"jeffc" wrote in message
.. .

"Bruce Chang" wrote in message
om...

I think you're confusing them because you said, "Sometimes there are
ground
loop problems, etc. that could be picked up". You don't pick up
ground
loop.

Well that's being a little pedantic isn't it? I didn't say you can
"pick
up
ground loop." You just worded it that way to make it sound worse. You
"pick up a ground loop problem" meaning a ground loop problem manifests
itself as EMI. Yeah, I could have worded it better, but was it really
that
cryptic, or are you just trying to jump on the bandwagon and pick a
fight
just because you smelled blood in the water?



Like Les has said, I didn't word it to make it sound worse, that's how
you
typed it and that's why I put it in quotes.

No, I didn't say "pick up ground loop". You said that.

so you're saying that it differs from "ground loop.. that can be picked
up."?

"jeffc" wrote in message
.. .

"Les" wrote in message
...

Now, if there is a ground loop between 2 other pieces of non-audio gear
that
could potentially effect the audio system. But it would be EMI not a
ground
loop that would affect the audio system. Even at that it is highly
unlikely
and very rare. Like Bruce pointed out to you, EMI and a ground loop are
not
synonomous terms.

Since you can't follow this thread in your newsreader, the answer
again....

I read it the first time, but before this post you have never mentioned EMI
before. Bruce was the one that pointed out your error in using the term
ground loop to be the same as EMI, then after that you googled for what EMI
is and came up with a couple of webpages. You even admitted you weren't very
clear.

Les

"jeffc" wrote in message
.. .

"Les" wrote in message
...

You have no reading comprehension skills. I was being sarcastic. But
again
I
say to you, talk is cheap. If you can do it better then by all means do
it
better. You are the one that thinks that 80% of the recordings out there
are
not good and a couple of microphones and a tape recorder would do
better,
so
go out and do it.

Ah, you're one of those guys.

Ah, you're one of those guys who likes to bitch and moan about things and
yet does absolutely nothing about it.

No, I have no desire to do it, even though
anyone can come up with better results than 80% of the crap that gets
recorded today.

And again you prove your ignorance on the industry and how the audio world
actually works. Until you have spent time in the studio then you should just
really shut up.

Like I said, they made better sound in the 60s by just
buying a couple good microphones and a good tape deck and placing them in
front of the musicians.

Most of the microphones in the 60s would be considered sub par at best by
todays standards. Tape decks that were good? Not unless you had a ton of
money.

You can do better than that - and no I don't know
how to do better than that myself - but about 20% of the recording
engineers
do. The other 80% - yeah I could beat.

You could? How do you know, have you done it?

Why don't I? Because I don't want
to. I like my job, that's why.

McDonalds is treating you well then, good for you. Just keep working hard
and maybe one day they will let you cook the fries.

Le

"jeffc" wrote in message
.. .

"Les" wrote in message
...

I don't see how it gets any more plain than that. You said that there
could
be ground loop problems that could be picked up.

That's correct. Ground loop is a problem. It gets picked up in the form
of EMI.

But you didn't say that. Why do you keep snipping your own quote? You said
"Sometimes there are ground loop problems, etc. that could be picked up" You
don't mention EMI, you don't say that they could manifest themselves as
something else, or take on a new form in the audio system. You say that
there are ground loop problems that could be picked up. As it has been
pointed out, you never mention EMI until it is pointed out to you.


No it is not exactly what you said. That is exactly what I said. You
never
mentioned EMI until Bruce pointed it out to you.

I said interference. You do know what the I in EMI stands for, don't you?

There are many types of interference, EMI is only one. Interference can be
used as a general term to describe something undesirable being introduced
into the system. And then tell me how many cases do you get EMI in the
speaker lines anyway?

You really haven't been able to follow this thread at all without me
tutoring you every step of the way. You do seem to be picking it up
slowly
though.

That's funny. Even a noob could see that you never answer a question, set up
strawmen and red herring arguments, and have no real world working
experience with audio equipment or testing devices.


I said that it is virtually impossible, you said that ''sometimes other
things might interfere with the speaker signal." Virtually impossible
and
"sometimes" are not synonomous and do not have the same meaning.

Yet they're completely consistent. Funny.

Sometimes does not mean the same thing as virtually impossible. If you
cannot understand that then you need to learn the english language better.

Les

jeffc wrote:

a little pedantic isn't it?

jeffc wrote:

It's already been explained moron.

jeffc wrote:

Now I
realize you're just plain dense, and argumentative.

jeffc wrote:


Ah, you're one of those guys.

jeffc wrote:

lick their shoes

"Les" wrote in message ...

again....

