rack with legs so i can tilt back

Doesn't this whole conversation seem just a bit inane? (No surprise from Walters...)

Aren't slant-faced racks sold everywhere by a number of different manufacturers? (Answer: yes.) Tilting a rack back on an angle is rocket science? (Answer: stick an old shoe underneath the front, a dead cat, or anything else you have lying around that is the appropriate height.) Worried it might fall over backwards? (Answer: lean it up against a walll.)

Drilling a hole in a rack is a subject of great controversy and concern? Why? You might damage it's intricate mechanical structure? You can't figure out how to run a cable without pinching it under the bottom of the rack? It's hard to imagine anyone would believe that even Walters is that obtuse...
 
Oddly enough, the discussion seems perfectly normal to me because I've had so much experience dealing with my racks on stages and in orchestra pits. I think the only way I haven't set up my rack is hanging it from the ceiling! And who knows, that might happen one of these days.

I personally would not mount legs on the side of a rack, because the sides will not be as good a weight bearing structure as the bottom of the rack.

The "L" bracket idea I discussed earlier is going to be one of the sturdier designs, because you have three points where the bracket is fixed to the bottom of the rack. In addition, these points are at a certain distance from each other. With a typical table leg there is a small joint assembly at the top of the leg where it is attached to the tabletop. This assembly is usually fairly small and is designed to be vertical or almost vertical, so that gravity does a lot of the work holding the leg to the table.

In a heavy rack filled with gear, that is tilted back at a more extreme angle, you need to spread the weight bearing elements further apart for strength.
 
Thanks alot SonicAlbert for the help alot

What where u using racks on stages in orchestra pits for? conducting with racks?

i was thinking about mounting the L brakets on to a Shelf wood board and having the rack sitting at a angle on the shelf wood board with L brakets so i don't have to drill anything

Unless u STACK like a couple of 2X8 which are longer than the bottom of a rack or 2X6 cut them at the wood store and then stack two or 3 and put Long nails or get some nails that will because long for 2X6 stacked nail them together and then put that under a tilt rack
 
why dont you drive some L joints into your spinal column so you can carry your equipment around with you everywhere? I love portability dont you?


also, do you know how to use punctuation? I know it is an ancient art that may be lost on you, but it is a lot easier to read through your retarded bullshit when you use punctuation. consider it eh?



walters said:
Thanks alot SonicAlbert for the help alot

What where u using racks on stages in orchestra pits for? conducting with racks?

i was thinking about mounting the L brakets on to a Shelf wood board and having the rack sitting at a angle on the shelf wood board with L brakets so i don't have to drill anything

Unless u STACK like a couple of 2X8 which are longer than the bottom of a rack or 2X6 cut them at the wood store and then stack two or 3 and put Long nails or get some nails that will because long for 2X6 stacked nail them together and then put that under a tilt rack
 
BigGAY can u add the punctuation for me? or what is punctuation??

So when i write anything BigGAY add in the punctuation in all my write this will help me out alot biggay
 
The problem you'll find with adding legs to a rack is that as soon as you do, they'll start to walk away. Soon they'll want to drive. Shortly after that they'll demand voting rights. Before you know it you'll be working for one and making your own dinner.
 
One thing I havent seen mentioned, is, does your rack equipment face up to the ceiling or sideways like a normal equipment rack?
If it faces sideways, then I like my idea best, if it faces the ceiling, then the other suggestion is probably best.
 
I think he's talking about something like this:

http://www.skbcases.com/product/dj_cases/dj/skb-84dj.html

You just have to make sure that the rack units you are installing in the top upward facing racks aren't too deep. In other words, from front to back they have to fit in the height of the case.

As you can see, the unit I linked to is very shallow on the top rack. That's because these types of racks are designed for mixers, which are tall but not deep.
 
yea thats a big problem i need one that is deep for normal rack units im sure someone has to make one not just for DJ mixers but yes if it looks like that that would be cool
 
Alby, why are you answering that guy??surely youve figured out that he is just taking you for a ride??

