Parting Shot:

What would I personally buy, if I were building a system from scratch w/o any wifey limitations? I'd get the the Yamaha receiver previously discussed. I would then build these for my center channel and front left/right. (And I would have a speaker pair for the center channel; one on either side of the TV, or one above/below the TV. Using two center channels may produce a combing effect, but I've found that it's well worth the benefits in dynamics.) And for my front and rear surrounds, I guess I would build these. (They use the same drivers, thus retaining tonal similarity. But truth be told, a dipolar or bipolar surround would be a better choice--but they're tougher than heck to design properly; well beyond my abilities.) I would also build either the Titanic 10" sub or the 12" sub, depending on my room size.

And if money was no object, I would build 6 or 8 of these to go all around (with a pair of one of the subs listed above). And if money was an object, I would start off with a 2.1 system--and then add on as time and funds warranted. But all this is predicated on the reality that I build and assemble these things for fun...

I'm currently watching the national spelling bee; it's an annual tradition for me to do. I get more emotionally involved in this than I do any other sport; bar none.

Hey Scott,

First off--I wouldn’t even consider anything from AvaHifi at this point; they’re really designed for 2-channel music lovers. I simply through that out there to give an example of expanded buying power via used equipment. Further, it sounds like Frank is aging--and I honestly don’t know what kind of future service & support they’ll be able to offer.

But with that said--we can definitely build you a great home theater for your space. I’ll try to respond to your questions one-at-a-time:

1. A receiver is nothing more than an amplifier, pre-amplifier, tuner all rolled into one. A home-theater receiver would be an amplifier, pre-amplifier, tuner, and processor all rolled into one. The latter is what you’re after. While dumb people like me may buy separate components, it really doesn’t offer you any real bang-for-your-buck; the level of improvement is truly minimal. Further, it’s way more expensive to do so.

2. I’d really look into the home-theater receivers built by Yamaha. For my money, they offer the best combination of home-theater digital processing and well-built amplification. Denon, H/K or Onkyo may be worth your look--but if it were me, I’d look no further than Yamaha. If Yamaha has a fault, it’s that their amplification sounds a little too crisp and clean (almost sounding cold). That may not be preferential in music, but many people *do* prefer this crispness in home-theater. (Further, we’re talking about the ever-most-subtle nuances here. I doubt you’d be able to even tell.) Yamaha’s digital processing is nearly second to none. However, Tim got an Onkyo receiver with a network input--so he can access his digital music library straight from his receiver. Sweet innovation, I think--provided you have a wired network (which you likely do not have). So it’s what you value. Tim valued networking, and I value digital processing. There is a compromise in everything.

3. Personally, I get scared as all poo at the thought of buying a home-theater receiver. And this is because home theater has become subject to changes in processing technology and Moore’s Law. (This means that buying used isn’t really an option, because you’ll be buying yester-year’s technology. One can stretch their buying power much better in a 2 channel system, because the variable of technology is essentially fixed.) So just go into this knowing that you’ve just purchased a piece of aging technology--just like a computer. As such, it may be worth your while to “future-proof” your purchase as best you can--i.e., making sure that it’s truly HDTV compatible. In many ways, this receiver will become your central “hub” for all your audio and visual devices. So if you guys ever upgrade to HDTV, you want to make sure that your home-theater receiver can support it. It looks like the best model at the moment might be the Yamaha RX-V861. I expect the street price from a reputable vender to be between $799 and $899. (ALWAYS BUY FROM REPUTABLE DEALERS; low-ball prices nail you every time.) This model has video up-conversion to HDMI, which is a key feature to have. The one thing that is lacking is the ability to support 1080-progressive--but that’s a mighty expensive feature to buy right now. Further, many HDTV’s don’t even support 1080p yet. So just know what you’re getting yourself into. It’ll work great now, but lack of 1080p may be limiting in 5+ years, or two TVs from now. (And there’s no way around failed “future-proofing”--even for the people with 5 and 6 digit budgets.) I know that this breaks the “spend 50% on speakers” notion, but if you want future HDTV compatibility, you’re going to have to spend for it, or postpone the purchase. But then you’ll always be postponing a purchase (like me). (And that’s why I really don’t do home-theater anymore; I just get tired of the changing specs and technology. Although it has stabilized in recent years. So just prepare yourself for a long-term relationship for whatever level of technology that you buy. Later and greater technologies will come, but you need to be satisfied (if not downright pleased) with what you’ve already purchased.) The quick evolution of technology really messes up this 50% rule of thumb. But no matter how you cut it, the most important aspect in sound reproduction are the speakers. Second most important is speaker placement. The third most important is the quality of the original source (i.e., recording) itself. Fourth would be amplification. Fifth would be components and interconnects. (Although sales people and pseudo-scientists will argue with this, because they want your money or they have “golden ears” to hear nuances that no one else can hear.)

