Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #150402 > unrolled thread

very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 13:24 -0700
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-08-25 13:35 -0800
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 23:19 +0100
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-08-25 17:36 -0500
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2015-08-25 19:41 -0400
      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 09:16 -0700
        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 09:47 -0700
          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-26 10:00 -0700
            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:18 +0000
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:37 -0400
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-27 08:31 -0400
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 14:41 -0500
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 20:17 +0000
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:59 -0500
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:01 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-29 13:46 -0500
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0500
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 19:41 -0700
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 07:28 -0700
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 12:47 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 20:17 +0000
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 23:02 +0000
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 09:38 +0000
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:47 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 19:24 +0000
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:42 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:57 +0000
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:54 +0000
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-30 18:44 +0000
              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:19 -0500
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-27 18:58 -0500
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 17:57 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 17:59 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 18:26 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 14:57 -0500
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-28 14:09 -0600
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0500
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0500
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-28 15:38 -0500
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 06:06 -0400
                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 15:22 -0500
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:49 -0700
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 15:51 -0700
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:28 -0700
                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:34 +0000
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-10-28 22:11 +0000
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:59 +0000
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:31 +0000
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 20:07 -0700
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 03:57 -0600
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 10:20 +0000
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 04:51 -0600
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 12:29 +0000
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-31 06:11 -0600
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-31 12:37 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-31 13:20 +0000
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 10:41 -0600
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-31 15:21 +0100
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 15:13 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-31 12:49 -0500
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 -0500
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:04 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 07:48 -0600
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-01 13:56 +0000
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-01 18:33 +0000
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-10-31 11:30 +0000
                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 19:15 -0700
                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 02:55 +0000
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 07:36 -0700
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:33 -0600
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-29 18:03 -0500
                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-29 11:44 -0600
                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 16:03 -0400
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:15 -0600
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 21:51 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:20 -0700
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 07:28 -0400
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-30 14:57 -0500
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:26 -0700
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0500
                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:32 -0700
                                Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 23:10 +0000
                                  Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 19:09 -0700
                                    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 16:35 +0000
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:35 +0000
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 12:05 -0700
                                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 12:22 -0700
                                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:15 +0000
                                      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-30 17:31 -0400
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-30 17:44 -0400
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-30 23:38 -0400
                                        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:08 -0500
                                          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
                                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-11-03 16:44 +0000
                                            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-11-05 15:28 -0600
                                              Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-05 17:05 -0500
            Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-26 22:12 +0100
    Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-16 18:48 -0800
      Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 16:00 +0000
        Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-30 09:43 -0800
          Re: very basic tube questions--twin triode, "mu" rating; heptode floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2015-11-30 10:42 -0900

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#153583

On 10/29/2015 2:37 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2015-10-29, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> 
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2015-10-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If I were really serious about it, I suppose I could get through that part.
>>>>> Maybe it's just that I had done what I wanted to do and it was time to move
>>>>> on to other things.  Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>>>>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> So, it uses a Z-80?  Maybe a 4004?
>>>
>>> Well, a lot of us do have those newfangled fine tuners...
>>
>> When I was a pup, we had a neighbor who was a piano tuner.
>>
>> He had a stroboscopic tuner - There were 12 'tracks' around the disk,
>> one for each half-step, and a knob that adjusted the octave.  It had a
>> mircophone that he'd hang between the sound board and the frame.
> 
> Our school had one of them too.
> 
>> I always assumed that the motor was crystal controlled, and that the
>> microphone drove the little neon bulb through an amplifier, but I now
>> realize it would have worked just as well the other way, with the motor
>> being phase-locked to the incoming audio stream, and the neon being
>> controlled by a fixed octave oscillator.
> 
> It'd probably be much easier to drive the neon from the amplifier;
> then you don't have to worry about the inertia of the disc, which
> would make it take a long time to lock onto the incoming signal.

