[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 5:35:22 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:26:41 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:

Someone mention DB-25? You could, at one time, purchase the DB-25 Male Parallel - Centronics Male Parallel - 3ft [printer] cable, at a dollar store! :-)

Now you can buy them at a thrift store or watch your local Freecycle forum. The real bargain was the Chinese DB25-DB25 cables for connecting analog 8-channel audio gear. The twisted pairs didn't match up with the TASCAM pin numbering system (a twisted pair for tip and ring) but at line levels, it didn't matter much. You could buy cables wired with pairs matchin the de facto analog audio and a couple of digital standards for a lot more money.

And if you're curious, there's a table of DB25 wiring conventions for several applications on my web site.

Oh, cool! In trade, I have a few scans from a very early Victoria's Secret catalog, maybe hand-made, on my site :-)

This is what you need, HQ Sound at only, get this, $99 about 1960!! Four vacuum tubes and two selenium rectifiers - whoa, serious stuff! Helps keep the house toasty warm in Winter! Only a mere 30 Pounds! Great for holding down lawn-chairs during tornadoes!!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/mw-1960-622.gif

Jack

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 5/26/2015 5:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:52:07 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:

I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

Middle Atlantic is a relative newcomer. There were racks for 50 years before they came along. The MAP racks that you know are sold through channels that sell to musicians and recording studios, not telephone or telecommunications companies. It makes sense to use the more common thread because you don't need to go to a specialty hardware store or music store to find them.

This discussion is intriguing as I started in the broadcasting business in 1962. Plus, I'm building a broadcasting
studio for a group right now. The equipment I've purchased include a Wheatstone/Vorsis VP8-IP processor, dbx 286s mic
processors, a Telos Hx2 digital telephone hybrid, and a Denon DN700R solid state recorder. At least three of those
pieces of equipment came with rack screws. Every screw supplied was a 10-32 that fit the Middle Atlantic rack.

Every rack I ever had in the radio business (except one that my father purchased from military surplus) was 10-32. One
of the racks we had in the mid sixties is in my storage room. It's 10-32 (with a couple of damaged screw threads where I
used a 10-24 before I knew the difference.) All of the racks and rack rails I can find indicate that the racks are
10-32. See http://goo.gl/rrDFcN. All of the rack screws I can find are 10-32. See http://goo.gl/zhV2po and
http://goo.gl/iunNNz.

Over the years I've learned to rely on the information posted here, with a few exceptions. Therefore, I'm not arguing
with the learned members. I'm stunned that I missed this detail for so many years. Can someone post a link to a rack
that has 10-24 threads?

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:57:03 AM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:
On 5/26/2015 5:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:52:07 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:

I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

Middle Atlantic is a relative newcomer. There were racks for 50 years before they came along. The MAP racks that you know are sold through channels that sell to musicians and recording studios, not telephone or telecommunications companies. It makes sense to use the more common thread because you don't need to go to a specialty hardware store or music store to find them.

This discussion is intriguing as I started in the broadcasting business in 1962. Plus, I'm building a broadcasting
studio for a group right now. The equipment I've purchased include a Wheatstone/Vorsis VP8-IP processor, dbx 286s mic
processors, a Telos Hx2 digital telephone hybrid, and a Denon DN700R solid state recorder. At least three of those
pieces of equipment came with rack screws. Every screw supplied was a 10-32 that fit the Middle Atlantic rack.

Every rack I ever had in the radio business (except one that my father purchased from military surplus) was 10-32. One
of the racks we had in the mid sixties is in my storage room. It's 10-32 (with a couple of damaged screw threads where I
used a 10-24 before I knew the difference.) All of the racks and rack rails I can find indicate that the racks are
10-32. See http://goo.gl/rrDFcN. All of the rack screws I can find are 10-32. See http://goo.gl/zhV2po and
http://goo.gl/iunNNz.

Over the years I've learned to rely on the information posted here, with a few exceptions. Therefore, I'm not arguing
with the learned members. I'm stunned that I missed this detail for so many years. Can someone post a link to a rack
that has 10-24 threads?

