how the charts were created. Was it a
> composite including off-axis response as well?
Hush now ... you're bringing back bad memories. ;)
At one time it was required knowledge to even walk into a studio control
room, and I learned/knew it cold, well enough to eventually own/run a
commercial recording studio (still do, but no longer operate, or even
participate, unless at the point of a gun).
But now it's so nice to be able to just sit back and LISTEN, without all the
analytical details that are absolutely necessary into creating a modern
commercial recording, no matter how "golden eared" you are!
I never thought that getting older, no longer having that quality, and
actually knowing when to quit, could be so pleasant. I wonder how Bruce
(Swieden) still does it?
(Actually, I do know/understand the psychoacoustic "why" of "how" he does
it, but like your quote above, it makes me tired thinking about it!) ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Or mics to pick them up in the first place, or speakers to reproduce them
> before they get to the final judge - the psychoacoustic properties of the
> individual human ear.
>
> But to me what is really interesting/intriguing, and that anyone who has
> ever spent much time *mixing" in the studio can attest to, is the fact
> that
> there are often things you may hear in a mix/audience that are not
> actually
> recorded/played, but come from a combination of recorded/played
> sounds/instruments.
Exactly. It was a long time ago but when I was still in school and in the
choir, our instructor would record our practice sessions. Very low tech but
it always sounded different to us. We were not looking for a quality
playback so much as sounds that we would improve upon in a particualr hall.
We could not hear the sounds when singing but the recorder would let us hear
the problems.
> Indeed, there are some symphonies that intentionally have "ghost" parts
> that
> are "heard" by the audience, despite the fact that no one is actually
> playing that part.
>
> I love that!
Exactly! There is nothing like live and no electronics.
Leon wrote:
>
>
> Not to discredit those people but probably few of them have ever been in a
> music hall with fine acustics to know that there are sounds that are created
> that the CD or Ipod will never reproduce.
I wife has heard the identical performance in both a 30 seat room and a
"real" concert hall.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:09:54 -0500, Doug Payne
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 18/01/2007 12:27 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> I always thought a flashlight was just that. Now I'm finding out that
>> some flashlights will show the molecular structure of moose-snot in the
>> middle of the night! (<-----that is a Canadian thing..try not to read
>> too much into that..*G*)
>
>Hey, I'm from up here too, and I've been close enough to check out that
>structure; it ain't purty (neither is Bea Arthur :-)
Too much information.
> What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
> condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into imagining
> is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
> marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
> taken into account is the simple fact that:
For just a brief minute there I thought I was reading rec.audio.* back
in the '80s :-)
"Doug Payne" wrote in message
> > What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
> > condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into
imagining
> > is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
> > marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has
NEVER
> > taken into account is the simple fact that:
>
> For just a brief minute there I thought I was reading rec.audio.* back
> in the '80s :-)
... and I too was there. Even Fletcher had a hard time keeping up in those
days.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
Swingman wrote:
>
> As you well know, and despite the best efforts of acoustic engineers, all
> rooms have areas (sometimes quite small, so small that the simple turn of
> your head will bring it into play) where a particular frequency combines, or
> cancels, to create a standing wave "node". If you happen to be in that node
> (position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even close
> to the original.
Swingman,
Think about that, and this:
Negotiating night after night to place the console in a spot where those
standing wave and comb filtered areas are favorably used to create the
best possible product for the audience. Remember...
1.) You've never been in the room before, so you have little time to try
to locate them. By the time power can be applied, it's too late to
move. Your main tool is an Anvil briefcase you can have dropped on the
floor and listen to the returns and decay as you move around.
2.) The house management might not be so thrilled at your solution.
