Wapsi Square

Slice of supernatural life YA comic PG-13 to R
  • Home
  • About
  • Book Store
  • Bluesky
  • Twitch
  • Forum
  • Archive
DeviantART pinterest YouTube RSS
"Never Guess"
<< First < Prev 85Comments Next > Last >>
Never Guess
<< FIrst < Prev Random 85Comments Next > Last >>

Friends

  • Dumbing of Age
  • OGLAF (NSFW)
  • Something Positive
Buy Me A Coffee

Mastodon

Latest Medusa Comic

Never Guess

by Paul Taylor on December 30, 2010 at 12:00 am
Story: Wapsi-Archive
Comments RSS

Discussion (85) ¬

  1. vince
    December 30, 2010, 12:03 am | # | Reply

    Dietzel’s done this before… and I’m not sure if he’s happy about it or not…

    • Atomic
      December 30, 2010, 12:43 am | # | Reply

      For some reason, Dietzel’s mouth made me think of one of the close-up shots of Sigourney Weaver vs the Alien….

      Maybe it’s the gum line?

      And we all wonder which Soviet Air Defense sector headquarters got raided for those tubes!

    • SchipLover
      December 30, 2010, 9:23 am | # | Reply

      This is called “Cabin FEVER”. Imagine what she would be dreaming or hallucinating about if different catalogs had arrived.

      • chrisleech
        May 26, 2011, 5:51 am | #

        well she IS an audiophile afterall

  2. Fairportfan
    December 30, 2010, 12:03 am | # | Reply

    Definitely.

    Get a room, girlie!

    I swear – she’s having a nerdgasm.

    • morven
      December 30, 2010, 10:25 am | # | Reply

      Maybe–but don’t we all tend to become nerds when approaching the areas of our interests (read: fixations)? 😀

    • Opus the Poet
      December 30, 2010, 3:08 pm | # | Reply

      Well, if she’s having a nerdgasm she’s in the right place. NERDS!!

    • Ratcatcher
      January 6, 2011, 8:12 am | # | Reply

      I agree, but the woman NEEDS her fix! Just like us WAPSI junkies. I’ll cut her some slack – But I would like to hear it, just once. OK so I’m a recovering audio junkie. 2 roommates with way too much money in uni.

  3. TlalocW
    December 30, 2010, 12:11 am | # | Reply

    I’ve been around audiophiles before. Being trapped inside with one thanks to a blizzard would have me feeling like Dietzel looks in the first two panels – even if they were as cute as Monica.

  4. Artemisia
    December 30, 2010, 12:18 am | # | Reply

    I’m confused by jargon

    • tmk
      December 30, 2010, 12:31 am | # | Reply

      Vacuum tubes vs. solid-state circuitry in audio amplifiers.

      Tubes are generally attributed a warmer, more real sound than MOSFET-driven amps, thereby tube amps are generally sought after by audiophiles.

      Tubes end up needing replaced after extended usage, though – they basically burn out like lightbulbs. Quality of manufacture affects sound quality significantly – the better the tube, the better the performance. The USSR/Post-soviet Russia tended to use tubes in a lot of their electronics, so they tended to have more experience in mass-producing high-quality tubes.

      • KaiserFrazer67
        December 30, 2010, 11:27 pm | #

        So how do I know if I can get the right tubes to fix, say, my old Crosley or Philco bakelite tabletop special? Is there a cross-reference chart for their numbers vs. ours? Or do they use the same numbers?

      • Ratcatcher
        January 6, 2011, 8:19 am | #

        Some are marked like ours (made for export) the best have soviet markings (the ones She’s talking about) are usually labeled by the importer with our numbers most often as a label on the box.

    • Atomic
      December 30, 2010, 12:50 am | # | Reply

      Among die-hard audiophiles, tube amplifiers are considered to deliver a “warmer” and more “true” sound than solid state electronic amplifiers. One of the many theories behind this is the very slight vibrations of the tube components as they do their job, which adds a slight resonance to the sound signal they’re processing.

      If you can tell the difference in sound quality between an MP3 playback and the original CD recording, say, with really good headphones, then crank things up a notch for the Tube vs Solid State argument.