The suspense continues!! :-)

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:57:03 AM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:
On 5/26/2015 5:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:52:07 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:

I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

Middle Atlantic is a relative newcomer. There were racks for 50 years before they came along. The MAP racks that you know are sold through channels that sell to musicians and recording studios, not telephone or telecommunications companies. It makes sense to use the more common thread because you don't need to go to a specialty hardware store or music store to find them.

This discussion is intriguing as I started in the broadcasting business in 1962. Plus, I'm building a broadcasting
studio for a group right now. The equipment I've purchased include a Wheatstone/Vorsis VP8-IP processor, dbx 286s mic
processors, a Telos Hx2 digital telephone hybrid, and a Denon DN700R solid state recorder. At least three of those
pieces of equipment came with rack screws. Every screw supplied was a 10-32 that fit the Middle Atlantic rack.

Every rack I ever had in the radio business (except one that my father purchased from military surplus) was 10-32. One
of the racks we had in the mid sixties is in my storage room. It's 10-32 (with a couple of damaged screw threads where I
used a 10-24 before I knew the difference.) All of the racks and rack rails I can find indicate that the racks are
10-32. See http://goo.gl/rrDFcN. All of the rack screws I can find are 10-32. See http://goo.gl/zhV2po and
http://goo.gl/iunNNz.

Over the years I've learned to rely on the information posted here, with a few exceptions. Therefore, I'm not arguing
with the learned members. I'm stunned that I missed this detail for so many years. Can someone post a link to a rack
that has 10-24 threads?

Look here...

https://www.server-racks.com/rack-sc...-12-24-m6.html

I mean I appreciate help, but sometimes you have to use the logic God gave you.

It's like I asked when studios began using digital software for remastering (DAW or whatever man wishes to call them). I have yet been provided a dated photo. I still say, and my ears says circa Y2k!

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 27/05/2015 13:57, JackA wrote:

It's like I asked when studios began using digital software for remastering (DAW or whatever man wishes to call them). I have yet been provided a dated photo. I still say, and my ears says circa Y2k!

So, you believe your ears over the evidence of people who were there and
doing it in the industry long before 2000?

You still haven't told us what you consider to be remastering. By one
interpretation, remastering is the issuing of old material on new media,
so by that definition, any work originally issued on vinyl or cassette
had to be remastered for a CD issue, the final stage of which had to be
done digitally and a glass stamping master made, as there were very few
CD burners about in the early days of CD issuing.

The people who were involved were too busy doing it to take dated
photographs for your benefit, and the pictures would only show the desk,
operator and speakers anyway, with the ADC's and DAC's hiddden away in
the equipment rack. They have told you their recollections of when and
how they started doing it. Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 9:42:24 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/05/2015 13:57, JackA wrote:

It's like I asked when studios began using digital software for remastering (DAW or whatever man wishes to call them). I have yet been provided a dated photo. I still say, and my ears says circa Y2k!

So, you believe your ears over the evidence of people who were there and
doing it in the industry long before 2000?

You still haven't told us what you consider to be remastering. By one
interpretation, remastering is the issuing of old material on new media,
so by that definition, any work originally issued on vinyl or cassette
had to be remastered for a CD issue, the final stage of which had to be
done digitally and a glass stamping master made, as there were very few
CD burners about in the early days of CD issuing.

The people who were involved were too busy doing it to take dated
photographs for your benefit, and the pictures would only show the desk,
operator and speakers anyway, with the ADC's and DAC's hiddden away in
the equipment rack. They have told you their recollections of when and
how they started doing it. Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John, it's hard to believe the people here, as the person with the screw thread questioned. Truth? Look where you're at, usenet, it's not like some technical forum - ANYONE can answer. You folks call me a troll, but, hey, maybe because I can see right through you.

And, yes, I use logic because IT IS NEVER MENTIONED what is done to "remaster". I use my ears and eyes and logic God provided.

In one forum, someone applause my "Genuine Remastering", that included remixing. I really TIRE of the "technology" trip, blaming DAC for man's errors!

I look where others remix and remaster. One probably does the analog remixing and another does the digital enhancing. I believe this was done on the recreation of Deep Purple's, Smoke On The Water. I read or listen to interviews, such as one by Alan Parsons, and he's asked if he supports digital remastering, I don't believe he actually answered, because he is not comfortable working in an all digital world. This is true with MANY older folks, they have their habits and they stick with them.