3.) Last night was a wonderful sounding 5000 seat theater, tonight is a
brick and glass university "field house" designed for basketball and
indoor football practice, and tomorrow is a former bowling alley,
department store, airplane hanger, you name it. <G>
It's all even more interesting if you flew into town this morning in a
pressurized aircraft.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Snip
>
> >
> > I know more people who are simply "music lovers", who don't know what
SPL
> > or THD or "Q" mean (and don't want to), who absolutely love the sound
and
> > the size of those things. I've got to admit that they're plenty
> > listenable in the right room with an Ipod or CD, and it's the size of a
> > clock radio.
>
> Not to discredit those people but probably few of them have ever been in a
> music hall with fine acustics to know that there are sounds that are
created
> that the CD or Ipod will never reproduce.
Or mics to pick them up in the first place, or speakers to reproduce them
before they get to the final judge - the psychoacoustic properties of the
individual human ear.
But to me what is really interesting/intriguing, and that anyone who has
ever spent much time *mixing" in the studio can attest to, is the fact that
there are often things you may hear in a mix/audience that are not actually
recorded/played, but come from a combination of recorded/played
sounds/instruments.
Indeed, there are some symphonies that intentionally have "ghost" parts that
are "heard" by the audience, despite the fact that no one is actually
playing that part.
I love that!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>
> I know more people who are simply "music lovers", who don't know what SPL
> or THD or "Q" mean (and don't want to), who absolutely love the sound and
> the size of those things. I've got to admit that they're plenty
> listenable in the right room with an Ipod or CD, and it's the size of a
> clock radio.
Not to discredit those people but probably few of them have ever been in a
music hall with fine acustics to know that there are sounds that are created
that the CD or Ipod will never reproduce.
"Leon" wrote in message
> Swingman, did you SIL get the upgrade parts here or in England? If here,
> where? I have a 3 cell mag light that I would like to upgrade.
Here, by all means. Judging from the amount of "stuff" he brings back, and
because of the highly favorable exchange rate, I'd say that he comes
strictly to buy gadgets like that.
AAMOF, on the return flight they checked in with _exactly_ 342 lbs of
luggage (maglites and multi-tools?) between the three of them ... I didn't
even know you could do that!
As I indicated earlier, I wasn't paying too much attention to this
flashlight business until it was an accomplished fact. It may been Academy,
but it could just as easily been Wal-Mart ... hell, it felt like we hit
every store in two states.
I'll ask when I call this week to see if they've yet been able to teach my
grandson another word besides "COW!" ... (that's what they get for coming to
Texas!) ;)
ITMT, and before you leap, you're welcome to stop by and swap 3 cells for a
couple of days to see if it suits you.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Gerald Ross" wrote
> If you have ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to
> bring a spare you know what I mean.
>
I just got this strong visual of an advertising campaign with this salt of
the earth coon hunter standing there with his dogs and guns, holding up a
LED flashlight.
Something along the lines of, "Even us old time coon hunters can embrace a
new technology". Which would be followed by sipping a strong, clear liquid
from an old mason jar.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here, by all means. Judging from the amount of "stuff" he brings back, and
> because of the highly favorable exchange rate, I'd say that he comes
> strictly to buy gadgets like that.
LOL. I recall years ago selling 12 new tape decks to a guy from Mexico. He
also bought a piece of luggage and loaded it with those unboxed tape decks
to take back with him, loose parts and all.
>
> AAMOF, on the return flight they checked in with _exactly_ 342 lbs of
> luggage (maglites and multi-tools?) between the three of them ... I didn't
> even know you could do that!
Was there a moving van waithing at the air port? ;~)
>
> As I indicated earlier, I wasn't paying too much attention to this
> flashlight business until it was an accomplished fact. It may been
> Academy,
> but it could just as easily been Wal-Mart ... hell, it felt like we hit
> every store in two states.
I was slow to pick up on that. I'll check um out. Seems like Fry's or
Radio Shack would be a good place to look.
