Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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."? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: It's already been explained moron. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: Now I realize you're just plain dense, and argumentative. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: Ah, you're one of those guys. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: lick their shoes |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: he seems to be on some sort of drug trip right now |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... Eddie, you crack me up! Good god, what are you, 12 years old? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote: Idiot. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Honda factory changer or Low end HU <$150? | Car Audio | |||
Free Bomb Factory Plug Ins! | Pro Audio | |||
Radio reception worse than factory radio, antenna adapter? | Car Audio | |||
Bomb Factory demos with Digi 001 Mac OS X | Pro Audio | |||
Using Factory Amp with new Head Unit | Car Audio |