I'm not in favor of silly using some spent master tape to "remaster". Save those for people like Steve Hoffman. I say, go back and do a complete remastering, including remixing. BUT, it is VERY difficult to gain multi-tracks tapes from the hoarders, like Sony, who will not let you outdo their sound quality. Not the Japanese's fault, but the Americans they hired.

What "evidence" has anyone provided?

Have I complained enough?

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 27/05/2015 15:23, JackA wrote:

And, yes, I use logic because IT IS NEVER MENTIONED what is done to "remaster". I use my ears and eyes and logic God provided.

From "The Hitchhikers' guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams:- “Now it
is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the
non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes
in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that
black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

That sums up the value of logic in working out what is true and what
isn't true. You can use logic to prove anything you wish, but wishing it
were true does not make it so. God did not provide logic, if he (or she
or it) exists, what is provided is evidence. We invented logic in the
days long before the ancient Greek empire as a way to try and make sense
of information that we have. Cavemen used logic to decide which cave to
sleep in. The ones that got it wrong didn't survive.

People on this group call you a troll because you act like a troll,
making statements of opinion that are designed to get an angry reaction.
If it waddles and quacks, the odds are it's a duck. If it continuously
posts inanities and incorrect facts, it's very likely to be a troll.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/05/2015 15:23, JackA wrote:

And, yes, I use logic because IT IS NEVER MENTIONED what is done to "remaster". I use my ears and eyes and logic God provided.

From "The Hitchhikers' guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams:- "Now it
is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the
non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes
in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that
black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

That sums up the value of logic in working out what is true and what
isn't true. You can use logic to prove anything you wish, but wishing it
were true does not make it so. God did not provide logic, if he (or she
or it) exists, what is provided is evidence. We invented logic in the
days long before the ancient Greek empire as a way to try and make sense
of information that we have. Cavemen used logic to decide which cave to
sleep in. The ones that got it wrong didn't survive.

People on this group call you a troll because you act like a troll,
making statements of opinion that are designed to get an angry reaction.
If it waddles and quacks, the odds are it's a duck. If it continuously
posts inanities and incorrect facts, it's very likely to be a troll.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

People ONLY get angry when someone questions the validity of their claims.
A quick internet search shows 10-32 and 12-24 fasteners are most popular for rack mounts, it's a fact of life.

I don't like using Mark as an example, but when I first arrived here he did mention about my sound quality, a positive statement.

Later, I guess Randy gets fed up with me, and challenged my Blood, Sweat & Tears tunes I found on an import CD. Randy sells audio gear. I'm not sure when he couldn't hear or maybe he refused to hear that tape hiss noise on his "singles" renditions. However, even though he's probably ****ed at me, I'm glad he challenged me, because I learned something.

But let's face reality, it's not "trolls" who destroy usenet, it's those with the foul language that do.

I'm innocent your honor.

Jack

[[email protected]]

I don't like using Mark as an example, but when I first arrived here he did mention about my sound quality, a positive statement.


OK time to set the record straight..

I said I enjoyed listening to the multi-tack stems you linked to and I am still wondering where they come from.

Not that it matters.


Mark

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 1:13:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I don't like using Mark as an example, but when I first arrived here he did mention about my sound quality, a positive statement.


OK time to set the record straight..

I said I enjoyed listening to the multi-tack stems you linked to and I am still wondering where they come from.

Not that it matters.


Mark

Mark, my main goal was to find ANYTHING odd about US Top 40 songs. I didn't care what it was, even if just a simple count-off.

A coworker found something very interesting on YouTube, it was multi-tracks of a Rolling Stones song. He yelled for me to come and look, but I was busy at the time. Next day I asked him to point me to the YouTube thing, and we were both VERY surprised to find it had been DELETED, that quickly. Most likely, ABKCO had requested its deletion.

To make a long story shorter, these multi-tracks were used in interactive video entertainment!! In other words, you could go on tour with The Rolling Stones, play guitar, or whatever instruments (they are supplied) and even hear cheering from the (pretend) concerts!! Like, with The Who's, Who Are You, you'll find two tracks of cheering (I just delete them.). If you want to try your hand at mixing, I think I have one .mogg file on my site. Just yell.