4. An honest and personal question: I seem to recall that you hava a monaural hearing loss. How well are you able to locate sound? Because it seems to me that 5.1 (i.e., surround speakers) may not be as important to you as something like bass impact. (And bass impact may be of no use to you after the kids are in bed?) So an interesting option may be a 2.1 system. (i.e., a 2-channel stereo system with a big-arsed powered subwoofer for gut-wrenching punch.) (Sarah may prefer 2 speakers and sub vs. 5 speakers and a sub. Anyway--just a thought.)

5. Say it with me: “There is no replacement for (volume) displacement.” Stated differently, getting smaller speakers will result in sound degradation. Period. Anyone who says anything different is ignoring the simple laws of physics. The more air you move, the better the sonic results. So find a happy-medium between sound quality and speaker size (i.e., room aesthetics); or at least find a compromise. But with that said, this affects music more than movies. And if you want gut-wrenching bass-punch, you’re going to have to spend the bucks and realize that a big powered sub takes up a bit of space. One could save a bit of money by buying from PartsExpress. (I bought a house-brand sub, and was really pleased with the quality and bang-for-buck. I also assembled my own using their house-brand parts, and the thing can serve as a defibrillator.)

6. As far as speaker recommendations, I really don’t know. That’s such a subjective purchase. Further, buying speakers annoys me--because I don’t look at the speaker; I look at the (price) sum of it’s components, shake my head, and walk away. (The mark-up is usually greater than 300% over the price of components.) I can steer you to brands that I trust--but you may just need to listen to them and pick the ones that sound best to you. What I would try to do is buy last year’s models, which can save you between 30% and 50%. Polk’s RM6900 is a great example, although the color is ugly.

7. Here’s a tip for buying speakers. Unfortunately, many companies don’t design speakers to sound good; they design them to be bought (i.e., stand out in the show-room). They do this buy making them slightly more efficient (i.e., louder) than others. When comparing speakers, people seem to prefer the louder speaker as "sounding better". But this is psych-acoustics, not reality. They also intentionally design frequency bumps around 100 hz, to give people the illusion of “punchy bass”. But that annoys the heck out of me. I want my speaker’s frequency response to be flat, such that it will render an accurate reproduction of the source. So be aware when you go to audition speakers. Further, make sure you come with your own source. CD’s that you are intimately familiar. And train yourself to listen to certain aspect of the songs, like voice, evenness of bass instruments, and transient sounds (such as the sound of a finger plucking a guitar or a stand-up bass). Acoustic recordings generally provide the best samples. I can send you a few tracks, if you think it may help.

8. Some home theater speaker packages include a powered sub, some do not. Know what you’re getting, and factor that into your budget accordingly. You’re going to want a powered sub. PartsExpress sells some good quality subs, and some really excellent quality sub-kits at very reasonable prices.

9. The sound quality of a radio will be better than streaming online music. But any receiver will have a radio anyway.

10. Your receiver will serve as a central switching hub. That’s what I would do. (Such as the Yamaha in which I recommended.) Further, it supports optical input, which will work well with AirTunes.

11. Wireless surround speakers haven’t really caught-on yet. Pretty much all home-theater speaker packages are all wired. So you’re going to need to work around that limitation; tucking the wires between the carpet and the baseboard is often the best option. They also have special speaker wire that is very flat and can be painted over--in which case it almost becomes invisible. (Used this myself, with good result.) Use this special type of cable in short lengths for best sonic results (such as wall-mounted surround speakers.) They also have cable-covers that add wife-appeal to “ugly” cables; PartsExpress has these in spades.

12. As far as 5.1 speaker systems, I’d give Polk a look. Boston acoustics. Maybe Mirage, if you want smaller satellites. Warfdale, if you want to exceed your budget. There are numerous other options that could be excellent as well. But just based on the specs, the Athena Audition systems may be worth a serious look. (ASF2.1, ASF 2.2, LS). These seem to have a great bang for the buck. Don’t skimp on the center channel (as it’s the most important speaker), and dipolar or bipolar surround speakers really do outperform traditional bookshelf speaker designs (for surround speaker use).

Yet another marathon entry. Wasted enough time; gotta get back to work... P.S. Let’s get Tim in on this; he recently did his H/T from scratch...

I just picked up an additional 2 songs from NIN off his Year Zero site. Dang, the guy's good--and his tempo helps my working focus and concentration. Looks like I'll be hitting the KLOV before too long. We must convert him.

And here's a random twitter-like topic or thought. I like pulling weeds and I like digging up rocks. What a weird personal revelation. As a kid--it was my job (and often punishment) to pull weeds; I freakin' hated it. Now that I've got a yard (which has yet to become established), I actually find myself out there just pulling random weeds as a means to find peace and relaxation. I'm not sure if it's the immediate gratification of it, its mindless nature, or something else... but the act of pulling a weed pushes a neural button nonetheless.

