[keithr]

Andre Jute wrote:
Keithr wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Here's a big secret. A thoughtfully designed van has super
aerodynamics. This is because the centre of aerodynamic pressure
starts so far back and keeps moving back as it picks up speed. The
Kombi, for instance, had a CdA in the same bracket as a Jaguar E-type
but in some conditions it had superior handling because, for instance,
longitudinal corner radii were smaller.

Andre Jute
Author of Designing and Constructing Special Cars published by
Batsford in London and Bentley in Boston, several other editions.
ROFL the original Kombi had a Cd of 0.76, later versions improved to
0.42, the E-type had a Cd of around 0.3 (depending on the model and
which source you believe). It gets even worse when you compare the CdA,
the Kombi had a far greater frontal area than the Jag.

You're a funny little man, Keefie. And sweetly trusting too if you
believe the Jaguar E-Type had a Cd of 0.3. But those not so unworldly
as you know that manufacturers and others lied a lot in those days
before the German TUV nailed their feet to the floor after the coming
of the EU. Those with more experience than you needed to take only one
look at certain design details (the junction of bonnet and windscreen
for instance) to know the E-type as an aerodynamic artifact was more
pose than reality.

Thats strange Andre, at the time of the release of the e-type, I was
working with a whole bunch of aerodynamicists, none of whom seemed to
hold that view. They had critisisms of course, but if you suggested to
them that the Kombi was just as good, they'd have laughed you off the
site. This wasn't some tinpot outfit either, some of our wind tunnels
are still in use 40 years on by Formula 1 teams. I don't know what
happened to the others, but as they went up to mach 5 they were kind of
specialised.

Of course, I didn't get to be an expert by listening to bar-room
gossip, as you did. I did my homework

We only have your word that you are actually an expert on anything

On a single day I took four first series E-types straight off the
showroom floor at Robb Motors, and drove them flat out on the same
piece of road with the RAC timing the venture. The fastest went
138mph, the slowest 131mph. (The 150mph ones lent to the press were
specially prepared as if for racing.) From there you can work out. All
you have is to do measure the frontal area and put the engine on a
rolling road dynometer to get the actual horses at the rear wheels
(note that in the 1960s Jaguar engines straight off the production
line could vary in power by as much as 15%). I did exactly that.
Simple, straightforward, direct.

Of course you did Andre, I am surprised that Sir William Lyons didn't
invite you to the factory to test the prototypes.

You can get the formula from my book. The answer you will get is that
the Cd of the Jaguar E-type is well over 0.4.

To believe as you do, that Malcolm Sayers, great as he was, designed
an 0.3Cd shape without the aid of a wind tunnel, simply displays your
innocence or your ignorance. Aerodynamic efficiency isn't about the
slippery shapes of schoolboy wet dreams but about attention to detail,
a strictly engineering venture. For instances compare the tanklike
Volvo 760GLE Cd 0.40, the slippery-smooth Porsche 928 Cd 0.41 and the
blunt Volkswagen Microbus Cd 0.42 (p36 of Designing and Building
Special Cars by Andre Jute).

As for a Kombi handling better than the Jag, the Jag was never the
best handling car of it's era, but surely you are joking,

I drove a 140mph VW Kombi for several months, and had several E-types
too (because they were so beautiful) though I never kept them long
(because they were rubbish to drive). Did you? No, I didn't think so.

Having owned a Kombi which some previous owner had, for reasons best
known to himself, sunk considerable cash into tuning, I'd say that your
claim to driving one at 140mph indicates one of 3 things, you are a
liar, you had a death wish or you have no imagination at all.

after all you
do claim to be an expert on the subject

Nah, you're the one doing the claiming. I'm the one with actual
experience of the 140mph Kombi and the E-types.

or so you say

(and on every other subject
really).

Did you ever own an E-type or drive one in a hurry? Or a 140mph
Kombi?

I never had the slightest desire to own an e-type, it was a middle age
crisis on wheels and a teenage wet dream. My taste went more to the
Lotus Super 7, a real sports car. I have however driven a Kombi fast and
it was a scary experience. The Kombi was useful for ferrying a lot of
people around and taking rubbish to the tip, I was not sad to see the
end of it.

Seems to me that you're projecting your failures onto me, Keefie. On
subjects on which I'm ignorant I'm silent. Take a tip and shut up
occasionally. You could learn something if your mouth isn't
interfering with your ears.

I didn't realise that you were ignorant on any subject Andre, according
to you, you have done everything and been everywhere (before anybody
else knew it was there) and have the T-shirt (hand made of pure silk by
Pierre Cardin (before he was famous) of course).

Like the old joke says "Anybody who believes that the Germans
have no sense of humour has never driven a Kombi in a side wind".