To me, Mark, they we like finding a pot of Gold at the end of a Rainbow, because sometimes you gain UNEDITED, UnUnderdubber versions!!!
Even though John W. doesn't think much of me, I'm sure if HE personally mixed, Paul McCartney's [Wings], "Band On The Run", he'd AGREE that remixing does actually improve the listening experience!!

I'd like to put The Stones, "Paint It Black" on my site, due to non-editing, but ABKCO keeps a close eye on their stash!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Band_%28video_game%29

Peace.

Best,
Jack

p.s. Some songs are remakes (by studio musicians) JUST to gain multi-tracks, some are so good, the original group/band sued!!!

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.

ftp://ftp.studer.ch/public/SwissSoun...28eJan90LR.pdf

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:19:44 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.

ftp://ftp.studer.ch/public/SwissSoun...28eJan90LR.pdf

See, John, rather than sound-off at me, you should have done an impressive job like Hank!!!

Okay, so it is FAR more than just digital software, but it does give me a hint what was being marketed!!! Seems like "editing" is its strong point!

Jack


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[John Williamson]

On 27/05/2015 19:40, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:19:44 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.

ftp://ftp.studer.ch/public/SwissSoun...28eJan90LR.pdf

See, John, rather than sound-off at me, you should have done an impressive job like Hank!!!

Or, you could have done the search yourself and saved us from the
claptrap you keep spouting when you can't be bothered to do your own
research, or you get some stupid idea in your head like you being the
world's best mixing engineer. A hint. Your mixes might improve slightly
if you bought a decent paid of headphones and spent 69 Euros on an app
to make them sound somewhere near right. Then you could hear, as we do,
just how awful they are.

There's even a company that will sell you a pair of Sony MDR-7506
headphones and a plugin to let you use them with a number of DAW
programs so that you can make sensible decisions about levels when you
mix. No more 3kHz shriekiness...

To save you the effort of typing two words into a search engine, here's
a link:-

http://sonarworks.com/

I hope you manage to navigate to the sales page...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.

ftp://ftp.studer.ch/public/SwissSoun...28eJan90LR.pdf


AAAARGH! AAAARGH! DASH machine!
Make it go away!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

To save you the effort

I hesitated to post the Dyaxis link.

If we keep feeding this asshole troll, we will bring our own demise
right upon us.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 3:04:54 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/05/2015 19:40, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:19:44 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Whether you believe them or not, what they
told you is the truth.

ftp://ftp.studer.ch/public/SwissSoun...28eJan90LR.pdf

See, John, rather than sound-off at me, you should have done an impressive job like Hank!!!

Or, you could have done the search yourself and saved us from the
claptrap you keep spouting when you can't be bothered to do your own
research, or you get some stupid idea in your head like you being the
world's best mixing engineer. A hint. Your mixes might improve slightly
if you bought a decent paid of headphones and spent 69 Euros on an app
to make them sound somewhere near right. Then you could hear, as we do,
just how awful they are.

There's even a company that will sell you a pair of Sony MDR-7506
headphones and a plugin to let you use them with a number of DAW
programs so that you can make sensible decisions about levels when you
mix. No more 3kHz shriekiness...

Ha!! So what, I didn't pay a fortune like Geoff did with for headphones with 50mm drivers.

No idea in my head, John, I am the best remixing engineer. I don't need Sony's gadgets. If I didn't bring the 3kHz frequency up, no one would have. At least I, not you, why I discovered I enjoyed it!!! Research that.

To save you the effort of typing two words into a search engine, here's
a link:-

http://sonarworks.com/

Oh, if Rafa Sardine says its good, it must be!!!

You pay money to Grammy and you are awarded. That's how life is!!!
Maybe he'll earn enough money for a Toupée!!



I hope you manage to navigate to the sales page...

Maybe, one day, I'll teach you how to interpret specifications, Mr. Wizard!!

Jack




--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 3:22:34 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

To save you the effort

I hesitated to post the Dyaxis link.

If we keep feeding this asshole troll, we will bring our own demise
right upon us.