      And, of course, there’s Vinyl vs CD…

      • Jim
        December 30, 2010, 12:54 am | #

        Digital vs analogue debate in 3 . . . 2 . . .

        Heheheh .

      • StJason
        December 30, 2010, 2:00 am | #

        …Well, honestly, digital only goes down to whatever the programmer lets it go to. Eventually, someone rounds off. Analog has no round off.

        Really, though, I think it’s less ‘analog vs. digital’ and more ‘custom craftsmanship’ vs. ‘plastic crap’. I’ve heard a few old style stand-up radios from the 40’s, and even though our science is better, the sound is amazing out of those old boxes. I’m convinced that if someone were to use the custom cabinetry, heavy (overbuilt?) construction of my parents time, and the modern computer-designed cones and drivers, you could make a digital experience to make even non-audiophiles weep.

      • DinkyInky
        December 30, 2010, 6:38 am | #

        Funny you say that. My brother took our family’s old custom Stereo cabinet(Uncles & father made it) and inserted rather pricey speakers into it(to give my then infant son quality classics to help acclimate him to his new home). He could only afford to replace two(the other speaker cabinets are still holding the antiques), but the sound is quite impressive. This coming from someone who doesn’t know much about speakers, but appreciate quality music.

        Monica being all “Mommy talking to precocious child” is hysterical. She better give Dietzel some quality time with his Pizza Girl later when the weather thaws.

      • Sitnalta
        December 30, 2010, 7:56 pm | #

        In theory, yes. Digital has a “sample rate” while analog does not. In practice, however, taking into consideration the inertia of the speakers and various electronic capacitances, you’re not going to be able to detect those individual samples. Also, vinyl does have a fixed resolution as well that diminishes with every playback.

        Also, ALSO, vinyls are pressed using digital sound files. So…

        Ultimately it boils down to which experience makes you appreciate music the most. In that respect, “better” is a purely subjective term.

      • Jay-Em
        December 30, 2010, 6:51 am | #

        Oh dear *cowers behind sofa, fingers in ears*

        Feh! Digi? Ana? Wrecked my ears by fiddling around with synths on a too high volume for years. Sooo..wouldn’t notice the somewhat imbalanced overtones that make “old stuff’ sound so warm..

        It’s true though that the first cd’s were over-processed here&there, but any decent 24-bit conversion of vinyl to lexan is good enough for me *ducks somewhat lower behind sofa*

      • Jay-Em
        December 30, 2010, 7:13 am | #

        on a side-note: With a Marantz NR1501 hooked-up to Jamo 606’s I wouldn’t hear it anyways, even when my hearing wasn’t so fracked…[listening to muffled “thump” of audiophiles all over the web fainting on the spot]

      • Ratcatcher
        January 6, 2011, 8:25 am | #

        It is OK tho unfortunate if you’ve got damaged hearing. In America most people do after about 30. Considering the sheer volume some people run those earbuds at its a wonder they could hear a train horn.

      • Uncle Rice
        December 30, 2010, 1:10 pm | #

        Analogue is the purest, but is perishable. Time, distance, storage medium, transmission, all these things degrade analogue where as Digital is not so perishable.

      • Kessog
        December 30, 2010, 6:23 pm | #

        Just compare the sound difference between the Mini/Little Phattie Moog synthesizers and any digital one. The analog ones like the Moogs produce a “fuzzier/fuller” waveform compared to a very precise one produced by the digital. Think: chord vs note.

      • Fairportfan
        December 30, 2010, 6:48 pm | #

        It’s not hard to introduce that sort of effect in a digital synth – just a matter of adding a little random-phase feedback and a couple other things.

      • Fairportfan
        December 30, 2010, 6:55 pm | #

        OTOH, very few synthesiser patches that attempt to mimic the Fender Rhodes/Clavinet electric piano get it precisely right – they sound good – they just don’t quite match the original.

        There are good Farfisa and Baldwin patches, though.

        So far as i’m concerned, the true sound of rock’n’roll – bearing in mind that i turned eleven the year the music died – pretty much requires a Farfisa or Baldwin organ, a Fender Rhodes or Clavinet and an over-blown sax – Strat or Les Paull optional, really.