I've got an old Conn Strobotuner (don't think it works anymore,
though). It's a 5-tube beast. The motor is synchronous (uses the 60Hz
line for speed control, there was also a 50Hz model) and the NE-2 is
powered by the amplifier.
http://www.mts.net/~smythe/st-6.htm

Turntables often used the same principle, but backwards. A neon bulb
was powered by the 60Hz line, and the turntable edge (or a plastic
"record") had the strobe marks. If the motor was synchronous, being
out of sync meant you needed a new drive belt.

> 
> I've seen new electronic tuners which simulate the display on those
> old stroboscopic tuners.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153537

"Charlie Gibbs" wrote:

> Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)

Music without a piano just doesn't do it for me, kind of like listening to 
those old monaural records I loved when I was a kid.  There's a whole new 
world of music waiting for you out there if you decide to update to the 19th 
century. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153553

On 2015-10-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
>
>> Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>
> Music without a piano just doesn't do it for me, kind of like listening to 
> those old monaural records I loved when I was a kid.  There's a whole new 
> world of music waiting for you out there if you decide to update to the 19th 
> century. 

I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).
But we don't have a harp, so we have to make do.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153564

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2015-10-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
>>
>>> Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>>
>> Music without a piano just doesn't do it for me, kind of like listening to
>> those old monaural records I loved when I was a kid.  There's a whole new
>> world of music waiting for you out there if you decide to update to the 19th
>> century.
>
> I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).
> But we don't have a harp, so we have to make do.
>
Is it the harp you lack, or a suitable harp player?

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153567

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> Is it the harp you lack, or a suitable harp player?

I wanted a harpist, but all they brought me was a harpie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153578

On 2015-10-29, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right now I'm playing viola in a community orchestra -
>>>> where the instruments have basically not changed in 300 years.  :-)
>>>
>>> Music without a piano just doesn't do it for me, kind of like listening to
>>> those old monaural records I loved when I was a kid.  There's a whole new
>>> world of music waiting for you out there if you decide to update to the 19th
>>> century.
>>
>> I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).
>> But we don't have a harp, so we have to make do.
>
> Is it the harp you lack, or a suitable harp player?

Harp.  Those things are _expensive_, and we're just a small community orchestra.
We did finally get a decent gong, though.  (That was fun - the conductor, having
gotten approval from the board to purchase it, didn't tell anyone else about it,
except for the percussionists.  At the next rehearsal, when the rest of us were
waiting for the wimpy little "ding" that we were used to, there was suddenly
this lovely sound...)

    The other Lutheran instrument, of course, is the harp.  It is the
    perfect instrument for a Christian because it is like living with
    an elderly parent in poor health - it's hard to get them in and
    out of cars, impossible to satisfy them.  A harp takes fourteen
    hours to tune and remains in tune for twenty minutes - or until
    someone opens a door.  It's an instrument for a saint.
      -- Garrison Keillor: The Young Lutheran's Guide to the Orchestra

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153581

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:53:37 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>     A harp takes fourteen
>     hours to tune and remains in tune for twenty minutes - or until
>     someone opens a door.

Hmm. The Harmonium in Prifddinas is more realistic than I realized.

Of course, ignoring that fact, harps do have an advantage over nearly every 
other instrument. One depresses a pedal to cause the harp to play in the proper 
key, and then one has the diatonic octave for that key represented by each set 
of seven strings on the instrument. So, although which string represents "Do" 
(or, in more technical language, the tonic) changes, one doesn't have a 
different fingering for melodies in different keys.

Of course, button accordions also have the same fingering for each key, and 
they still let you play accidentals as well, so they're perhaps even better.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153590

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:53:37 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> A harp takes fourteen
>> hours to tune and remains in tune for twenty minutes - or until
>> someone opens a door.
> 
> Hmm. The Harmonium in Prifddinas is more realistic than I realized.
> 
> Of course, ignoring that fact, harps do have an advantage over nearly every 
> other instrument. One depresses a pedal to cause the harp to play in the proper 
> key, and then one has the diatonic octave for that key represented by each set 
> of seven strings on the instrument. So, although which string represents "Do" 
> (or, in more technical language, the tonic) changes, one doesn't have a 
> different fingering for melodies in different keys.
> 
> Of course, button accordions also have the same fingering for each key, and 
> they still let you play accidentals as well, so they're perhaps even better.