HE DOESNT WANT ANSWERS PEOPLE HE WANTS YOUR TIME...IGNORE THE COCKSUCKER..HE IS A TROLL



SonicAlbert said:
I think he's talking about something like this:

http://www.skbcases.com/product/dj_cases/dj/skb-84dj.html

You just have to make sure that the rack units you are installing in the top upward facing racks aren't too deep. In other words, from front to back they have to fit in the height of the case.

As you can see, the unit I linked to is very shallow on the top rack. That's because these types of racks are designed for mixers, which are tall but not deep.
 
why dont you drive some L joints into your spinal column so you can carry your equipment around with you everywhere? I love portability dont you?

At least he is not using the forums to spam about the DAV like you big ray.
 
walters said:
yea thats a big problem i need one that is deep for normal rack units im sure someone has to make one not just for DJ mixers but yes if it looks like that that would be cool

You should measure the depth of your rack units. Newer gear is generally shorter than older, so you might be okay with a shallower rack, depending on what you have.
 
Last edited:
John Berry said:
At least he is not using the forums to spam about the DAV like you big ray.


wow, lets look at YOUR posts, shall we? Talk about not contributing anything!
 
SonicAlbert thanks for your help

I found this one i really really like the Grundorf TL-484 CD workstation
i might have to do some modifications to take out the wood under the mixer to make it more deep and the bottom rack spaces i can't use if i use the slanted because the racks will be slanted and deep takes up the bottom rack spaces but it does look really cool i like how it looks
 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=REG&O=productlist&sku=297439

the TOV case is another option thank for looking it up i ilke it too i might buy this one too if the other one doesn't work its really cool to have the slanted so u have your tuner,rack mount harddisk record so u can see the meters,levels going in the red or a mixer watching the metres,levels and other rack mounts u want to change on the fly for guitar players this is a plus

So the TOV case is great rack also
 
The only thing about that Grundorf is that it looks big and heavy. If you are carrying this thing around to gigs you should not get more rack than you really need, just enough to get the job done. That is, unless you enjoy a weight-lifting workout before and after the gig! ;)
 
Braahmaná form the first part of the Veda-s, while Upanisád would be the last one. In turn, Aaranyaka section would represent a transition between the first and the second part. Brihadaaranyaka, Chaandogya, Kéna, Iishá, etc., are some of the names of those 108 Upanisád-s. Some of them are very short (e.g. Kéna), while others are very long (e.g. Brihadaaranyaka). One of the meanings of the term Vedaanta is "the last part of the Veda", as it is mainly based upon Upanisád-s, which occur at the end of the Veda-s.

Nevertheless, even though the Upanisád-s are the backbone of Vedaanta, there are two more columns supporting Vedaanta building: Bhagavadgiitaa and Vedaantasuutra-s.

On one hand, the celebrated Vedaantasuutra-s or "aphorisms on Vedaanta" were composed by Dvaipaayanavyaasa (or Vyaasa, plainly) himself in order to clearly establish the principles of Vedaanta system. Later, he wrote the renowned Shriimadbhagavatpuraana (also known as "Shriimadbhaagavata") as a commentary on his Vedaantasuutra-s. On the other hand, Bhagavadgiitaa was also written by Vyaasa and included within Mahaabhaarata (specifically, within Bhiismaparva, the 6th book of Mahaabhaarata). There is still some controversy about if Bhagavadgiitaa was originally there or it was added later on. Raamaayana and Mahaabhaarata are the names of the two most important epics written in Sanskrit. But, unlike Raamaayana, Mahaabhaarata underwent many changes since it was originally composed by Vyaasa to the present day. Thus, there are some authors stating that Bhagavadgiitaa was not included at first, but it was added later. Well, despite that problem, the fact is that Bhagavadgiitaa can be actually found in Bhiismaparva now. Whether it was or not originally, it is a matter of debate yet.