      • Jay-Em
        December 31, 2010, 9:41 am | #

        True, but all synths with a digitally generated base-waveform have the same problem if one gets in the higher registers. They all start to sound shrill and thin somehow. An MS2000 does an admirable job, but the moment I fire up my minikorg 700s, odd as this beasty may look, you immediately realize there is a serious difference between analog and digital waveforms.

    • Artemisia
      December 31, 2010, 12:03 am | # | Reply

      So essentially, analogue vs digital is Fresh fruit vs Dried fruit both do the job, but most will go for the easier to eat fresh fruit since it is smoother and generally consiered the best. however dry fruit keeps forever and still tastes good. The amateur finds them both good but a conneseur may have a definite favourite.
      Thank you all I feel a lot less ignorant

      • illiad
        January 2, 2011, 4:16 am | #

        well if they ever manage to **fully** reconstitute dried fruit to what fresh fruit is like, you may be right… still beyond todays tech though..

        Even freeze drying destroys a large number of cell membranes, that is why the difference…

        Of course if your taste buds are as ‘blasted’ as some ears, that the difference of cassette vs CD cannot be heard, well…. 🙁

      • Ratcatcher
        January 6, 2011, 8:28 am | #

        With some people I’m convinced they couldn’t tell an 8-track from a CD. Trust me and the poor bugger was only 22!

  5. tmk
    December 30, 2010, 12:33 am | # | Reply

    Dietzel’s got quite the set of choppers there… 🙂

  6. gee1a
    December 30, 2010, 12:48 am | # | Reply

    Vacuum tubes were much better than transistors!

    • Fairportfan
      December 30, 2010, 12:52 am | # | Reply

      Not according to honest double-blind testing.

      • sattom
        December 30, 2010, 1:27 am | #

        In the early days of cd’s analog records really did sound better. But it was because the analog to digital converters in the cd players were , umm, really bad. OK. I’ll stop now.

      • Fairportfan
        December 30, 2010, 3:04 am | #

        Even more so, engineers didn’t know how to master CDs, and used masters that had been EQ’d for LP production

        I bought my first CD player in 1986. (There was this Springsteen box set…)

        Properly mastered CDs – like the Buddy Holly disk i bought (and wish i still had), or my copy of Joan Jett’s “I Love Rock’n’Roll” (which do still have) that i bought about then sounded just fine.

        Others … not so much.

        The thing that a lot of people don’t really understand/realise is that the “warmth” often ascribed to vinyl records is, in fact, non-linearity of reproduction and surface noise.

        (I remember when painting the edges of your CDs green was supposed to make them sound better.)

      • TlalocW
        December 30, 2010, 3:21 am | #

        I have to explain to younguns that is what Mike is doing in this skit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THbKEXBk8X0 Although he’s using blue for some reason.

      • Fairportfan
        December 30, 2010, 5:24 am | #

        Supposedly it eliminated bit-position jitter caused by multipath laser reflections within the plastic.

        Actually, there is no jitter, anyway, since CD players read the (serial) data into a register and then dump all of the (parallel) data to the D/A converter at once.

      • KaiserFrazer67
        December 30, 2010, 11:57 pm | #

        Ugh. I have plenty of vinyl albums AND their CD counterparts. I listen to 1940’s-50’s-60’s pop and rock ‘n’ roll. And every CD I have where they’ve gone back and re-mastered the original masters from the vault, it sounds WAY better than the vinyl. Period. You get something that sounds like it was recorded in a studio instead of Joe’s Greasy Spoon, where you can hear the “onions frying” in the background. Even the CD’s where the only original masters existing are where they were recorded directly onto acetate discs have been cleaned up admirably. It’s amazing what modern technology can do to preserve the past.

  7. Jim
    December 30, 2010, 12:49 am | # | Reply

    Heheheheh . I love Dietzel’s expression in the first two panels .

    Hmmm . There were also quite a few other choice Russian items of similar vintage , that I imagine are still floating around the marketplace .

    • SoWhyMe
      December 30, 2010, 3:25 am | # | Reply

      God, I hate movies like that.

