If I were to do it again, I'd allocate 50% of the budget to the mount.
A stable goto mount will actually point the telescope where you want it to be; and allow you to see what you want in a stable way.
If you can't achieve the above, it doesn't really matter how good the optics are.

Eyepieces are obviously equally critical to the light path.
I found the university optics ortho's were a good quality/cost trade-off for my budget.
With the 18mm a comfortable nice eyepiece to use.
The short focal length jobs with the tiny pupil just didn't work.
No-one told me that the floaters in your eyes suddenly come into play with these eyepieces.

The chap who bought my telescope brought with him a Televue Nagler eyepiece.
It weighs about 1kg; is massive, and is referred to as a "hand grenade" in the clique circles for obvious reasons.

They advertise it as having an "82 degree field of vision" - and I wasn't quite sure what that meant in practice.

We put it onto my telescope.
THEN I found out what it meant.
It's like putting your head inside the eyepiece & having a look around. In any direction. And looking at the sky.

And that was when I said: "You win - you get the telescope".

I bought a pair of good quality 8x42 binoculars.
Through a decent stable stand, or lying flat on your back on the grass looking at the sky ... that's a pretty damn good astronomical experience.

The same article that said the best telescope is the one that you use, concluded that the best telescope was a pair of binoculars.

On the other extreme it's fun to try out photography.
A friend of mine got a Philips webcam, performed the prescribed mods to give it a longer shutter speed, attached a peltier cooler to improve the ccd performance & took videos through his Meade LX-90.
He then processed the video through remarkable software called Registax
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/
and got astonishing results.

Through the eyepiece the image of Mars was wafting around in a smudgy way with the atmosphere.
When we looked at the image coming out of registax it was mind blowing:
https://photos.google.com/search/mars/photo/AF1QipPl8BeQxcp5cG8fbj-BhLJC5l6oF9Z0afkZyCLK

peterleroux wrote: If you can solder, pretty much any dirt pedal is buildable for less than R500- R100 for the enclosure, R75 for the switch, R150 for the jacks and R100 -R200 at worst for the parts for the circuit- and it's a lot of fun.

Other types of pedal can get more expensive, but a fuzz pedal is a great place to start if you are interested in DIY

I've got a bit obsessed recently with learning the electronics & putting together some basic pedals.
(perhaps more than just a bit obsessed. A bit worrying when your bedtime reading is "Art of Electronics". At 2am)

It is enormous fun & so very satisfying to actually hear something that you finally understand.
Then wonder why it previously seemed so hard.
I was very surprised at how few basic patterns existed; especially for distortion.
But having said that - I've also come to appreciate that the trick is in the detail.
Not in the choice of op amps. Despite this being a matter of religious preference, my ears can't pick up all the supposed subtle differences that others can hear.
But in other areas like getting noise down with good grounding techniques; and twisted wires; and shielding and keeping signal paths clean.

I've also realised, as you point out above, that the cost is all in very different places than you'd expect.
The cheapest components are the resistors at a few cents each.
But the next cheapest is often the semiconductors - a TL071 op amp is not much above 5 ront !
A half decent metal enclosure seems to be the part that eats up a lot of the money.

But I definitely concur - it's a LOT of fun !!
And highly recommended

It was a good phase & I learned a lot.
I learned that astronomy is done when it's very cold & while everyone else is asleep.
And that a star is still just a white dot at any magnification.
And that you can't focus with gloves on because your hands are too clunky.
And you can't focus with gloves off because your hands are too cold.
And that once you have a good telescope, you need a better mount; which you generally can't afford.
And that there is no limit to the GAS that attacks you - and the numbers get very bad very quickly.
And that it's really, really hard to get any decent telescope stuff in South Africa at vaguely respectable prices.

But but but ... I can report that actually seeing the rings of saturn yourself is a religious experience.
It always seems to come with the rather odd outburst of "hey - it's actually got rings!"
Very odd that everyone says that. Since we all know it has rings. But we all say that anyway. Very odd.

I initially bought a Stellarvue AT1010 refractor which got a lot of use.
Then I broke the budget and spent $2,000 on a 7 year old second hand refractor from a serious astronomer in the US.
It was a Televue TV101.
And the actual telescope had been used to photograph all the Messier objects.
I even got a copy of the book with the telescope.
Astonishing telescope.