Bhagavadgiitaa consists of 18 chapters. Every chapter contains a number of stanzas. Look:
Quantity of stanzas

1. Chapter 1: 47 stanzas
2. Chapter 2: 72 stanzas
3. Chapter 3: 43 stanzas
4. Chapter 4: 42 stanzas
5. Chapter 5: 29 stanzas
6. Chapter 6: 47 stanzas



1. Chapter 7: 30 stanzas
2. Chapter 8: 28 stanzas
3. Chapter 9: 34 stanzas
4. Chapter 10: 42 stanzas
5. Chapter 11: 55 stanzas
6. Chapter 12: 20 stanzas



1. Chapter 13: 34 stanzas
2. Chapter 14: 27 stanzas
3. Chapter 15: 20 stanzas
4. Chapter 16: 24 stanzas
5. Chapter 17: 28 stanzas
6. Chapter 18: 78 stanzas

Total: 700 stanzas

In Bhagavadgiitaa, Lord Krisná expounds the highest wisdom to prince Árjuna in simple terms. Árjuna did not want to fight people belonging to his own family. He wanted to leave the battlefield. However, Krisná appears and urges him to abandon all attachments and fulfill his own duty or dhárma. This is the topic dealt with in Bhagavadgiitaa.

Still, the story behind is much more complicated, of course. Vyaasa (compiler of Veda, author of Mahaabhaarata, Puraaná-s, Vedaantasuutra-s, etc., also called Dvaipaayanavyaasa, Krisnadvaipaayanavyaasa, Baadaraayana and Vedavyaasa) was son of Paraashara and Satyavatii, and half-brother of Vicitraviirya and Bhiismá. As an adult, even though he had retired to the woods in order to lead a life of renunciation, he had to come back at his mother's request when Vicitraviirya passed away. The reason?: Vicitraviirya had two wives, who were now two childless widows. Vyaasa got married to them, and these two widows gave him two sons: Dhritaraastra (who was born blind) and Paandú. He had also two more children, but not by those widows: Shúka and Vidura. Shúka was the celebrated narrator of Shriimadbhaagavata to king Pariiksit... but this is not relevant here. Another long story.

These two sons of Vyaasa became kings in the Kúru dynasty. Dhritaraastra got married to Gaandhaarii, by whom he was father of one hundred sons. The eldest son of Dhritaraastra was Duryodhana. These sons were known as the Kaurava-s or descendants of Kúru. Granted, the sons of Paandú were also descendants of Kúru, but they took their patronymic from the name of his own "father", as it were. Do not worry, because you will understand soon the reason behind my writing "father" and not simply father.

In turn, Paandú got married to Kuntii (also named Prithaa), but he was not really father of any son by her. The reason?: Soon after Paandú got married to Kuntii, he went hunt deers. By chance, he killed a couple of deers, which turned out to be a sage and his wife appearing in the form of two deers. The sage cursed him by saying that Paandú was going to die in the embrace of one of his wives. Fearful of this prophecy, Paandú decided not to have sex with Kuntii.

Kuntii had obtained a certain supernatural power from the sage Durvaasa, through which she could have children by any god at will. Before getting married to Paandú, she wanted to test that power and invoked Suurya (Sun's god). She was successful and consequently had his first child called Kárna. Before marrying to Paandú, Suurya restored his virginity to her so that she could get married in a proper way. In fact, Kuntii abandoned Kárna on the banks of a river because she was afraid that Paandú discovered the truth. Kárna was brought up by Aadiratha... but this is another long story. Well, the point is that she asked Paandú for permission to have children by the gods, inasmuch as he did not want to have sex with her. He accepted and she had three sons by three gods: Yudhisthira (by Dhárma), Bhiimá (by Vaayú) and Árjuna (by Índra). These three sons would be known as three of the five Paandava-s or descendants of Paandú.

The story of the remaining two Paandava-s (Nakulá and Sahádeva) is a different one. Listen: Nakulá and Sahádeva were twin-brothers. The Ashvii-s (two gods appearing on a golden carriage drawn by horses and who are considered to be the physicians of heaven since they remove illness and cause prosperity) were their fathers, while Maadrii was their mother. Who was Maadrii? Well, Kuntii was not the only wife of Paandú, as he had a second one called Maadrii. As Paandú did not want to die in the embrace of one of his wives, he did not also wanted to have sex with Maadrii. Thus, Maadrii had two children by those two said gods.