  8. Alechsa
    December 30, 2010, 1:13 am | # | Reply

    Honestly, to me, sound is sound. I have records, CDs, cassette tapes, radio, internet streaming, and MP3s…

    They all sound the exact effing same. Aside from the record static, but when it comes out clear, it sounds the same as the cassette which sounds like the CD which sounds like the MP3, which sounds like the radio. I’ve never understood audiophiles, the human ear can only handle certain waves and frequencies… nothing makes 130mhz sound any different than another 130mhz…

    • Fatuncle
      December 30, 2010, 1:50 am | # | Reply

      My ears, fortunately, are in that class. Saves lots of money. Why spend the money for a really good set of speakers and the amp to drive them when I can’t hear the difference?

      But some people say they can hear the difference, and will spend the money.

    • Fairportfan
      December 30, 2010, 3:15 am | # | Reply

      Actually, you’re not going to hear 130MHz, no matter what – the upper bound of audibility is about 20KHz.

      However, i can generally hear differences in sound between mediocre, good and excellent reproduction – in general, cassettes aren’t going to be much better than “good”, due to limited frequency response and inherently low signal-to-noise ratio.

      I can hear the difference in quality between 256K and, say, 96K MP3s.

      (For that matter, i can see the difference between film and analog video tape on television almost 100% of the time. This sometimes makes older BBC shows – like “Doctor Who”, with video soundstage shots and film exteriors – fascinating to watch.)

      And i can (usually) hear the difference between cheap/cheesy, fair, good and excellent audio gear – but i can’t hear the further difference between excellent and “extreme audiophile” gear that some claim they can hear … and, as i said elsewhere, neither can they in properly-designed and run double-blind listening tests.

      Of course, similarly, the people who claim to be able to identify various beers by taste generally can’t in double-blind tests.

      And then there’s Steed, at the wine-tasting in “The £50,000 Breakfast” – “… from the north side of the vineyard…”

    • Julie
      December 30, 2010, 8:31 am | # | Reply

      Being able to distinguish between quality sounds from speakers is really just a more refined version of quality judgment. I mean, if you can listen to two talented people sing the same song, and distinguish which one provides better vocals in that instance, you’re making a similar judgment call…and if you can make that call when both people are the same gender and have similar vocal ranges (i.e. two mezzo-sopranos), you are distinguishing between sounds in the same frequencies.

      Audiophiles do the same thing, but with speakers.

      That said, I don’t speak the jargon (though I understand a fair amount given my father’s lifelong love-affair with sound systems). I just know what I like to hear and buy based on that. 😛

    • Uncle Rice
      December 30, 2010, 1:14 pm | # | Reply

      I’m probably 1/4 deaf, so the debate is mostly theoretical. I just get my music in the non-perishable digital format so no mater how many times I play it or store it it doesn’t degrade.

    • illiad
      December 30, 2010, 7:21 pm | # | Reply

      Alechsa, that may be true with ‘pure’ waveforms, but music is a far more complex waveform… the complex mix of harmonics needs such a big bandwidth to preserve this..

      I can only say, if you think cassette, CD, radio all sound the same to you, you are either tone deaf, or too lazy to bother listening properly…

      • Alechsa
        December 30, 2010, 10:42 pm | #

        I’ve had vocal/music training, so I can discern the subtle differences in tones and pitches. There’s just nothing really different enough to make me prefer one over the other. Meanwhile, my boyfriend cannot even tell the difference between Gaga and Katy Perry’s voices (Perry is a soprano with comfort levels in alto, Gaga is a sultry contralto with a fairly decent belted soprano support, at least as I hear them)…. and swears by his iPod over anything…. Eh.

  9. sattom
    December 30, 2010, 1:15 am | # | Reply

    Oooh but it’s true. A Russian company called Svetlana made some of the best and least expensive broadcast tubes available during the early 1990’s. And the insulating ceramic was a very pretty pinkish coral color. A 4CX15000A was almost half the price of the American made equivalent. In the mid 90’s the quality went down hill fast. Paul knows his stuff.
    I love it! Thank you for the beautiful Monica informed audiophile fantasy.

  10. Bob!
    December 30, 2010, 1:32 am | # | Reply

    Wish I still had my stash of tubes. in the ’70s I bought (cheap) the tube tester and 200+ tubes from a defunct drug store. Kept my ham radio gear like new and made some nice cash fixing TVs etc.

  11. Fatuncle
    December 30, 2010, 1:47 am | # | Reply

    The term for such tubes, at a time when they were a black market trade item, was “virgin commies”.