Here's a link to the actual telescope I bought. And the book. And the chap I bought it from.
Note: I didn't buy the mount in the picture - it's worth much more than the telescope ?
http://www.company7.com/books/products/thenextstep.html

But ... it was too good - it was a bit too precious & I was too scared to use it often.

After which I read one of the most profound bits of knowledge:
"The best telescope is the one you actually use".

Which has become a general principle I now apply to all hobbies.
Only buy stuff you're actually going to use often.
I have vowed to never again to buy any equipment for any hobby that I regard as too precious to use.

I sold the Televue for my purchase price.
To an incredibly excited chap who couldn't believe such a telescope was lurking in South Africa.

So it all ended very well. ?

modulator wrote: If you are into astronomy, looking for equipment, pm me. Need to sell a telescope to finance amps...

I was heavily into astronomy.
Even owned some really nice telescopes.
And regularly attended the Wednesday night talks at ASSA.

But ... I sold all my astronomy stuff to get into guitars
? ? ?

The buffer I built is a simple circuit obtained from this excellent site of Jack Orman:
http://www.muzique.com/lab/buffers.htm

The 4th circuit diagram down - the one he says he used for the Dr Quack thingy.
I used a J201 JFET; but a 2N5457 JFET is said to work equally well.

I've just made a really tiny one to fit inside a miniature tin.
Will post pictures when it's finished.

If you have a piezo pickup, a buffer is essential else things get very thin & tinny.

The 2nd last circuit based on the TL071 is equally simple & works just as well.
Give a shout if you want any help.

There are different reasons for an "upgrade":
- Wanting to get "that sound" you've got stuck in your head; that your current amp/speaker isn't delivering
- One speaker just being better than another on some more measurable basis

JGP wrote: Meron the Creamback is a very different sound to the Vintage 30, not better or worse, just different. It is also way less than 5K, more like 3. Alnico Cream is just over 5K

Agreed.
The gent being quoted is definitely hunting for a particular sound in his head that is closer to the Vintage 30 than to the Alnico Cream he just bought.

At one stage I had a BlackStar HT5 which was good for me - but not great.
A fellow forumite had a Fender SuperChamp XD which was good for him - but not great.
We did a straight swap - and both got much happier.
It's about the sound you're looking for.

I have very limited experience & only know what I like & don't like:

- before I sold my Laney Cub 10 I replaced the stock speaker with a 2nd hand Celestion vintage something.
Massive difference - a speaker can make a very big difference to the sound of a system.

- recently built a little amp based on the LM386 IC / "Ruby" amp.
When played through a small portable radio speaker it has one sound. Small. Heavily over-driven.
On a whim I hooked it up to a 50 year old speaker from my Valve amp labelled "Fender Musical Instruments | Special Design Speaker".
Holy moly - it sounded unbelievably fabulous.
A speaker makes a massive difference to the sound of a system !!!
In this case, size does matter.

- After re-listening to my valve amp with above speaker, was suddenly conscious that the bass notes were soft & flabby.
I thought I'd broken it by using it with my homebrew amp. With hindsight though I think I've just become more aware of sound after playing with amp builds.
Fabulous Graham from Gear Junkie trialed me a 12" speaker he'd pulled out of a dead Marshall Valvestate.
Which sounds amazingly fresh, new & tight - highlighting that my "Fender Special Speaker Design" is probably a bit tired after 50 years and needs some maintenance.

- So far I've preferred all 12" speakers to 10". I just like the "feel". It hits you in the chest harder & I like that feeling.
I have no experience of 2x10 compared to 1x12. Something to try.

I'm a fan of the laney 2x12 cub cab and that comes with a a pair of Seventy 80's. Nice size and it sounded pretty good when we tried : laney cub 12 head, the Micro Terror and a homemade 2w transistor head.

Indeed. That was a big day.
That experience triggered the build of the LM386 amp.
And the quest for a stand-alone cab.

My phase has wandered back to listening to the delightful sounds & rhythms of West Africa.

