I've been an IT guy since 89 and found out about the Net from a friend at UConn in 90. My first ISP was Escape which turned into Mindspring. I was still using a non-graphical brower (Lynx) when I first came across this site. Things were happening very quickly in those days! Either Painterart joined a lot earlier than he thinks or I joined a lot later than I think but my sense of things is that I was here ~92. I was still visiting rec.gardens.orchids quite a bit but gradually began to realize that I had more to contribute to GardenWeb. I tried the odd compact flourescent in the mid 90's and I had tubes for a while in 99/2000 but I didn't get my first real set of lights till 2001, three 160W Wonderlites. I knew well before that that if I had lights the winter die off's would end or at least lessen. That proved to be very much the case and I have written hundreds of thousands of words to that effect in the six intervening years. Rock on, everyone. H

A WORD, All the above opinions are each valid in their own special way. I like what Lisa wrote,as I was thinking thoughts along those lines myself. The words,'much to do about nothing' come to mind. Yes,they were very impolite to use the photo,and more so now,as they seem to imply its their plant in the latest ad.[perhaps to keep out of trouble with their image hoster ?] But one thing nags me, how could they contact Stephania for permission if they had no e-mail address at the time of their original posting? (he later posted one tho). And to give credit to Stephania some how,would be awkward for them,saying to the public,'thats not our plant but,yours might look like that some day'. But most of all,I feel this puts a lot of undue pressure on Stephania,to 'continue the arguement',when he has already made his own feelings known in his posts dated July 18th and July 20th. If this were happening to me,I'd feel a little uneasy. He has all the well researched information to decide what to do. I suggest we leave it to him now. Stephania,you know your many friends all support you 100% what ever you decide. Bob

You need to define what you are trying to do. True audiophiles will have speakers that are well spaced from the room walls so that the wall is not contributing anything sonically to the spatial stage that the speakers are trying to reproduce. You will find very few 2-channel guys who will want anything to do with Dolby anything. Most true audiophiles remove as many things from the signal path to reduce/remove any possible sound signatures that they may impart. This means any sort of DSP processing (like any Dolby Surround/Digital, etc). For the larger portion of the world that is not in the esoteric world of high-end audiophiles - this isn't really a reality that we'll live with. So its a compromise of sound fidelity and reality. Dolby (nor thx) have any speaker requirements that require speakers to be "on the wall". And honestly - thx certified is really a joke certification (sort of like energy star) - its the /minimum/ specifications with which consumers can live with. There are more high-end systems without THX certification that will blow away your "THX certified" system components. Your statement isn't correct that you can't get good sound from in-walls. I will point out that high-end in wall speakers all have their own backboxes and are highly tuned to impart the soundstage with the knowledge that they are to be placed in the wall. If you want high-end - go listen to a setup of triads, Revel inwalls, or Meridian in-walls. I guarantee you that you can tell the difference between them and a $20 Pyle (which I've never heard of). Also, just for your benefit - power plays a very little part of the entire equation. Power is a logarithmic function - it takes 10x the power for double the sound. So, sending more power isn't the solution for enveloping sound. What is primary into the equation for sound is speaker efficiency. E.G if you have an 87 db speaker vs a 90db speaker (3db difference). The 87db speaker will take DOUBLE the power of the 90db speaker to output the same volume. . Taking an even larger extreme - a 94db speaker at 4 watts is the same volume as a 87db speaker at 16 watts. Speaker efficiency is key here. Some manufacturers will lower impedance to drive efficiency but that just means that a higher quality amplifier that can drive a 4ohm (or even 2ohm) load is necessary. The next thing to consider is that full range speakers sound fuller and are better able to give a better (and louder) sounding experience than cheaper limited range speakers. There is a reason why some speakers are balanced toward the higher side and get "lost" when other sounds are present and other speakers don't. Believe it not, Bose is an expert at filling sound which is why some people believe their speakers are good. In no way am I going to say Bose is a great speaker - but I will give credit that they know how to fill sound and market it like crazy. People may not like Bose, but people also realize that Bose made a clock radio that sounded better than everybody else (and more expensive). Why is it that Bose made a radio that sounded better than everybody else ? Well, they made a system that reproduced sound as people wanted to hear (richer, deeper, fuller). You want your in-wall/ceiling speakers to be the same way - otherwise you end up with cheap clock radio sounding speakers.

Thanks for your replies. I'm glad you've stayed out of Juno's harm's way. I hope it continues for you. I'll be away from them completely, thank goodness, when I get their the most recent screwup straightened out. I've not used Juno as an ISP for years. The e-mail retention is one of those old habits die hard things. I'm old and slow. I've been clearing out a lot of e-mail in the past several months (April over 2,500; earlier today 960; and a forced 625 a few minutes ago). I've dropped maybe 500 e-mail that contained very interesting scientific and nature pictures that I enjoyed viewing occasionally. They're now gone thanks to Juno. If Juno allowed me to retain over 2,500 without a whimper then why did they hit me again when I had less than 1,000? Bye