What could be better than an accordion?

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153652

"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1131786902.467897010.692318.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:53:37 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> A harp takes fourteen
>>> hours to tune and remains in tune for twenty minutes - or until
>>> someone opens a door.
>>
>> Hmm. The Harmonium in Prifddinas is more realistic than I realized.
>>
>> Of course, ignoring that fact, harps do have an advantage over nearly 
>> every
>> other instrument. One depresses a pedal to cause the harp to play in the 
>> proper
>> key, and then one has the diatonic octave for that key represented by 
>> each set
>> of seven strings on the instrument. So, although which string represents 
>> "Do"
>> (or, in more technical language, the tonic) changes, one doesn't have a
>> different fingering for melodies in different keys.
>>
>> Of course, button accordions also have the same fingering for each key, 
>> and
>> they still let you play accidentals as well, so they're perhaps even 
>> better.
>
> What could be better than an accordion?
>

Ask Myron Floren, except he died in 2005:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqURmXMEGFI


-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153570

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:38:31 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).
> But we don't have a harp, so we have to make do.

We have an old piano, I think an spinet, that nobody wants.  They tell me casual players will make do with an electronic keyboard, while serious players want a high quality instrument.  The cost of simply moving it is astronomical, and it also needs a full tune-up and repair, also expensive.  

I understand universities buy top quality pianos, but keep them for a realatively short period of time and sell them off, because the students need fairly new instruments.  I thought a well made piano, properly cared , would last forever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153575

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:38:31 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).
>> But we don't have a harp, so we have to make do.
> 
> We have an old piano, I think an spinet, that nobody wants.  They tell me
> casual players will make do with an electronic keyboard, while serious
> players want a high quality instrument.  The cost of simply moving it is
> astronomical, and it also needs a full tune-up and repair, also expensive.
> 
> I understand universities buy top quality pianos, but keep them for a
> realatively short period of time and sell them off, because the students
> need fairly new instruments.  I thought a well made piano, properly cared
> , would last forever.
I think this is a scam, operated chiefly by Yamaha, to sell pianos.  They 
sell pianos to educational institutions below "list price".  Then, every 
year or two, the schools sell off all the pianos for whatever they can get, 
give people tax deduction forms and buy more pianos.  Great deal for Yamaha, 
not so sure about anybody else.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153582

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 1:38:31 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).

I misunderstood this at first. I thought you had some sort of prejudice against 
the pianoforte and its repertoire. But now I realize that you were simply 
dismayed at having to use the piano as a substitute for the actual instruments 
called for by the various pieces your students are practising - the harp, 
perhaps, not being the only missing instrument.

It may be impertinent of me to even ask such a question as this, but I wonder 
if you would be happier - or even more discontented - if you had something 
like, say, a Tyros 2 instead of an acoustic piano?

In case you're not familiar with what that particular Yamaha product is capable 
of, here is a YouTube reference or two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVVTWUz2K-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qJOgXlsd08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK9DgGTRAec

Unfortunately, my Internet connection is quite slow at the moment, and so I 
can't be sure of the quality of these examples.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153584

On 2015-10-29, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 1:38:31 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> I wish we didn't need the piano (except for piano concertos, of course).
>
> I misunderstood this at first. I thought you had some sort of prejudice
> against the pianoforte and its repertoire.

Not at all.  I love piano - in the proper context.

> But now I realize that you were simply dismayed at having to use the
> piano as a substitute for the actual instruments called for by the
> various pieces your students are practising -

Not students, we're just a bunch of amateurs enjoying ourselves by
putting on local concerts.

> the harp, perhaps, not being the only missing instrument.

No, just one of the most prominent - at least in those pieces that
call for one, which actually are a minority.  On the other hand, we
did get one of our oboists playing English horn.  We haven't really
missed a contrabassoon - not yet, anyway.

> It may be impertinent of me to even ask such a question as this, but I wonder 
> if you would be happier - or even more discontented - if you had something 
> like, say, a Tyros 2 instead of an acoustic piano?