Same goes with digging up rocks. (?) We're currently panting a shrub wall of Elaeagnus, and I find myself digging way larger and deeper holes that are needed to plant a simple 3-gallon shrub in hopes of finding a bigger, cooler looking sedimentary rock. It's like I do it for the intermittent reinforcement and the thrill of the discovery.

I guess that makes me weird. Hey Matt--does your wife read this and collect data?

Hey Greg,

So I completely appreciate the input. Obviously, a lot of thought went into your response, and I appreciate the time it took. Having said that, I'm changing the game ...

After talking through about 10 different options, Sarah and I have decided not to go on vacation this year. In the end, there was just no where that we could go that would accomodate her pregnancy and our two boys while still giving us a reasonable return on a fun-per-dollar-spent ratio. So instead of dropping $2000 on vacation, were going to put a $1000 towards a stereo system (that we BOTH want) and put the remaining $1000 towards "mini-vacations" in the area (e.g. a hot-air balloon ride, an overnight downtown Chicago, etc...)

Anyway, that means that we are now looking at a budget in the range of $1600. And after reading through your email, I have some thoughts, clarifications, and questions.

1. Because I do love movies with a deep and abiding passion, I would like to aim for a "home theater system." So this means dropping some quid on a decent (but not ridiculous) 5.1 surround system. I looked at the OmegaStar at AvaHiFi.com and saw that it currently ran for $1499. However, you mentioned that you bought it at less than $.50 on the dollar; and I was wondering where. If that deal is still out there, that would leave me with approximately $700 towards speakers with room to grow and expand if I so desired.

2. As an Apple-man, I am completely on board with the idea of viewing the center of a home entertainment system as a digital media hub. I had already concluded that I was not going to purchase any form of CD player/changer. Moreover, any money spent on a radio seems silly given the fact that most radio stations stream and therefore can be channeled through an Airport Express. Are you on board with that thinking?

3. What would you recommend in terms of a controlling unit for switching functions? Obviously, in the past, you had a receiver sitting on top of your amp. But if you're not in the market for a radio (see above presumption and correct me if necessary), do you need a receiver? Help.

4. Now back to speakers. You had some great recommendations for speakers used with a two-channel system. What about speakers for a 5.1? And what about wireless. You mentioned that wireless is expensive? What kind of uptick are we talking about to go from comparable sound quality hard-wired to wireless?

Your needy friend.

Sorry for the drive-by, I'll be pretty busy with work for the next few days... exams, comments & stuff.

You all will enjoy this.

Also, if I ever feel my blood pressure get too low, I can always read this.

Ok--I've thought a little about this, and I'd like to throw out a few ideas and clarifications. But let me know where my suggestions do not meet your needs or wants...

1. It sounds like you don't want a "home theater" set-up. (Meaning no less than 5 speakers sprawled all over your living room, to achieve that 'surround sound' experience.) From what I understand, all that you're looking for is a simple 2 channel living room system to play music and connect to your tv (for improved stereo tv sound).

(But know that this is a crucial point; if you want the ability to create a "5.1 channel home theater", consisting of no less than 5 loudspeakers within the room, then this needs to be included in your system's design. I suspect you'll need to get the wife's permission. And be honest with her; you will see the speakers; they will not be invisible; you may see cords. All those Bose ads are lying to you. Further, Bose sux anyway.) And for the record, if it were my budget and my system, I would rather get a higher quality 2 channel system than a lower quality 5.1 channel system. But I value music more than tv or movies.

2. I predict that the future of audio will be computer-based. Streaming online content, digital MP3 collections. So begin thinking that your computer (or a media server) as your central hub for media content.

3. I want you to think about this... People seem to like the idea of having a single centralized music hub. Put in a CD, and have the ability to play that CD in Rooms: A, B, or C. But I honesty don't like that idea. If I'm in my office, I don't want to have to go to my living room to change the song or cd. And if Court is in the living room, and I'm in the office--we may want to listen to different things. (Such flexible yet centralized receivers are available, but they're needlessly complex and are way too expensive.) I would rather have individual sound systems per room; these room system would have the ability to play content independently, or to link to a central hub (should you so desire).

4. Having a central hub w/o wires is difficult, expensive, and provides limited results. The only way around this is to build a house and have custom wiring--or do what Tim did and spend a year remodeling. Apple's AirTunes may be a great solution.

So if I was in your position--looking to establish a good quality system, with the ability to expand as needed... This is what I would consider:

1. Never ever buy new audio products. Audio gear are like cars. They depreciate a buttload within the first year or two, when the actual quality of the product basically remains the same. I never buy new audio equipment; I always buy used, and let the suckers take the depreciation for me; and they're happy to do me this favor. I've never had a single problem with this practice either. This basically doubles my purchasing power. (If I had the space on this blog, I'd tell you about my final "new" audio purchase; a $1200 top-of-the-line home theater receiver that was functionally obsolete within 2 years. Two words: stupid tax.)