>
> I'll ask when I call this week to see if they've yet been able to teach my
> grandson another word besides "COW!" ... (that's what they get for coming
> to
> Texas!) ;)
Cow. ;~) Wouldn't it be a hoot had he gone back with "y'all". Maybe if
they visit again in 2 or 3 more years or sooner Grandpa can work on that.
>
> ITMT, and before you leap, you're welcome to stop by and swap 3 cells for
> a
> couple of days to see if it suits you.
I may do that. Too nasty to work out side and I am getting bored quickly.
With our kids back in school it is kinda quiet. If I get the urge I'll
call before I come.
"Doug Payne" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > While not a Surefire, my bet is that a $10 upgrade to a tool that you
> > already own, and that improves bulb performance/life, provides longer
> > battery life, and lets you use weak batteries recycled from other
equipment,
> > will probably be considered "worth it" by those who do it.
>
> I tried it and was disappointed, so I went with the Surefire.
Obviously a YMMV ... My Surefire cost $110, the latest Nite Ize upgrade for
the 15 year old MagLite was $8 ... I am not disappointed in either for the
price.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Doug Payne" wrote in message
> On 18/01/2007 12:27 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > I always thought a flashlight was just that. Now I'm finding out that
> > some flashlights will show the molecular structure of moose-snot in the
> > middle of the night! (<-----that is a Canadian thing..try not to read
> > too much into that..*G*)
>
> Hey, I'm from up here too, and I've been close enough to check out that
> structure; it ain't purty (neither is Bea Arthur :-)
Moose snot/Bea Arthur? ... if you can find a warm spot, you guys need to
take a break. But do it up there, please ... we don't need no more perverts
down here.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
On 17 Jan 2007 06:15:51 -0800, "Bill Leonhardt" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Any body got one of these?
>
>I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
>holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
>6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
>all 6 lamps.
>
>Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
>on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
>my ordinary flashlights are better.
>
>So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
>of these? What is your opinion/experience?
There's a review of it at
<http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/stanley_max-t.htm>. There
are comparison charts on that site--with all six LEDs going on fresh
batteries it should be more or less comparable to a mini-maglite.
LED flashlights generally aren't bright--their strengths are the
evenness of the illumination, longevity, and battery life--with 9
batteries in it that Stanley should run for days on one LED.
Use it for a while and I think it will grow on you--first time I tried
an LED flashlight I was hooked, but I still keep a fairly powerful
incandescent for those situations in which I really need brightness or
a long reach.
>Thanks,
>
>Bill Leonhardt
On 17/01/2007 9:15 AM, Bill Leonhardt wrote:
> I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
> holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
> 6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
> all 6 lamps.
>
> Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
> on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
> my ordinary flashlights are better.
>
> So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
> of these? What is your opinion/experience?
There are good LED flashlights but they're pricey. I've got a Surefire
E2L that's rated at 30 lumens output. In contrast a stock mini-mag 2AA
light is less than 6. Nice thing about Surefire (and others) is they're
powered by lightweight lithium 123 batteries with very long shelf-life
and good run-time.
Swingman wrote:
> While not a Surefire, my bet is that a $10 upgrade to a tool that you
> already own, and that improves bulb performance/life, provides longer
> battery life, and lets you use weak batteries recycled from other equipment,
> will probably be considered "worth it" by those who do it.
I tried it and was disappointed, so I went with the Surefire.
Swingman wrote:
> "Doug Payne" wrote in message
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> While not a Surefire, my bet is that a $10 upgrade to a tool that you
>>> already own, and that improves bulb performance/life, provides longer
>>> battery life, and lets you use weak batteries recycled from other
> equipment,
>>> will probably be considered "worth it" by those who do it.
>> I tried it and was disappointed, so I went with the Surefire.
>
> Obviously a YMMV ... My Surefire cost $110, the latest Nite Ize upgrade for
> the 15 year old MagLite was $8 ... I am not disappointed in either for the
> price.
:-) I wasn't disappointed by the price, only by the light output or lack
thereof. The mini-mag LED upgrade is fine if you don't need lots of light.