  12. Fairportfan
    December 30, 2010, 3:16 am | # | Reply

    I have a Russian made 500mm mirror lens (in T-mount), and have always regretted not having picked up one of the “Seagull” TLRs when they were easily available…

  13. Llewellian
    December 30, 2010, 3:34 am | # | Reply

    Ah.. Russian Things. Build to last. Design follows function, not the other way round. I remember the sailgasm that my father had when he got (back in the early 80ties!) a russian marine mirror sextant for 200 dollars from a russian sailor in Hamburg. You can drop this thing, you can lay it for ages into salt water, it does not mind. And accurate like hell… kay, its ugly like nothing else, but who cares?

    • DinkyInky
      December 30, 2010, 6:46 am | # | Reply

      I have a Russian Ammo box that my ex’s father gave me to hold my oils and Sable brushes. Makes many weapons collectors drool and cry for some reason. That thing is solid, heavy, and takes a fair bit of abuse(I know, think of what it held inside). A good craftsman’s products are worth their weight in gold.

  14. Leak
    December 30, 2010, 6:03 am | # | Reply

    Wait, what? Monica doesn’t have her credit card number memorized? Is that even possible? 😀

    • Julie
      December 30, 2010, 8:33 am | # | Reply

      You know, I was thinking the same thing… 🙂

  15. Paradosa
    December 30, 2010, 6:17 am | # | Reply

    Soviet times ended in 1991. You can’t call 91-93 years soviet time.

    • gus3
      December 30, 2010, 6:31 pm | # | Reply

      They were made to spec, ordered by the Soviet gov’t before the 1991 collapse. So, in that sense, they *were* “Soviet-made”.

  16. N.C. Weber
    December 30, 2010, 6:32 am | # | Reply

    Ah, conspicuous consumption. It warms my heart so.

  17. Bucky Katt
    December 30, 2010, 7:08 am | # | Reply

    Um, any tubes after Dec. 1991 were not “soviet-made.” They were Russian.

  18. ziggy78eog
    December 30, 2010, 8:00 am | # | Reply

    That is a well trained dog.

    • Francisco
      December 30, 2010, 10:40 am | # | Reply

      Given that Dietzel seems to understand English, can communicate ideas, etc, I don’t think training is involved. 😉

  19. Old Tool Guy
    December 30, 2010, 8:10 am | # | Reply

    I”m not an audiophile, I’m an amateur (occasionally paid) musician and an industrial maintenance tech., and have been for 40 years. My ears are as good as can be expected for someone who blew out the left speaker of Mom & Dad’s console Magnavox with an Emerson, Lake & Palmer album in 1969 (they never noticed). My professional experience leads me to appreciate something simple that works. A few years back I met the guy who’s father founded Bryston – he owns it now. I asked him why an inexpensive new receiver had tons of features while a megabucks high-end system had nothing but an on/off switch. He replied,”It only does one thing, but it does it very well.” He then took me into his listening room, sat me in the sweet spot and put on some vinyl that I loved and was very familiar with. I was promptly carried away to a wonderful place where nothing existed but the sound and the pictures in my head. I’m not going to get into any this-is-better-than-that arguments, but I can totally understand Monica’s obsession.
    You go girl!

    • Fairportfan
      December 30, 2010, 1:07 pm | # | Reply

      Ditto. What you like (so long as it gets the job done well enought to suit you) is what you need.

  20. Julie
    December 30, 2010, 8:35 am | # | Reply

    Huh…I never would have known that the Russians made such excellent audio gear.

    • Kessog
      December 30, 2010, 6:15 pm | # | Reply

      It’s not “audio gear”, it’s just the vacuum tubes that went into them. The Russians carried radio tube technology much further than the US did because they had trouble making transistors reliably. That and the tubes were much more resistant to the electromagnetic pulse that accompanied a nuclear detonation…

  21. Patricia
    December 30, 2010, 8:53 am | # | Reply

    I didn’t know Monica was such an Audiophile.

    • Francisco
      December 30, 2010, 10:37 am | # | Reply

      Remember that Monica advised her friend what kind of speakers to use at the gym she was creating.