2. Think in terms of a nicer "living room" system, and smaller individual "bedroom" or "office" systems. (You'll need to match the size of the system (speakers) to the size of the room anyway).

3. For your main (living room) system, I would get the best speakers that I felt comfortable buying (spending). All decent amplifiers pretty much sound indistinguishable from each other. The most important component in the system are the speakers. Anyone that says anything else to you is lying. A rule of thumb has (historically) been to spend half your budget on speakers; although I'm not sure if that still applies in the digital age. Further, this rule of thumb also gets a little fuzzy with initial lower budgets and plans of future expansion. If people are thinking of expanding, then make sure you take into account the option of a home-theater receiver (if desired) and the ability to drive low impedance (4 ohm nominal) speakers. As such, this may require more of the initial budget to be absorbed by the amp. The second most important variable in sound quality is speaker placement.

4. I would view my computer as my central music hub. Sarah needs a radio, and we can deal with that. The days of stand-alone cd players or "changers" is dead. Think in terms of computers, portable MP3 players, or DVDs. (One can easily burn DVDs full of MP3s, which will provide you an insane amount of content. This is what I'm currently doing, and it's working out very well.)

5. Think about using Apple's AirTunes to wirelessly connect your music server (computer) to your music systems. [Living room (primary), office/bedroom (secondary)].

6. Make sure that all your secondary music systems have auxiliary inputs, so that you can connect portable MP3 players, computers, or AirTunes to them.

So here's what I'd consider:

1. A refurbished Harman/Kardon HK 3480. This is a high quality 2-channel receiver. It has a good radio, and plenty of inputs for TVs, DVD players, and Auxiliaries (computers, AirTunes, portable MP3 players). (I actually had the University get this exact model from the same vendor for my research lab; you know, for my "research". I've been pleased with it's performance.) Cost: $200. Other good options can be found from Denon or Yamaha. Onkyo may also be worth a look. (Relative to the big-box-store brands--historically, Sony is crap, Pioneer is decent, and Technics is the best of the three.)

2. I'll give you two speaker options. A lesser priced option would be the Athena - Audition B1.2. I've got these in my lab, and they're pretty darn good for their price and size. These speakers have been pivotal in my "research". (Cost: $120.) A better, albeit more expensive option, would be the Polk Audio Monitor 40. The MTM design will give you better sound dispersion, as well as more impressive bass response. (Cost: $245.) If it were me, I'd go with the Monitor 40s, but the Auditions also sound good. There are other good options out there; these were just two that I felt comfortable recommending (sound quality / bang for buck) with a limited amount of research. Boston Acoustic is worth a look, as is Warfdale if one feels like spending a bit more for a better product. There are tons of other good options, but space does not allow. (One could also stretch their speaker budget by assembling their own from a kit of components, although this does take a bit of basic soldering.)

3. Goto PartsExpress.com and get their house brand of interconnects and speaker wire. Fancy cables offer you nothing. It's all snake oil. Dayton Interconnects and 16-gauge speaker cable is fine. Banana plugs may make life a little easier, but aren't necessary. This'll probably be around $50.

4. If you want office or bedroom systems, consider the Tivoli Model Two. (Cost: $170.) The Model Two has a nice radio and an auxiliary input for a portable MP3 player or Apple's AirTunes. You can probably get a refurbished AirTunes from Apple at a discount, if you check periodically. Other smaller bedroom/office systems are possible; it's just that I've been salivating over these Tivolis for years.

I'm confident that you'll be more than satisfied with such a system. Feel free to provide feedback if your needs are not what I anticipated.

For what it's worth--my main system consists of a car-stereo head-unit, a pre-amp, amp, and speakers. This weird set-up is totally by design. Car stereo radios outperform standard home-audio radios hands-down. The head unit is also a DVD player, which can read MP3s. So I burn massive amounts of MP3 music onto DVDs. It has a good MP3 navigation system to get from folder to folder. The pre-amp is an high quality pre-amplifier. Truth be told, I don't need this anymore, now that I'm using the (car) head unit. But it's paid for, so it's there. The amplifier is an high quality amplifier that is capable of driving electrostatic speakers, which stand about 3 feet wide, 8 feet tall, and 3 inches thick. Electrostatic speakers require massive amounts of current at a very low impedance, hence the need for such a high-current low-impedance-stable amplifier. (Check out the OmegaStar pre-amp and amp at AvaHifi.com) The pre-amp, amp, and speakers were all bought used for less than $.50 cents on the dollar, had I bought them new. And now that we've chosen an income reduction and an expending family, I couldn't even consider getting such gear today. The car stereo head-unit was bought refurbished for about 50% off MSRP. (A returned item on a model that was being replaced--so they had to deeply discount it; found an online coupon to boot!)