On 17/01/2007 4:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
> My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
> are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
Yep, I think so. I value my time (highly), and and just couldn't be
bothered trying to find endless variations of upgrade, so I went whole
hog and bought the Surefire. Haven't been sorry.
Robatoy wrote:
> Doug Payne wrote:
>> On 17/01/2007 4:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
>>> are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
>> Yep, I think so. I value my time (highly), and and just couldn't be
>> bothered trying to find endless variations of upgrade, so I went whole
>> hog and bought the Surefire. Haven't been sorry.
>
> Over $ 100.00 for a wee flashlight! Who knew?
>
Look at this one
http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/24223/sesent/00
they used to have one called The Beast for around $2900, the page is
missing but the internet archive comes through again
http://web.archive.org/web/20050110014518/http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/24204/sesent/00
watch the line wrap or paste
http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/24204/sesent/00
into the archive search line at http://www.archive.org/index.php
Joe
On 17/01/2007 10:35 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> Doug Payne wrote:
>> On 17/01/2007 4:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> My experiences, and yours and Andy's comments, make me suspect that there
>>> are upgrades, and then there are "upgrades". ;)
>> Yep, I think so. I value my time (highly), and and just couldn't be
>> bothered trying to find endless variations of upgrade, so I went whole
>> hog and bought the Surefire. Haven't been sorry.
>
> Over $ 100.00 for a wee flashlight! Who knew?
I view it the same way I view good hand tools. I rely on a flashlight,
so I buy something that's gonna work well for me. Same as buying a good
quality hand plane or chisel instead of an el-cheapo. Everyone has their
own economies :-)
On 18/01/2007 12:27 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> I always thought a flashlight was just that. Now I'm finding out that
> some flashlights will show the molecular structure of moose-snot in the
> middle of the night! (<-----that is a Canadian thing..try not to read
> too much into that..*G*)
Hey, I'm from up here too, and I've been close enough to check out that
structure; it ain't purty (neither is Bea Arthur :-)
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> IMHO LED's get toooooo much recognition. For now, they are simply less
>> effective when used in a flash light. They are pathetic when it come to
>> casting a light on something although they are great for signal lights.
>> I have seen several LED flash lights that perform poorly when compared to
>> a regular incandescent flash light.
>
> Depends on the LED.
>
> I have an LED aviation flashlight, LED bicycle lamps, and an LED strobes
> on my airplanes that kick serious ass. The aviation flashlight is TOO
> BRIGHT for cockpit use, with a single LED and (2) AAA cells, so I have
> tape over the face of it. It makes a 2xAA cell MagLite look like an
> antique, not to mention 10 times the battery life.
>
> The LED strobes are "insanely" bright, and current biz-jets and small
> aircraft come factory equipped with LED markers and strobes.
>
> My red/blue/green/white flashlight was $50, and the Whelan Engineering
> tail strobe was $600. Think of that, then think of Stanley as a brand.
> What level of LED quality do you think Stanley would spec? Then realize
> that the Stanley flashlight retails for about $25. <G>
I'll have to check out the better bulbs.
Gerald Ross wrote:
> Don't knock it. I've sipped some that was just like vodka.
Had a room mate in college who had a job at a pharmacy.
Periodically he came home with a quart of 190 proof grain-ethyl.
Also, way back then, the state run liquor stores sold it.
Cut it 1:1 with distilled water and you had 100 proof vodka.
Lew
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:15:22 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Then I got a replacement LED Bulb for my large MagLight with good results.
>> Two savings are longer battery life and indefinite bulb life. If you have
>> ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to bring a spare
>> you know what I mean.
>
>
>Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
Take a look at <http://www.flashlightreviews.com> and you'll find
reviews on several mini-maglite conversions (and numerous other
flashlights as well). I have one with the Opalec and one with the
Terralux--both work fine, the Terralux is brighter but with shorter
battery life, the Opalec is not quite as bright, but runs a long time
and holds full brightness until the batteries are pretty well gone.