Therefore: Yudhisthira, Bhiimá, Árjuna, Nakulá and Sahádeva are the "reputed" sons of Paandú, but in fact their fathers are the divinities Dhárma, Vaayú, Índra and the two Ashvii-s, respectively. They are known as the five Paandava-s. As I stated above, although these five men were also descendants of Kúru (and thus they might be properly called "Kaurava-s"), they took the patronymic of the name of his "reputed" father (Paandú), while the 100 sons of Dhritaraastra (Paandava-s' uncle) were known as Kaurava-s.

Paandú was the king (and not Dhritaraastra), because the latter had been born blind. However, when Paandú died, his brother Dhritaraastra was considered the new king. The sons of Paandú grew up together with the sons of Dhritaraastra, but Dhritaraastra fell soon prey to discrimination in favor of his own sons. In fact, Duryodhana, the eldest son of Dhritaraastra, really hated the five Paandava-s. Still, all of them, Paandava-s and Kaurava-s received identical military instruction by the sage Dronaacaarya. As I said above, Bhiismá was half-brother of Vyaasa (paternal grandfather of Paandava-s and Kaurava-s), and thus he was a kind of granduncle (if my poor knowledge of family relationships is correct) of Kaurava-s and Paandava-s, despite Vyaasa himself calls him "pitaamahah" or paternal grandfather. Well, the choice is yours: granduncle or paternal grandfather, what a mess!, haha. Non-dualistic people like me are not good when facing complex family relationships, no doubt. Bhiismá would play the role of commander of Kaurava's army later on... but do not hurry up, hehe.

Of course, Dhritaraastra wanted that his eldest son (Duryodhana) to become the new king when he passed away, and not a Paandava. This wish generated a harmful attitude in him, which will unleash the terrible war of Mahaabhaarata in the long run. Duryodhana (with the approval of Dhritaraastra, his father) attempted many times to kill the five Paandava-s, but failed. The five Paandava-s were protected by their uncle Vidura and their cousin Krisná. In spite of his being brought up by Nánda and Yashodaa, Krisná was son of Vasudeva and Devakii. Moreover, he was nephew of Kuntii (one of the wives of Paandú and mother of three Paandava-s: Yudhisthira, Bhiimá and Árjuna) since his father, Vasudeva, was brother of her.

Later, Yudhisthira lost his right to the kingdom in a dice game, and all Paandava-s had to retire to the woods for thirteen years. When they returned, they attempted to recover their lost right, but Duryodhana did not want to give them back even the smallest portion of land and the war was the final result. Krisná and his army were the two possible options to both sides. Duryodhana chose the Krisná's army, while the five Paandava-s chose Krisná himself. Thus, Krisná became the charioteer of Árjuna and assisted him when Árjuna felt like leaving the battlefield in order not to kill his own relatives. Well, this has been a brief summary of a looooooong story, no doubt. In Bhagavadgiitaa, Krisná teaches Árjuna many important things such as Saankhyayoga, Karmayoga, Bhaktiyoga, etc. The great importance of the teachings given by Krisná to Árjuna is beyond doubt. Bhagavadgiitaa is considered to be the "Hindu Bible" in the West in order to show its importance for people of India. Of course, people of India might say that Bible is a kind of "Christian Bhagavadgiitaa", haha. Well, all comparisons of that sort are not often "nice". "Hindu Bible" is just a way of expressing in the West that a book is truly crucial... please, do not begin a new war.

As you surely know, I am not an expert in Vedic or Vedaantic matters (I am dedicated to Triká, which is mainly tantric), but rest assured that I will try to do my best despite my limited knowledge of the subject. Lots of people asked me a translation of Bhagavadgiitaa, and I could not refuse. Now, go read Bhagavadgiitaa, please, and learn Sanskrit in the process along with the transcendental wisdom displayed by Lord Krisná. See you.

top
Further Information

This Page was conceived by Gabriel, one of the two founders of this site.

For further information about Sanskrit, Yoga and Indian Philosophy; or if you simply want to comment, ask a question or correct a mistake, feel free to contact us: This is our e-mail address.

top

Logo
| Home | English-Home | English-Home 2 | About us | Purpose | Support |
English-Home 2 can be used as a site map
Copyright © 1999-2006 Gabriel Pradiipaka & Andrés Muni - All Rights Reserved. Terms of use
Privacy and Security statement

Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 _ Valid CSS _ Valid XHTML 1.0
 
Back
Top