Here's the master Kora player Toumani Diabate showing how it's done.
This music gets into my soul.

www.deezer.com/album/363281

A good guitar is a good guitar - it's just wood, strings & some electric bits.
To quote Andre Meyer "the maple tree doesn't know what brand they're going to paint on the headstock"

Past track record can suggest the future - if all past PRS guitars are high quality; chances are that the next one will be too.
All things being equal.

The key bit is this "all things being equal" bit.

Variability within the pool may be big.
China is moer big (1.4bn people). And developing fast.
So your last Chinese guitar was rubbish. You're going to conclude they ALL are?

Quality changes over time too.
Brands can tell nostalgic lies - the Gibson story.

Quality variability can also be your friend.
The same variation that allows an occassional disaster also allows the occasional miracle

There's an argument that some '59 instruments are regarded so highly because the quality variation was high; and only the best are still around. Natural selection.
A quality controlled mediocre instrument today will still be a mediocre instrument in 50 years.

My best guitar is a "made in China" Guild nylon.
But I took the trouble to carefully hand pick it.
Went to Bothners in a GAS frenzy wanting to get my dream nylon with a Spanish sounding name.

Got really confused when this China Guild at a fraction of the Spanish price turned out to be the one I liked the most.
After getting trusted musicians to endorse my hunch I bought it.

Resale value is however heavily driven by these indicators.
Which is why it's so hard for exceptional custom luthiers to break into the market.
And why I'll probably just hang onto my China Guild

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Remember that many cheaper piezos are ceramic or crystalline - which makes them very brittle. This makes them prone to failure when connected directly to a high SPL sound source. That's one reason why mirror tape is often used to affix contact piezos - it adds an extra layer of shock absorption. It's also why the embedded piezos of the Ghost system have a lower failure rate than the Fishman, Baggs, etc.

I originally encased all of the piezos in epoxy shells to both protect the piezo as well as create screw holes for attachment.
I abandoned the idea due to low output.
I incorrectly assumed the primary cause of the low output was the piezos.
Now realise it was the drain from the parallel wiring.

Now makes sense that the energy from one piezo pickup is being used to buzz the other piezos - thus less available to be amplified.

Thank you for the mirror tape idea - I will use it.
Also thought of putting a layer of epoxy over the top of the piezo to both protect the fragile solder connections, as well as protect the piezo layer.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Individual buffering is ideal, but yeah, pushes up the cost significantly. The hex guitar stuff is a very specific application and the 13-pin connection is a standard with very specific requirements.

I have already built two buffers based on a simple j201 FET circuit with a couple of caps & some resistors.
(currently have 6 bars going to one buffer; and 7 to another)

The parts cost is relatively low.
Also assisted by inheritting a whole bag of j201's.
But am going to need to do some board layout & lots more soldering.
I've tested each bar into a buffer on its own & the sound is good.
If I'm going to this effort should also have a trimpot per buffer to assist in balancing the sound volume from each bar.

Am thinking of laying out the buffers side by side on a piece of vero board.
Need to ponder where exactly to put the board & battery in the instrument.
Am also pondering which parts of the buffer circuit can be shared across all buffers - to keep parts count down.
Perhaps the FET's and parts on the piezo side need to be separate; but parts after the FET's can be shared.
e.g. shared power source & dc isolating capacitor.

I've been pretty radical with earthing all round - which makes a big difference.
Using shielded cable. And placing boards into shielded metal boxes

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: I have an idea for an electromagnetic pickup system you could try: Embed a ferromagnetic slug in/on your bar and mount a individual pickup element below the bar. Something modular like the Cycfi Research Nu pickups would be ideal, as they are available with integrated preamps. They are designed to work with any string spacing/stagger and any number of pickups can be combined - from a single one to as many as you need. They can mount directly on to a circuit board. They also have some add-ons like filters, active volumes, multipin outputs (both 13-pin and a Lemo connector) etc.

I am liking this idea a lot.
Especially since there are no wires going anywhere near the bars; which have a nasty habit of buzzing.
I want to try this next.

I've been experimenting with amplifying musical instruments with piezos.

I did all the normal experimentation & reading and discovered that piezos are very high impedance devices that need a buffer before being input to a guitar amp.
You can drive them straight into an amplifier & they usually work fine - but the sound is better with the impedance matched by a buffer.