The Opalec also seems to give a somewhat smoother light field.
<http://www.pocketlights.com/ledbulbs_for_mini_maglite.asp> has both
and I've done enough business with them to feel that they are a
reliable outfit--the only time I've ever had a problem was right after
Katrina--I didn't realize they were in Louisiana--anyway that order
was slow but I can't really fault them for it.
You can find the Nite-Ize conversion at many sporting goods stores and
the like--it's cheap and it works but it leaves a bit to be desired
when compared with the others--the flashlightreviews discussion of it
will give you the details.
Someone mentioned Surfire. Surefire makes good flashlights, there's
no question of that, and if your life may depend on the thing working
then that's t he one to go for, but you can get a whole collection of
converted Maglites for the price of one Surefire and as for "purpose
made bulbs" they use the same Luxeon LEDs as the Terralux Maglite
conversion. There's also the battery issue--Surefires use CR-123
lithium cells that are hard to find and quite expensive compared to
the standard AAA, AA, C, or D cells that the Maglites use.
"Bill Leonhardt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Any body got one of these?
>
> I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
> holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
> 6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
> all 6 lamps.
>
> Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
> on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
> my ordinary flashlights are better.
>
> So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
> of these? What is your opinion/experience?
IMHO LED's get toooooo much recognition. For now, they are simply less
effective when used in a flash light. They are pathetic when it come to
casting a light on something although they are great for signal lights. I
have seen several LED flash lights that perform poorly when compared to a
regular incandescent flash light.
The only advantage is that they last a long time and use less electricity,
but if you cannot see....
"Leon" wrote in message
> I'll have to check out the better bulbs.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FqRxJXtCNH0J:www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/Lighting/Flashlights%2520-%2520LED/Nite%2520Ize%2520Maglite%2520LED%2520Upgrade%2520Kit/Owner%2520Review%2520by%2520Andrew%2520Mytys/+%22maglite+LED+upgrade%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
... watch the wrap.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As a reformed audiophile, I have seen people's sphincters getting
> reamed by the likes of MonsterCable. 'Interconnects' for audio
> equipment for a few hundred dollars which sounded the same in
> blind-fold situations as their 20 dollar competition....even with a gun
> to the head OR the threat of being shown a nude picture of Bea Arthur!
Hey, there is high technology engineered into every one of those Monster
cables.
The technology is in the insulation!
How else could they make that teeny tiny cable look so big between the ends?
Bigger cable works better than door bell wire but Monster is selling a
"Look" not any significant improvement in signal quality.
"Leon" wrote in message
> Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?
I wasn't even aware of the upgrade until my SIL upgraded both of my Maglites
while he was here back in Nov.
IIRC, he got the LED kits at Academy here in Houston. I might have also seen
them at HD recently .... worth a call.
He also put the back "push button" upgrade in my smaller AA model ... no
longer twist the cap to turn it on, just press the button that replaced the
back cap for the battery compartment.
I was a bit reluctant about the LED bulb in my larger 3 Cell Mag, but are
both actually much brighter than the bulbs they replaced ... a recommended
upgrade, IME
SIL also told me that in UK/EU, the kits for both, as well as spare parts
for Maglites, are readily available but cost more than the flashlights
themselves here in the US, so it's cheaper to buy a new one here than the
spare parts ... AAMOF, every time he comes over, he goes back with a dozen
or so for his mates ... this is usually before he goes into "leatherman
mode" ... he brings an extra suitcase for those. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07
"Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Then I got a replacement LED Bulb for my large MagLight with good results.
> Two savings are longer battery life and indefinite bulb life. If you have
> ever been coon hunting and had a bulb go out and forgot to bring a spare
> you know what I mean.
Where did you get the replacement LED for your MAG light?