How does that halftruth about Kombis make the handling of an E-type
better? You're wanking, Keefie. I say again, I had a 140mph Kombi, and
the more people you put in it the faster you could drive it. But
you're too dumb and too self-important to ask me the relevant
questions rather than blustering in your doomed effort to inflate your
own importance.

Self important Andre? You do have such a delicious sense of irony

Keith

Who?

Keith, is your comprehension really that bad?

[keithr]

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.

ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.

Keith

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 3:32*am, Keithr wrote:

A talent for electronics engineering?

Absolutely! And if he keeps at it long enough, he might actually
discover the limits of those talents. Were he to survive the
experience, I am sure we will be reading of it here as an illustration
of his ability to discern and survive subtle threats and sabotage.

Otherwise, the litany of defects in his equipment suggests that
whereas his engineering talents may be fully realized, his care-and-
feeding talents are sadly lacking. Silly me, I thought that it came
the other way around.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 12, 1:49 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 11, 2:29 am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:19 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

My QUAD gear just keeps soldiering on. Of course there are repairs.

Well, at least all their gear can be repaired!


One of my electrostats needs new panel for the second time in about
twenty years, one of my 405 Mk II (which in the 1970s stood switched
on at the BBC in Nottingham for a several years on end and has worked
faultlessly since) needs to be recapped, my 34 pre-amp has lost a
channel after about thirty years.


The majority of ESL57 here have stuffed panels if they have never been
repaired.
keeping them working is a challenge. Repair costs are high,
but that's a smal price against buying new ESL.

I get a jaundiced idea about reliability because I take in so many
stuffed amps to fix.
Plenty of tubed and SS Quads have landed on my desk....


Oh, and it may have been less alarming to mention to readers that
600V at electrostatic headphones would have been at an extremely low
current.
However, the source resistance is low, and contact with AC signals at
high voltages
from amp anodes or from step up transformers could be lethal, but of
little concern
if there is good enough insulation that would keep the most sceptical
engineer happy.

I know some guys talking of driving their electrostatic earphones with
845. I tell them to calm down... It's over the top.

Yeah, i'd agree.

I have ppl buying oddball speakers, long ribbons from Ambience,
hybrid horns with bass reflex bass units,
and ppl buy then for the fun value.
I just heard this pair of speakers with 99dB efficient Eminance 15" bass
drivers with mid horns
for 1.2kHz to maybe 5kHz, and a tweeter horn in the middle of a large
flat baffle.
The guy had changed from things with normal Scan drivers, but methinks
the bass isn't
foundational enough, and probably because its not a terribly technical
person
who made the speakers. Each unto his own.....




If he wants to send me one of his big tube amps, I'll put it to
good use -- and heat my study this winter. -- Jay Beattie.

Problem with a big tube amp is that it is such a lethal item that you
cannot in good conscience give it away. I broke up my Millennium's End
kilovolt SV572-3 and -10 amp, an 80W SE monster, because the
umbilicals between the units were clearly illegal and the units
couldn't be combined since just the mains and output transformers
weighed a quarter-ton. (Mind you, it is by far not the heaviest hifi I
ever designed. An Italian chum sits literally in the mouth of a big
horn I designed to be built from several tons of prestressed
concrete.)

Audiophiles are notorious for changing things in their system which
means
selling one bit of gear they get sick of and buying a replacement.
The more money they earn, the faster the rate of gear change.
Its like as if they'd never go back to the same gal at the brothel,
and are continually "upgrading" the choice of girls to get the better
BJ.

So what were one audiophile's umbilicals might soon become another owned
by another
audiophile. Illegality of umbilicals never ever prevented
audiophiles buying the most attrociously designed amplifiers, even those
with umbilicals
that are sub-standard. Its because some makers did make lethal
umbilicals that
it became the law that umbilicals were banned entirely.

I'm not so sure about that, Patrick. I think European lawmakers are
such a nanny-state onto themselves, they just picked on umbilicals as
potentially dangerous. They go to extraordinary lengths to protect
people against even the tiniest danger. They seek a risk-free
society...

Law makers must be seen to be doing something...

I do wonder how many were killed or shocked though.
Not many I guess, but the law is sometimes over zealous, and laws are
made for the sake of
lkeeping law makers employed.
Quad had umbilicals for the Quad-II amps to Quad 22 control unit, and
other bits of attatched gear such as AM and FM tuners.
I doubt Quad killed anyone.

Never heard of a single case, and you can bet we would have.

Yes, and amplifiers are "non prescribed items in Oz"
Nobody has ever been killed by an amp, so presribed regulation as
applies to toasters and
water heaters has not been applied to amps.
Probably it will change, and if I get caught selling anything, they root
all the money out of me.

Walker could be very bad tempered when production quality sagged at a
factory though.
Get out of the way, he might kill ya....