I read it the first time, but before this post you have never mentioned EMI
before. Bruce was the one that pointed out your error in using the term
ground loop to be the same as EMI, then after that you googled for what EMI
is and came up with a couple of webpages. You even admitted you weren't very
clear.

No, I said ground loops cause problems. The fact that I didn't mention EMI by
name does not mean I'm wrong. It means I didn't mention EMI by name. The
problem here is that you couldn't follow the points being made, like Bruce
could, and so you resorted to utter nonsense. What a petty person you are, and
what a fragile ego.

"Les" wrote in message ...

Most of the microphones in the 60s would be considered sub par at best by
todays standards.

Amazing, isn't it? That as soon as recording engineers got their hands on all
that crap equipment they use (that specs out so well), they started mucking up
recordings pretty badly compared to so many of the 60s recordings. And this
even with the advances in microphone technology. But you are helping to
strengthen my point.

You could? How do you know, have you done it?

Yeah.

"Bruce Chang" wrote in message
. com...

Like Les has said, I didn't word it to make it sound worse, that's how
you
typed it and that's why I put it in quotes.

No, I didn't say "pick up ground loop". You said that.

so you're saying that it differs from "ground loop.. that can be picked
up."?

I'm saying what I said. I didn't say "pick up ground loop". That phrase
doesn't even make grammatical sense. I said ""Sometimes there are ground loop
problems, etc. that could be picked up". "interference" is an example of a
"ground loop problem", and "interference" is what gets "picked up". I didn't
say you "pick up ground loop". Is this analysis really helping this discussion,
or are you just desperately trying to find something wrong in my sentence
structure?
Bottom line
- ground loop problems can exist in the car without a stereo
- that implies that when a stereo is in the car, a ground loop problem might
exist that is not related to the stereo itself
- the stereo system might pick up interference
Now those are the facts. If you wanna argue about something else, feel free to
do it with yourself. Or maybe with Eddie - he seems to be on some sort of drug
trip right now, so that might be more interesting to you.

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Les" wrote in message
...

again....

I read it the first time, but before this post you have never mentioned
EMI
before. Bruce was the one that pointed out your error in using the term
ground loop to be the same as EMI, then after that you googled for what
EMI
is and came up with a couple of webpages. You even admitted you weren't
very
clear.

No, I said ground loops cause problems.

Why do you insist on not admitting to what you said?
Here it is again, "Sometimes there are ground loop problems etc. that can be
picked up."
You said it, your own writing. You say there are ground loop problems etc
that can be picked up! Now, ground loops in the audio system can cause
problems, noone has ever denied that. But that is not what you said to begin
with.

The fact that I didn't mention EMI by
name does not mean I'm wrong. It means I didn't mention EMI by name.

What makes you wrong is that you tried to use EMI and ground loops as
synonomous terms. And that you say that you can pick up ground loops when
you meant you can pick up EMI.

I just find it amusing that you never mentioned EMI until Bruce explained
what it was.

But you seem to like to attempt and use terms that do not mean the same
thing as if they did. Like when you say "sometimes" and I say "virtually
impossible", they are not the same yet to you they are.

Now get back to those frys, they need some salt.

Les

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Chang" wrote in message
. com...

Like Les has said, I didn't word it to make it sound worse, that's how
you
typed it and that's why I put it in quotes.

No, I didn't say "pick up ground loop". You said that.

so you're saying that it differs from "ground loop.. that can be picked
up."?

I'm saying what I said. I didn't say "pick up ground loop". That phrase
doesn't even make grammatical sense. I said ""Sometimes there are ground
loop
problems, etc. that could be picked up". "interference" is an example of
a
"ground loop problem", and "interference" is what gets "picked up". I
didn't
say you "pick up ground loop". Is this analysis really helping this
discussion,
or are you just desperately trying to find something wrong in my sentence
structure?
Bottom line
- ground loop problems can exist in the car without a stereo

Yes. We've already agreed on that.

- that implies that when a stereo is in the car, a ground loop problem
might
exist that is not related to the stereo itself

Yes.

- the stereo system might pick up interference

Yes but this statement is no more true without the previous two statements.
Were you trying to say "the stereo system might be affected by an already
occuring ground loop problem"?

Now those are the facts. If you wanna argue about something else, feel
free to
do it with yourself. Or maybe with Eddie - he seems to be on some sort of
drug
trip right now, so that might be more interesting to you.