The purpose of the buffer is:
- to allow the piezo to have a high impedance while talking to an amp of much lower impedance.
- and practically isolates the piezo input from the amplifier. Meaning the amplifier doesn't "load" or mess with the piezo.

So - I merrily built a little piezo buffer using a j201 jfet and all was well.
I even put it into a MerryPak tin can that looked quite cute.
Which had previously had my wood wax in it - so it even smells quite nice.

Except, in my application, I was needing 13 of these little piezo's - the application being the amplification of a 13 bar marimba.

So I just joyfully connected the piezos in parallel.

Reading my own explanation above a problem starts suggesting itself.
While the buffer circuit does a fabulous job of isolating a single piezo from an amplifier; conencting the piezos in parallel means they are all connected to each OTHER. Without any buffering.
And can mess with each other.
The signal of any one piezo is being sent to the amplifier (through the buffer) ... but also to all of the other parallel piezos WITHOUT going through any buffer.

What effect does that have?
Not really sure in theory - but in practice I can report that it's not good.
The strongest descriptors are "variable" and "unreliable".
Which are not good words to use for the output of musical instruments.
Especially when someone else is going to be playing them & trying to earn a living while doing so.

Some background - a piezo is a device that converts mechanical energy (e.g. vibration) into electrical energy.
= you whack it & it generates a current
And a hard whack can generate very significant voltages.

It also works in reverse - if you apply electrical energy to a piezo it generates movement.
If the signal is AC then the piezo buzzes.
So a piezo buzzer & a piezo pickup is the same thing.
Which is why cheap piezo buzzers make piezo pickups.

In short, the multiple parallel piezos don't work.
It's worse than that - they initially APPEAR to work.
So they tease you.
And you get excited.
And you record it & it sounds good & you send it to your friends.
And they get excited.

But then very strange things start to happen.

The odd effects include:
- a few of the piezos start sounding loud and others get soft
- and with use it seems to change. One piezo will work fine for a while ... then just go dead quiet. As if its soul is being stolen by the others
- all of them have lower outputs than when connected separately
- the piezos start failing after a while - are the energy spikes from some of the piezos frying the others? Are they just bad piezos that would have failed anyway?

It all seems a little of a Black Art with the interweb providing precious little guidance.
It seems that multiple concurrent piezo applications are very rare with very little international knowledge available.

An extreme measure would be to build a separate jfet buffer for each and every piezo (all 13 of them).
I have already done an obscene amount of soldering; and find my energy a little low right now to build 13 buffers on a whim that it may solve the problem.

As with all new stuff, the internet is full of guesswork suggestions - and it's difficult to separate the wild guesses which are presented with professor-like authority of truth, from the actual useful facts.

Some suggestions include using a series resistor to protect them (seems vaguely reasonable). With others suggesting with equally profound confidence that it's a stupid idea.

I even saw one person suggesting using a diode to isolate them. And everyone on this particular forum wildly agreeing with an imagined group nodding of heads.
The author clearly didn't understand that audio signals are AC sine waves and diodes only conduct DC.
There was a quiet comment later in the thread stating that the diode approach didn't work. The author seemed surprised.

I am beginning to understand why kksound has a starting price of $1900 to amplify marimba's with piezos; even though they are talking about many octave instruments. They also speak about very bespoke and special preamplifiers.

Alas I will not be defeated.
Even if I have to build 13 separate jfet buffers each with their own trimpots to balance the uneven piezo outputs ...

But ... I don't think I'll do this in the next week or two ...

I had to finally concede my greatest flaw was inadequate use of a metronome
:-[

Piggy in the middle ... of kak ...

Gearhead wrote: Fret distances follow quite simple math. Each next fret sits at 94.3874% of the string length of the previous fret, while the bridge saddle is set back from the scale length to compensate for pressing the string down onto the fret. While measuring fret distances, take the distance from the scale length to the fret (bridge side) and you will soon see the light (Excel anyone?).

Agreed.

A scale has 12 semi-tones (= frets) in an octave.
Since the pitch goes up by a factor of 2 in 12 steps, each step is 2^(1/12) = 1.059463
(which is also the frequency increase from one semitone to the next)
This gives how much each fret is longer than the next going from high to low.

Going the other way each smaller fret is 1 / 2^(1/12) = 0.943874 = 94.3874%

Norman86 wrote: You like Mike, Wizard?!