You say to an audiophile, "THIS WILL KILL YOU"
in a stern slow loud voice, and they just smile.
Its never gonna happen, to them.

Often they encourage the arrival of the Grim Reaper by
plugging in things wrongly, after breaking off locating spigots on octal
plugs,
leaving things not plugged in right, and if there's a way some ****
could happen,
then an audiophile will find it without setting out to find it.
No matter you one tries to educate them about the basics of electronics,
it goes in one ear and out the other. Transparent sound?

I am forced into making amps with umbilicals.

There isn't an easier other way that is affordable.

You see, if you want 50+ watts from apair of 845, then the audio circuit
will weigh at least 25Kg before it begins to sound well and was worth
the wait
while it was made, and the weight of inconvenience.
The power supply, if its worth owning, will weigh at least 20Kg.

Just for one channel.

If you don't use umbilicals, the weight becomes well over the
maximum unit weight of things that can be lifted by a person

I thought for a while of building the bigger amps in a layered format,
like a tea trolley, because I tend to keep my audio gear on wheeled
computer tables anyway, but considerations of upending it for service,
and unwillingness to reach in under a shelf when there could be a
kilovolt lurking on a 50uF cap, dissuaded me. The truth is that huge
SE amps don't truly sound better than small ones. The smart audiophile
looks to his speakers first, and only then to his amp.

Yeah, 845 amps are a bit bitey.

They do sound well though. But I've achieved good results with beam
tetrodes
and 400V.



safely under the laws governing workplace safety.
The standard bag of cement once weighed 40Kg, and there were 25 bags to
the tonne.

This bag weight ruined many a buiding worker's health, and caused untold
compensation
payouts for back injuries, both genuine and feined.
I recall carrying two such bags at a time over short distance though,
and that was my own weight.
Now the bag weight is 20Kg, and most healthy ppl can easily handle that
even if they are the age of the average audiophile, 55, and overweight
and grossly unfit from
sitting in front of speakers for too long.

The alternative is to have modular plug in chassis units so the only way
they can be operated
is if they are stacked on top of each other, with the top unit being the
hot one with tubes, bottom one with cool silicon diodes and CLC filters,
and a
socket placed so the top amp chassis plugs downwards into the bottom
chassis with power supply. No cables.
This means a more expensive and elaborate two chassis design, and all
the audiophiles
I know are penny pinching whingers about prices.

And I'm not so sure at all the lawmakers will love you for that one
either.

Well, I make about 1 amp a year.
If I made 10,000 amps, there is 10,000 times the risk than someone
will try to sue me over something.



And once they try Shimano SORA very low cost entry level index gearing,
they never go back to lever on the down tube gear changing.

Campagnolo is nice to own, but I like the cheap 8 speed Shimano well.

I have cheap (by roadie standards) Shimano Nexus 8 and more expensive
Cyber Nexus 8 speed, and I love them. I don't pine for Campy.

I ride to just ride, and posing with a $6,000 bicycle and $500 worth
of latest lycra with TDF team logos ain't my scene.
He,he, I pass all these old guys who have spent $6,000.

I'm on 20+ yr old 531 and 753R frames, 32 spoke wheels, and push 2 more
Kg than they do.
I get there faster.

Only the young blokes are hard to keep up with sometimes, if they are
club riders
and train more than I do.

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.

ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.

Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is that you
are speaking of? Enquiring minds want to know.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[keithr]

John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.

Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is that you
are speaking of? Enquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him

Keith

[John Byrns]

In article , Keithr
wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.

Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is
that you
are speaking of? Enquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him

Your post gave the impression that you knew what ""electronics engineering" is,
I guess that was an erroneous assumption on my part.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 1:13*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:



John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.

Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is
that you
are speaking of? *Enquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him

Your post gave the impression that you knew what ""electronics engineering" is,
I guess that was an erroneous assumption on my part.

Yeah, I was sitting here waiting for Keefie to tell us how he built an
SE300A amp in day-release appie class before there was even a 300B
such as that youngster Jute loves so much. Keith is just another
superannuated loudmouth like Worthless Wiecky. We're never going to
get any specifics out of him, only vapid, generalized muttering.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

Sigh. Every year the workers get fewer and the whiners multiply.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 7:44*pm, Keithr wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.

Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is that you
are speaking of? *Enquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him

Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Keith:

Arguing with Mr. Byrns is futile. He is pretty much Andre's permanent
latrine orderly and lives to leap up in defense of his lord and
master. In general, he is a very knowledgeable individual with not
inconsiderable skills but rather than using his knowledge for anything
useful, lately he trolls various newsgroups hunting for obscure points
he can argue over and exceptions he can use to prove his superior
worthiness. Much the same way as Mr. Jute but without the verbal
skills or colossal arrogance. He also rears up like a raped spinster
when called on his activity or makes smug, meaningless remarks rather
than actually make a point. Altogether an odious individual - who
years ago actually participated in these same groups in a meaningful
way. Now he more or less mumbles in a dark room somewhere until his
Andre paints himself too far into a corner. Then he shambles out and
makes posts such as the one you answered.