Anyway--hope this helps...

Hey Greg,

Thanks for touching base so quickly. In answer to your questions:

Sarah still has an odd fixation with the radio - particularly radio of the KLOV variety. Unlike other folks though, she doesn't listen in an effort to cleanse herself from previous listening habits. :-)

As for your other question, it's slightly more complex. We will mainly utilize the system when we are watching movies and listening to music in the living room. So I imagine we'll want to seperate out speakers according to output range. But then, ideally, I would like this to be able to serve as the central sound system for the house. If that is possible, than I would drop some additional, speakers throughout the place (including the second level). So I guess what I want to be able to do is program settings so that when we are in the living room, it is only utilizing the certain speakers, whereas when we are in the rest of the house, the whole system is running so the sound is available everywhere.

I recognize that this is not a small deal. So what I want to do is start with something that is modular so that we can expand as we have the resources. So start with a focus on a living room keeping in mind that we would like to be able to add the other components over the next year or so.

Oh, and lest I forget, the speakers probably need to be wireless.

Does this make sense? Or am I asking for the impossible (given the price range)?

Calling all audiophiles ... Well, actually, I only have about $600 bucks at my disposal, so no matter what you recommend, it probably won't meet your high standards. Nevertheless, my trusty AIWA system that dates all the way back to college has finally collapsed. So I'm going shopping, and I want to upgrade without breaking the bank. Now that I'm a dad, I really can't justify dropping bank on a sweet system when I've got things like college to be saving for.

Anyway, say you have about $600 bucks and you have nothing worth salvaging. Where do you begin? Keep in mind, we're moving within a year, so I really don't want to start running major wire. Can we go wireless here? And what about making sure that this thing works with Airtunes?

Let me know what you think when you have a moment. Thanks.

This almost seems like some of the crap that I would try to pull while in college. Sans the language. Or--maybe not. Best viewed in the proper sequential order.

Video One
Video Two
Video Three
Video Four

Alright ... If we're going to start nominating, I would like to submit one Mr. Marshall Mathers (aka Slim Shady, aka Eminem). Anyone who can throw down Munchausen Syndrome and rhyme it with "public housing systems" is definetly a unique talent. Moreover, I am not the only one who would like to nominate Em for conversion. If you're down with your Christian rap, you would know that KJ-52 is reaching out in new an interesting ways.

See--the guy gets it. And at least his stuff is novel. So again--I suggest that he be targeted for conversion.

So while I like my university, their IT really is inadequate. (They've lost *all* emails for two faculty during a migration.) And since I'm the resident tech guy for my department, I took it upon myself to "fix" the problem. What I ended up doing is getting a domain and using Google Apps to host the department's email server, as well as a department calendar and a department homepage.

And I've been pretty impressed with the product. The more I play around with it, the better I can wrap my head around how these applications can solve problems that I haven't even fully recognized yet.

Oh--and it's free. Two thumbs up.

/Update: I've updated two of the staff's machines--and they've already discovered the "chat" feature. And it's cool when the stuff is designed such that the peoples figure it out on their own (rather than you having to walk them through stuff). Two enthusiastic thumbs up.

How's this for sad news... Garfield High, in which the moving story Stand and Deliver was based, has been subject to arson. (And not just a little arson; millions of dollars worth of damage arson.)

Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations... so says the presidential father of terror.

I'm utterly speechless.

Yes, director Michael Bay is the very definition of "over-the-top".

Yes, his new movie is simply an attempt to cash in on "the nostalgia factor" of us 30-somethings.

But dangit if these trailers don't look sweet.

Greg, this looks to be right up your alley.

I wouldn't mind one of their t-shirts.

Thanks for the elegant reply, S. That actually puts the whole phenomenon into perspective. I just wonder if there are others like myself that are turning to Trichotillomania for relief of CBCMS (Chronic Bad Christian Music Syndrome).

But if I can come out of the closet on something--A few months ago I heard that Trent Reznor was putting up his most recent album for free download at his personal site; and I respect that. His music wasn't my thing, but I like the guy's perspective. Later, I heard that he's uploaded a few of his songs in Apple's GarageBand file format--a multi-track raw format that allows any Apple owner to be a producer.

And since I've been goofing off with GarageBand because of the podcast, I gave it a whirl. And just by seeing what Trent has done, I've learned a lot relative to how better use the program. And in the meantime, I've caught a taste for the guy's twisted, dark and generally unhealthy music. It's almost like bad beer--it tastes like crap going down the first time, but then you oddly and inexplicably want another.

So to try and get that darkness out of my head, I turned to KLOV--which only made the situation worse. So I'm currently trying to ween myself...