I think the my basic argument is that ground loops can cause interference
but in the system that it's contained. The interference that a ground loop
causes to other systems is a very small possibility and therefore moot in
your original post, in particular to speaker wires.

jeffc wrote:

so you resorted to utter nonsense. What a petty person you are,

jeffc wrote:

he seems to be on some sort of drug
trip right now

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...


jeffc wrote:

he seems to be on some sort of drug
trip right now


Eddie, you crack me up! I guess this moron isn't even worth it. I didn't
think they could get worse than Pugsly, but this guy just proved that you
can! At least he stuck to one mindset and didn't get caught in semantics.

Les

I have been taking his abusive comments and
reposting them in an attempt to show HIM
what a dip**** he looks like (oops now he has
me doing it)....

He has been getting a little better, dont you think?

I think he is just a troll
If he doesnt understand by now he never will....

Eddie

Les wrote:

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...


jeffc wrote:

he seems to be on some sort of drug
trip right now


Eddie, you crack me up! I guess this moron isn't even worth it. I didn't
think they could get worse than Pugsly, but this guy just proved that you
can! At least he stuck to one mindset and didn't get caught in semantics.

Les

"Bruce Chang" wrote in message
. com...

I think the my basic argument is that ground loops can cause interference
but in the system that it's contained. The interference that a ground loop
causes to other systems is a very small possibility and therefore moot in
your original post, in particular to speaker wires.

Well, I guess the only place we disagree then is that I don't think "very small
possibility" means "therefore moot". And I agree it's especially not very
likely with speaker wires, which is why I said a long time ago "But this is
usually more of a problem with lower level pre-amp-out wires going to a remote
amplifier than it is with the higher level signal on the speaker wires. Still,
I wouldn't want a long run of skinny wire going to my rear speakers." And I
stand by the last statement, which is really the point. You might say "Well,
cars come from the factory that way!", to which I reply "Yeah, I know." In
other words, factory stereos get replaced for a reason - overall quality isn't
that high usually.

"Les" wrote in message ...
Why do you insist on not admitting to what you said?
Here it is again, "Sometimes there are ground loop problems etc. that can be
picked up."
You said it, your own writing.

Right. Not what Bruce claimed, but that, exactly.

What makes you wrong is that you tried to use EMI and ground loops as
synonomous terms. And that you say that you can pick up ground loops when
you meant you can pick up EMI.

No, I didn't say "pick up ground loops" moron.

I just find it amusing that you never mentioned EMI until Bruce explained
what it was.

I mentioned "inteference" first. Go back and read. Idiot.

"Les" wrote in message
...

Eddie, you crack me up!

Good god, what are you, 12 years old?

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Les" wrote in message
...
Why do you insist on not admitting to what you said?
Here it is again, "Sometimes there are ground loop problems etc. that
can be
picked up."
You said it, your own writing.

Right. Not what Bruce claimed, but that, exactly.

Which is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing! You just got busted
saying you can pick up ground loops and rather than admit that you made an
error you resort to semantics. What Bruce said was the essence of your quote
above. He just put it more succinctly.


What makes you wrong is that you tried to use EMI and ground loops as
synonomous terms. And that you say that you can pick up ground loops
when
you meant you can pick up EMI.

No, I didn't say "pick up ground loops" moron.

This again? Get over the semantics game. You said "there are ground loop
problems etc. that can be picked up." That is saying that ground loops are
able to be picked up! Are you really that stupid? Or are you too far into
your backpeddling that you just can't stop?


I just find it amusing that you never mentioned EMI until Bruce
explained
what it was.

I mentioned "inteference" first. Go back and read. Idiot.

I was talking EMI, not just interference, which could come in many forms.
EMI is a specific kind of interference, one that you never mentioned until
Bruce explained what it was. That is what is amusing.

Just checking, but do you still think that "sometimes" and "virtually
impossible" are terms that can be used interchangably? You change your
position so much it gets hard to keep track which argument you want to try
and address each post.

Les

"Les" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Les" wrote in message
...
Why do you insist on not admitting to what you said?
Here it is again, "Sometimes there are ground loop problems etc. that
can be
picked up."
You said it, your own writing.

Right. Not what Bruce claimed, but that, exactly.

Which is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing!

Idiot.

"jeffc" wrote in message
.. .

"Les" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Les" wrote in message
...
Why do you insist on not admitting to what you said?
Here it is again, "Sometimes there are ground loop problems etc.
that
can be
picked up."
You said it, your own writing.

Right. Not what Bruce claimed, but that, exactly.

Which is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing!

Idiot.



Do you disagree? Or did you just have a bad day at McDonalds, the fry cooker
not cooperate with you?

Les

jeffc wrote:

Go back and read. Idiot.

jeffc wrote:


Idiot.