He is in my killfile, I only see his posts via collateral damage -
someone ignorant or silly enough to take him up on his challenges -
such as they are. You will learn.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[keithr]

John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.
Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is
that you
are speaking of? Enquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him

Your post gave the impression that you knew what ""electronics engineering" is,
I guess that was an erroneous assumption on my part.

Oh dear, another little pedant. Personally I would refer to it as
electonic engineering as would most people who actually work in it.
There is a reasonable definition below that you could have looked up
yourself although I would say that electrical engineering was more about
power distribution systems, whereas electronic engineering is about
signal processing and control systems. There are many specialised
branches of electronic engineering such as those concerned with
communications, computing, process control etc. Some of us have made a
career there, but most here only dabble on the fringes.

Keith

Electronic engineering is a discipline dealing with the behavior and
effects of electrons (as in electron tubes and transistors) and with
electronic devices, systems, or equipment. The term now also covers a
large part of electrical engineering degree courses as studied at most
European universities. In the U.S., however, electrical engineering
implies all the wide electrical disciplines including electronics.

In many areas, electronic engineering is considered to be at the same
level as electrical engineering, requiring that more general programmes
be called electrical and electronic engineering (many UK universities
have departments of Electronic and Electrical Engineering). Both define
a broad field that encompasses many subfields including those that deal
with power, instrumentation engineering, telecommunications, and
semiconductor circuit design amongst many others.

[keithr]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Sep 13, 1:13 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:



John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.
A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.
Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is
that you
are speaking of? Enquiring minds want to know.
You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him
Your post gave the impression that you knew what ""electronics engineering" is,
I guess that was an erroneous assumption on my part.

Yeah, I was sitting here waiting for Keefie to tell us how he built an
SE300A amp in day-release appie class before there was even a 300B
such as that youngster Jute loves so much. Keith is just another
superannuated loudmouth like Worthless Wiecky. We're never going to
get any specifics out of him, only vapid, generalized muttering.

Explain, if you would, Jutie why designing a 300B amplifier should be
any different to using any other tube.

Most of the stuff that I built was firstly based on the 6V6 then EL84
and finally the KT88 as my finances improved, apprentices weren't paid
much. Then I got a job doing proper electronic engineering and lost
interest in simple stuff like that.

We would have laughed at anybody using 1920s technology like the 300B.
Most of the mistique surrounding tubes like the 300B is pure affectation
and snobbery anyway.

Keith

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Sep 13, 5:06*am, Keithr wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article , Keithr
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
The truth is I'm
not an audiophile all, merely a music lover with a talent for
electronics engineering.
ROFL, Jute you are dangerous, I nearly exploded a mouthful of coffee all
over my keyboard when I read that. The stuff that you have proudly
boasted of is of the standard that we were given as 3rd year appentices
for homework.

A talent for electronics engineering? My god, you were the one that was
proud of being able to build a multimenter from a kit! I don't think
that you understand what electronics engineering is.
Could you please explain exactly what this "electronics engineering" is
that you
are speaking of? *Enquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to ask the Jute, I just did a cut and paste from his post - I
didn't want to misquote him

Your post gave the impression that you knew what ""electronics engineering" is,
I guess that was an erroneous assumption on my part.

Oh dear, another little pedant. Personally I would refer to it as
electonic engineering as would most people who actually work in it.
There is a reasonable definition below that you could have looked up
yourself although I would say that electrical engineering was more about
power distribution systems, whereas electronic engineering is about
signal processing and control systems. There are many specialised
branches of electronic engineering such as those concerned with
communications, computing, process control etc. Some of us have made a
career there, but most here only dabble on the fringes.

Keith

Electronic engineering is a discipline dealing with the behavior and
effects of electrons (as in electron tubes and transistors) and with
electronic devices, systems, or equipment. The term now also covers a
large part of electrical engineering degree courses as studied at most
European universities. In the U.S., however, electrical engineering
implies all the wide electrical disciplines including electronics.

In many areas, electronic engineering is considered to be at the same
level as electrical engineering, requiring that more general programmes
be called electrical and electronic engineering (many UK universities
have departments of Electronic and Electrical Engineering). Both define
a broad field that encompasses many subfields including those that deal
with power, instrumentation engineering, telecommunications, and
semiconductor circuit design amongst many others.

Pedantic, dull, duller, posted by "keithr", dead.

Progressively yours,

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[keithr]

Andre Jute wrote:

Pedantic, dull, duller, posted by "keithr", dead.

Progressively yours,

Andre Jute

Andre Jute so predictable and always disapointing.