Semester's over; the only people that failed are those who I expected to fail. So I guess that's a positive.

Yeah, Greg ... I kind of had a feeling that you were talking about praise and worship songs. I have this theory that p&w songs are actually nothing more than intentionally incomplete pop songs. Consider ...

Praise and worship "artists" (and I think we need to use that term loosely) recognize the fact that they are never going to get a lot of radio play. So any money that they make is going to come from performance rights when churches play their tunes on a Sunday morning. As it's tough to live on love, they need cash, and thus they write for the church.

But having said that, they face two additional problems. First, most churches in America are not bursting at the seems with musical talent. Visit enough small churches (as I have through Tri-County) and you come to the very quick conclusion that we are not a musically gifted generation. Secondly, even if your church is blessed with talent, there's still the issue of time and learning the music. Most worship teams practice for less than three hours per week and that barely gives them enough time to learn the music and to learn how to play it in time with one another.

So if you are a praise and worship "artist" looking to get paid and make a living, you have to write music that is simple to learn and ladden with catchy popularly accessible hooks. Hence, the creation of the incomplete pop song - a tune often devoid of inovative lyrics, distinct bridges, and minor key leanings.

So I have to ask: what have you been listening to that is so generic? I'm not defending anything here. I'm just asking ...

Ok--so we've already played this conversation out time and time again... But I'm going to bring it up yet again.

Why does all Christian music have to sound the same? And while focusing on lyrics isn't a bad thing, please introduce new musical elements into the genre.

Please.

It's to the point where my desire to not listen to it supercedes my desire to try and give Christian music a chance.

So I think there may be a solution. We have to find established talented musicians who have already crafted and developed their own unique "sound." After identifying such artists, we must convert them. We got Alice Cooper; we can get others.

Because we're not going to get innovation from church-bred musicians.

So anyone have any suggestions? I'm going to go crazy right out of the gate. I nominate Trent Reznor for conversion. What can I say, at least it'll be something different. Hurt, for example, (which isn't a bad song, btw) could be converted into a darkish praise song pretty easily...

To me, this is a no brainer.

1. I don’t do debt. Call me crazy, too conservative, or radical--but I do not do debt. Period. Debt robs choice and security. And I’m not imposing that on myself or my family. The only debt that I do is something that appreciates, is paid off in 15 years or less, and has monthly payments of no more than 25% of my net monthly. So that would yank Garrett--at least for me.

2. Most of the data that I’ve seen re: the distance education model has not been all that positive. At all. (In short, technology does not improve the classroom or learning experience.) In general, course evaluations over DE (in either a synchronous or asynchronous form) have been significantly poorer than the in-classroom model. So while this may be the easiest way to incorporate the rigors of the program into our lives, I honestly wonder if the experience is the same. I doubt that it would be. The data suggests that it is not. More importantly--I just don’t think that PhD synthesis and meta-cognition can occur over that format. Lesser degrees might, but a PhD is all about becoming an independent scholar. And it requires the dynamic interaction of 2+ people getting in each other’s faces and actively challenging (each other) on the spot. And not just online, or once a semester. It's gotta occur every dang day. So to be truthful, if it’s a degree worth its weight, then it cannot be done writing reflection papers. That’s not a degree--that’s a paper-mill (diploma-mill). Or at least, thats how science works. It’s nothing more than a sport: king of the hill. And that requires one being in the mix of it, and having a go. Not sitting home on your butt, isolated from competitive thought, writing reflection papers. But of course, that’s my own dogma.

That leaves Dwight L Moody.

Are you thinking of formally entering the program on a full- or part-time basis? Or do they offer an a la carte type of class offering? The only reason why I ask is the commitment. People that get this degree aren’t necessarily the smartest by any means; just look at myself, for example. The people that get this degree are the ones with the highest levels of passion, masochism or desperation. Actually--it’s a combination of all three. It’s the commitment that is the most challenging aspect of the process. And in my life, it was perhaps the single biggest and most challenging accomplishment, for (worse) or worse.

I’d also ask a heck of a lot of questions. Like--what’s your retention rate? What is the program of study? How long is the program of study? What percentage of your students actually follow this program of study? And how long does it (really) take them? How long have you been cranking out students w/ degrees? What percentage of your 1st years actually get degrees? And when do they get them? ... ... ... then, I’d go into the labs (do Bible schools have labs?) (ok--where the doc students are), and ask them the same questions. See if there’s a high degree of similarity.

Because the program can be “awesome”, but if they can’t crank out students--then it’s all a moot point. The program is totally secondary to how efficient they’ve got the process down, of herding students from point A to point B. People don’t often think of that, because they don’t even know it’s a problem. But it’s been my experience that this is a massive problem in higher education. Just because there are great minds in the dept does not mean that it's a great doctoral program. The two are different entities.