  22. Deuce
    December 30, 2010, 9:25 am | # | Reply

    I still have a small but dwindling stock of SovTech tubes for my good old Peavy Encore 65. Only break it out to record, as it doesn’t really travel well, so that supply may yet last a while.

  23. Akamar
    December 30, 2010, 10:02 am | # | Reply

    I just don’t love music that much. :3

  24. Versatek6
    December 30, 2010, 10:36 am | # | Reply

    I could use a backup set of ECC83s and EL84s for my Trace Speed Twin and Velocette…

  25. txmystic
    December 30, 2010, 10:55 am | # | Reply

    I agree with those who claim it is more about quality craftsmanship than quality audio, because I know that, like a palate that can distinguish different vintages of a good Côtes du Rhône, an ear that can truly distinguish audio reproduction is rarer than anyone will admit.

    That said, I think I’d like to see a much bigger effort in improving the audio engineering in cell phones…I tire of that tinny reproduction I must deal with…

    • bmonk
      December 30, 2010, 11:58 am | # | Reply

      I’d be happy if they would just give “ear” feedback, so the persons using them in public would not feel the need to speak so loudly all the time.

      • Fairportfan
        December 30, 2010, 4:57 pm | #

        It’s called “sidetone”.

  26. Cholo
    December 30, 2010, 11:03 am | # | Reply

    A bit sad with the russian electronics thingy. A whole generation of electronics is vanishing so fast and very little is done to preserve it. Everything wasnt just copies of western eletronics. Thankfully a few people are now collecting old russian arcade machines, computers and schematics so it wont be lost forever..

  27. kingklash
    December 30, 2010, 11:25 am | # | Reply

    Next time: Monica builds an Interociter!

    • Jabberwonky
      December 30, 2010, 2:09 pm | # | Reply

      Look out for the catalogs printed on sheet metal…

  28. Stephen
    December 30, 2010, 1:02 pm | # | Reply

    There is no way anyone can tell me that Dietzel isn’t a smart dog.
    I believe that Monica knows that … but doesn’t really show it, so it won’t go to his head.

  29. S Roach
    December 30, 2010, 1:07 pm | # | Reply

    I was just thinking these guys better be on the level. You don’t want to mess with someone who can do things that science and forensics don’t accept as true and possible.

  30. Cranc
    December 30, 2010, 1:41 pm | # | Reply

    Keep focused people…especially on Monica’s pose in the last panel!

    Ye-um. Excellent laying-down-boob art, Senior Taylor!

    • Wyvern
      December 30, 2010, 7:36 pm | # | Reply

      We know Monica has great boobs. Russian vacuum tubes are new.

  31. geordie79
    December 30, 2010, 2:07 pm | # | Reply

    I think the new M statue being shipped has inspired Pablo to revist M’s audiophilia 🙂 been a while since we seen her spaz out over speakers. What next? Shelly picking up a Bass? 🙂 Good to see the good old storylines and character details coming back after so much drama!

  32. Xiutecuhtli
    December 30, 2010, 6:20 pm | # | Reply

    And yet more confirmation of why I made a small killing off the 105mm howitzer-shell box of tubes I got out of my father’s estate, and which I flogged on eBay for an aggregate of several hundred bucks–no Soviet-made, either; they were all US-made GE, Sylvania, etc. Some a those mamas (e..g, the 42s, 45s, and 79s) went back to the ’30s, and none was older than the late ’60s.

  33. Centaur1971
    December 30, 2010, 9:41 pm | # | Reply

    The incredulous/faraway look on Dietzel’s face in the first panel was ass-kickin’ PLATINUM DIPPED! You go, Paul! 🙂

  34. FortMax
    December 30, 2010, 11:28 pm | # | Reply

    http://xkcd.com/841/

    • Fairportfan
      December 31, 2010, 6:36 am | # | Reply

      Poo. Beat me to it.

  35. John Sandlin
    December 31, 2010, 12:19 pm | # | Reply

    Speaking of the audiophile Monica – got my Patch Together Monica in Headphones yesterday. She’s now sitting on top my system speakers next to Tepoztecal with his beer. Wonder what Tepoz has been up to… 😉

Comment ¬ Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Home
  • About
  • Book Store
  • Bluesky
  • Twitch
  • Forum
  • Archive

©2001-2025 Paul Taylor | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