One day when I'm big & have my timing more polished I'm going to do a Tubular Bells trick.
With lots of different weird instruments
(have enough of those)

There are two approaches to tools (whether woodworking, camera lenses, pedals or whatever):

a) Have a problem ... and look for a specific solution. Call this the "professional approach"
b) Buy a solution ... and see what new opportunities it opens for you. Call this the "hobby approach"

As a beginner you'd never buy any pedals at all under the professional approach a).
By definition you don't know enough to have a problem to solve.
Unless you wanted to do a very specific cover & have researched how to get the sound.

Under the hobby approach b) you're allowed to experiment to just see what can happen.
Which is more or less why you bought the guitar and amp in the first place.
Just to see what could happen.

A good hobby approach is to buy secondhand stuff that you know you can unload for pretty much what you paid.

I'm very much a beginner guitarist and have had some great fun trying out a few pedals.

I got a compressor --> for what I was trying, I didn't see the point. And sold it.
People who are more experienced swear by them.
So that means I should try again later when I know more stuff.

I got a Matt Alisson Fuzzila.
Ohhh.
Discovered fuzz for the first time. Nice. Kept that.

Got a tubescreamer soundtank - the plastic one.
Really didn't like it. Sold it at a small loss.

I had aspirations of being Mike Oldfield and playing loops.
Got a Boss RC-20.
Found it a bit tricky to work out.
But more tragically I found my timing wasn't good enough.
Sold it at a nice profit.

Got a complete bargain Ibanez combo pedal PowerTrio.
It has very dodgy footswitches that work nearly half the time.
A google shows this to be a consistent "feature" on this model.
BUT. BUT. BUT.
I discovered what a tubescreamer is supposed to sound like.
Yum.

And it has a "chorus".
Never tried that before. Love it.

And a delay.
I now really like delay.
Excellent tool for getting your timing sorted out.
I'm keeping the Ibanez PowerTrio.

I also got a Octaver.
But that was to get cool sounds out of an electric marimba.
I bought it knowing I would play with it for a while & sell it.
Sold it at cost.

In total I haven't lost any money in any of the above experiments.

So I'd say follow the hobby approach b).
But just get one at a time, 2nd hand ... and make sure you can get all or most of your money back if you don't like it

Gear Junkie always has a nice stock of 2nd hand pedals - so give it a go.
Fun to be had. Nothing to lose.

I will be shot at dawn for saying this.
But I don't actually think the body wood of a solid body guitar makes any difference at all.
? ? ?

By contrast the shape, thickness, wood & fretboard of the neck makes a MASSIVE difference.

You attach a clip tuner to the headstock ... because it is resonating.
Try clip one onto the body - nothing.

I rigged up a piezo pickup and had fun putting it onto to everything under the sun just to see what happened.
Bridges of anything resonate like crazy - critical component.
Soundboards of acoustic guitars.

But solid bodies - not so much.
Now you can shoot me for heresy.

The hohner jack had a very material influence in my life !!!

While pondering a purchase of Meron's hohner jack, he offered to demonstrate it if I played drums.
(I'd never played a dumkit before)

Started a whole journey in drums I've never regretted !!
Ending in owning my own kit (also ably assisted by Meron)
?

Squier strat.
Got stolen.
Best thing that happened.
Never liked that guitar.

Insurance paid the quoted ticket price of a new one - there is a benefit to the discounting system of guitar shops ?

MusicMan apparently use something similar to Tru Oil on their maple fretboards; which was designed for gun stock finishing.
MusicMan have an amazing finish - not that sticky poly feel.
I bought a bottle, but haven't tried yet.

I had a maple neck with poly that drove me mad because of the stickiness.
Rubbed it down with steel wool.
It lost the glossy look, but feel fabulously smooth - no more stick.

Strings:
2 x nylons
1 x acoustic steel string
1 x strat (partscaster)
1 x tele (diy)
1 x violincaster (diy)
1 x violin
1 x kamale ngoni

Percussive stuff:
roland td10 drumkit
1 x balafon
2 x marimba's (diy)
squillion x part-built marimba's (diy)
3 x djembe's
1 x turkish darbuka
1 x cajon (diy)

Had a penny whistle. But think I lost it.