The biggest question, and one that you made no reference to, is how much familial support you’ll have. This degree, if it is to have the same rigor of which I am familiar, will radically alter you and your family dynamics. Remember how stressed I was, when I stayed with you guys in 2000? To be honest, the process has likely had a net negative impact on my life, at least psychologically. Maybe my program was hyper-abusive, which I suspect it was. But during those years, I’ve never been more miserable. So if your spouse doesn’t want this degree as bad as you do--then I wouldn’t even go there. You’re about to give up your nights and weekends for the next 4 to 6 years of your life. And it's not just time; you may very well end up becoming a perpetually pissed individual. And that’s a massive sacrifice that is being imposed on others. As well as yourself. That’s why I’d try the a la carte, if at all possible. Try it on, before making the emotional commitment.

So I'm really starting to seriously consider Ph.D. work. I've located three interesting programs, all of which have their unique characteristics.

1. Moody Bible Institute: very inexpensive compared to the others; similar worldview to my own, which should eliminate the need to fight battles that are tangential to my degree of choice (e.g. inspiritation of Scripture; authority of God over human reason, etc...)

2. Garrett Seminary: This is the seminary for Northwestern University. Price tag around $40K, so that's a bit of a downer. Phenomenal program. Just right in the wheelhouse of where my swing is the strongest. (Gotta love baseball season and baseball metaphors!)

3. Trinity Seminary: Not the one I went to in Dearfield. Its totally down via distance learning. You download mp3 lectures, write response papers, etc... This would be the easiest to incorporate into our busy lives, but I'm not sure what I think about surrendering the live classroom experience.

Thoughts on all three?

Scott

I only teach one undergraduate class, thankfully. And at the beginning of the spring semester, I pretty-much dread having to babysit the upper-class-girls...many of which remain in a state of extended childhood, without a clue that their (academic) adult lives have already begun. And with them being a pre-professional degree, the pressure to get into grad school is as tough as it is competitive. (For those who recognize reality.) Unfortunately, many of these girls don’t understand this until it’s too late. And I honestly don’t know what they do, once reality catches them. (They've got a worthless degree that isn't good enough to meet the profession's entry-level requirements.) But all in that mess, there’s usually a handful of girls that I actually like; girls that seem to have their head on straight. And this year was no different.

But what really blows is the end of semester grades. For whatever dumb reason, this university only uses whole letter grades (no + or -)...which can have dramatic consequences when trying to get into grad school. A “C” is flat-out unacceptable. A “B” just isn’t competitive.

(And that’s one of the reasons why grad students are just easier; they’re usually the strongest (academically), with a strong internal locus of control. But they also realize that this is their terminal degree, so they don’t grade grub all that much.)

Anyway--Every semester, there are always a few (undergrad) girls who are right on the edge; and do I have hate that situation. If you don’t really care for them--no problems; welcome to the consequences of your semester-long choices. But every now and then, you’ll get one that you actually like--and you’re tempted to treat them differently.

So this temptation (or pressure) to play some kind of academic god is really pretty palpable. No, an 89.11% isn’t a 90%; and I’m truly very sorry. I wish reality was different, but it’s not.

Sorry for the rant...

For a little comic relief, I give you the song Re: Your Brains, by Jonathan Coulton. Catchy tune, very clever lyrics. (Just hit "Play the song")

Interesting post, Scott. The 24-year-old female is my demographic, for better or worse. I'll have to reply in time...

Speaking of the 24 year old female demographic... it is currently 8:35 pm. This exam started at 6:00 pm.

Approximately 80% of the class has yet to finish. As a matter of fact, I'm told that they're not even near finishing.

I guess I made the final too long. And I kinda feel bad about it. Sorry gals.

/Update: 9:00 pm. 11 of 20 are still in the room. Feeling really pretty lousy at this point. Contemplating bringing them chocolate tomorrow.
//Update: 9:01 pm. 10 of 20 are still in the room. Still feeling pretty lousy. Too afraid to ask how close they are to finishing.
///Update: 9:02 pm. Just listened to my entire iPod full of Podcast. Will need to download more off of iTunes. At least that gives me something to do.
////Update: 9:23 pm. Beginning to get some really nasty looks. Just realized that the 6 remaining students could likely beat me down, if they worked together as a team. I gotta start lifting again.
/////Update: 9:35 pm. Looks like we're down to 3. I'm confident that I could take them, should it go there, as this 3+ hour marathon has likely broken their spirits.
//////Update: 9:45 pm. Down to 1. Don't think she's armed. I know I can take her. Feeling a little safer. Wondering if my car is jacked up.
///////Update: 9:57 pm. Gotta think this girl's going to stop soon. It's unlikely that she'll pass anyway--so staring at a question for that 5th additional hour is unlikely to help. Just want to go home. I hope my tires aren't slashed.
////////Update: 10:14 pm. Student claims she's almost through . Going to turn off this machine. Ready to go home.
/////////Update: 10:18 pm. Thinking that if this student flunks, which she is likely to do, then I'm going to be pissed. Normally, I'm already in bed. Failing students shouldn't have these kinds of rights.
//////////Update: 10:30 pm. Student finished. Never again will I allow a student (and a failing student at that) to overstep such boundaries.