That would be cheating.  We're strictly acoustic.  Come to think of it,
so are the bluegrass groups I play with.  (Not even percussion there.)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153586

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> That would be cheating.  We're strictly acoustic.  Come to think of it,
> so are the bluegrass groups I play with.  (Not even percussion there.)

Well, in that case, even though, say, a Hammond B-3, while timbrally versatile, 
is at least not a sampling instrument, I won't try recommending that to you 
either.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153623

On 2015-10-30, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> That would be cheating.  We're strictly acoustic.  Come to think of it,
>> so are the bluegrass groups I play with.  (Not even percussion there.)
>
> Well, in that case, even though, say, a Hammond B-3, while timbrally
> versatile, is at least not a sampling instrument, I won't try
> recommending that to you either.

I just had a horrible vision of someone trying to horn in on a
bluegrass jam with a B-3.  Even though I've seen people show up
with a washboard or an accordion, this still give me the shivers.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153642

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>On 2015-10-30, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> That would be cheating.  We're strictly acoustic.  Come to think of it,
>>> so are the bluegrass groups I play with.  (Not even percussion there.)
>>
>> Well, in that case, even though, say, a Hammond B-3, while timbrally
>> versatile, is at least not a sampling instrument, I won't try
>> recommending that to you either.
>
>I just had a horrible vision of someone trying to horn in on a
>bluegrass jam with a B-3.  Even though I've seen people show up
>with a washboard or an accordion, this still give me the shivers.

Jimmy Smith was a pro on the B-3.  One of the best (along with Dr. Lonnie
Smith and Jimmy McGriff).

Pair Jimmy Smith with Wes Montgomery on the Jazz Guitar, and you've got nirvana
(no, not the band).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153646

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:35:48 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Jimmy Smith was a pro on the B-3.  One of the best (along with Dr. Lonnie
> Smith and Jimmy McGriff).

Yes, I've come across those three when I was searching for information on a 
technical level about that instrument.

> Pair Jimmy Smith with Wes Montgomery on the Jazz Guitar, and you've got nirvana
> (no, not the band).

I see it's actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_hoAsSa84Q

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153647

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:05:24 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:35:48 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 
> > Jimmy Smith was a pro on the B-3.  One of the best (along with Dr. Lonnie
> > Smith and Jimmy McGriff).
> 
> Yes, I've come across those three when I was searching for information on a 
> technical level about that instrument.
> 
> > Pair Jimmy Smith with Wes Montgomery on the Jazz Guitar, and you've got nirvana
> > (no, not the band).
> 
> I see it's actually happened.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_hoAsSa84Q

Oh, here's a couple more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqZYa5lWQ20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKxsi8BpDhk

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153776

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:35:48 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Smith was a pro on the B-3.  One of the best (along with Dr. Lonnie
>> Smith and Jimmy McGriff).
>
>Yes, I've come across those three when I was searching for information on a 
>technical level about that instrument.
>
>> Pair Jimmy Smith with Wes Montgomery on the Jazz Guitar, and you've got nirvana
>> (no, not the band).
>
>I see it's actually happened.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_hoAsSa84Q
>

My favorite Wes Montgomery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRzYaeBrWKU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153658

On 30/10/2015 12:35 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2015-10-30, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> That would be cheating.  We're strictly acoustic.  Come to think of it,
>>> so are the bluegrass groups I play with.  (Not even percussion there.)
>>
>> Well, in that case, even though, say, a Hammond B-3, while timbrally
>> versatile, is at least not a sampling instrument, I won't try
>> recommending that to you either.
>
> I just had a horrible vision of someone trying to horn in on a
> bluegrass jam with a B-3.  Even though I've seen people show up
> with a washboard or an accordion, this still give me the shivers.
>
Borrow some instruments from Peter Schickele used in in his PDQ Bach
(1795-1756) concerts.

I don`t what was funnier at one of his concerts the musical humor on
stage or the two little old ladies sitting behind me expecting to go to
a Bach concert and hear Bach..

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web