A "quasi-misanthrope?" Really? I mean, a "skeptic" certainly. A "pessimist" without question. Even a "curmudgeon" I can give you. But a "misanthrope" ... No I think not. :-)

Scott, that's just awesome. It's so nice to know that there are people like you out there to balance the quasi-misanthropes like myself.

I finally felt old enough to actually speak something wise into someone else's life.

I have a feeling you will be getting those opportunities for the next 20+ years...

Happy Birthday, Ethan!

So I'm feeling a bit old today, but the funny thing, I feel great about it. Yesterday, we celebrated my son's third birthday. I realize that may not impact you as much as it did me, but our time with him is moving SO FAST.

On a thematically similar note, I had an interesting conversation with a girl (24 years old) in Panera Bread this morning. This girl took a seat next to me and was reading a book entitled Listening to Oliva: Violence, Poverty and Prostitution. Needless to say, I had to ask. Anyway, we started talking. She's a law student in her third year and is about to sit for the bar in July. Blah, blah, blah. She's living with her boyfriend, but can't tell her parents because her super conversative Catholic dad would not approve. The conversation meanders into different territory, and before you know it, it's time for me to move on. So I stand up to refill my coffee and prepare to leave. And that's when it hits me.

I find myself walking back over to this girl and without any invitation on her end, I ask her if I might share a thought or two. She gladly obliges me with no clue as to what is coming next. And that's when I tell her that much like her father, I too wouldn't necessarily condone living together prior to marriage. But rather than talking about that, I wanted to suggest to her that her parents, no matter how much they disapprove of her choice, would always choose to know what is going on in their child's life as opposed to feeling lied to when the truth inevitably surfaces. I'm 33 years old and I'm talking to this girl like I'm some 70-year old sage. And the weird thing is, it really worked. She totally opened up about the stress that all the lying to her parents is causing her and she seemed genuinely appreciative of the fact that I was talking to her about it. In fact, she went on to say that apart from her boyfriend and his parents, no one but the Chaplin of DePaul (who approves by the way) knew of her secret; and she was at a genuine loss for someone to turn to for guidance.

How weird is that? You sit down to have a nice cup of coffee over a sports page that is proudly reporting on the Cubs' current 8 out 9 game winning streak, and you end up "parenting" this 24 year old law student. And the really weird thing is, it didn't make me feel old or outdated. If anything, it was almost as if I finally felt old enough to actually speak something wise into someone else's life.

Oh great... I've got the hiccups.

So I read the news for a bit, on this day--my last teaching day of the semester. And wow--every now and then, one reads an article with a massive amount of emotional impact. Today was such a day.

It almost makes me want to go and see SadKermit singing Hurt again. (Note: the SadKermit video is rated R, but funny as poo if you're into dark and twisted humor. You've been warned.)

But then I can watch this baby (the golf one, in particular)--and I feel a bit better.

The Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa has replaced the Bible with An Inconvenient Truth. Yet more data that eco-liberalism is a substitute religion.

This just in: Prince Charles speaks foolishness. I guess each generation has to create their own drama; and since the industrial revolution, self sustenance isn't what it used to be. So comparing a warm summer's day with multiple V2 rockets reigning down on London seems like a comparable threat; it was pretty hot, after all.

Point taken. Granted, any and all such unions-of-nations will have serious defects. But is it entirely impossible that one such organization will suck less than another? I mean, one step in the right direction would certainly be prohibiting dictatorships, oppressive theocracies, etc. from membership.

I dunno, I guess I'm just grasping for any alternative to the current UN.

Should I assume that you’re being serious? Has such a League of (insert name here) ever demonstrated true quantifiable efficacy? And since all past efforts have failed, what makes this effort different? Nothing, really—except for McCain’s Clinton / Albright -esque liberal notion that peace and happiness will come only through the denial of powers in which we have previously afforded ourselves. (Scratch that, the powers in which our grandparents have afforded us.) (Double-scratch... it's really just the denial of (powers) from everyone excluding the liberal elite.) So are our problems going to magically go away if we create yet-another world police force, where we promise to "just be one of the gang"? Or if we all start acting poor and appease the jealously of others? My hunch is no. It's just a newer generation that will not learn from history, and thus will repeat the same mistakes that are already clearly and repeatedly documented.

... ... but this time, things are going to be different!

What do you all think about this idea? (I'm not asking what you think about McCain as a candidate.) I'd have to hear more details, but he's got my attention.