Hey, Hank, just bite the bullet and AT LEAST look like a Professional!...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=3hGbXPtrKjw

Jack


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[John Williamson]

On 27/05/2015 20:35, JackA wrote:
There's even a company that will sell you a pair of Sony MDR-7506
headphones and a plugin to let you use them with a number of DAW
programs so that you can make sensible decisions about levels when you
mix. No more 3kHz shriekiness...

Ha!! So what, I didn't pay a fortune like Geoff did with for headphones with 50mm drivers.

Perhaps he bought them because he thought they sounded good?

Then again maybe you are afraid that if you start monitoring your mixes
on good quality transducers, you'll hear how execrably bad they are.

No idea in my head, John, I am the best remixing engineer. I don't need Sony's gadgets. If I didn't bring the 3kHz frequency up, no one would have. At least I, not you, why I discovered I enjoyed it!!! Research that.

The result for me was an ear shredding screechiness throughout the mixes
I listened to before I gave up in disgust.

The only time equalising at 3kHz is really justified is to apply a
gentle cut at playback time when the listening volume is very low. Then
you need to compensate for the ear's natural 3kHz boost under those
circumstances (As well as the peculiarities at other frequencies, of
course). There are, of course, the cases when some idiot has boosted
that range beyond all belief or there's a problem with the recording
which means that there's a dip in the overall response there.

To save you the effort of typing two words into a search engine, here's
a link:-

http://sonarworks.com/

Oh, if Rafa Sardine says its good, it must be!!!

Sound On Sound reckon it's pretty good, too. Good enough for the
reviewer to claim to have omitted to send the hardware back and
uninstall the program after he'd reviewed it. Still, if you've got a
pair of their supported headphones, you can try it for free. They don't
support any Philips cheapies, though, unless you send them in to be
measured.


I hope you manage to navigate to the sales page...

Maybe, one day, I'll teach you how to interpret specifications, Mr. Wizard!!

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. What has interpreting specifications got
to do with what I posted?

Although, I can do it well enough to know what's marketing speak and
what's engineering.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 4:19:55 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/05/2015 20:35, JackA wrote:
There's even a company that will sell you a pair of Sony MDR-7506
headphones and a plugin to let you use them with a number of DAW
programs so that you can make sensible decisions about levels when you
mix. No more 3kHz shriekiness...

Ha!! So what, I didn't pay a fortune like Geoff did with for headphones with 50mm drivers.

Perhaps he bought them because he thought they sounded good?

Then again maybe you are afraid that if you start monitoring your mixes
on good quality transducers, you'll hear how execrably bad they are.

No idea in my head, John, I am the best remixing engineer. I don't need Sony's gadgets. If I didn't bring the 3kHz frequency up, no one would have.. At least I, not you, why I discovered I enjoyed it!!! Research that.

The result for me was an ear shredding screechiness throughout the mixes
I listened to before I gave up in disgust.

The only time equalising at 3kHz is really justified is to apply a
gentle cut at playback time when the listening volume is very low. Then
you need to compensate for the ear's natural 3kHz boost under those
circumstances (As well as the peculiarities at other frequencies, of
course). There are, of course, the cases when some idiot has boosted
that range beyond all belief or there's a problem with the recording
which means that there's a dip in the overall response there.

To save you the effort of typing two words into a search engine, here's
a link:-

http://sonarworks.com/

Oh, if Rafa Sardine says its good, it must be!!!

Sound On Sound reckon it's pretty good, too. Good enough for the
reviewer to claim to have omitted to send the hardware back and
uninstall the program after he'd reviewed it. Still, if you've got a
pair of their supported headphones, you can try it for free. They don't
support any Philips cheapies, though, unless you send them in to be
measured.

Look, John, let's take a trip to the facts of life and start there. Just like on TV advertisements, people are PAID to make false claims about products and/or services. Just because a couple no-names praise something is not convincing enough. Just like HDCD, SACDs whatever, people purchase them JUST because they cost more and in THEIR minds they SOUND better.

Imagine Sony sent me something to review, whatever, and I claimed it sounded like horse poop grunts. Do you THINK Sony would ever want me to do another review?

Since people don't KNOW how to read specifications or what they even mean, people like Bose know it, and they conveniently leave off all specifications off their packaged goods.




I hope you manage to navigate to the sales page...

Maybe, one day, I'll teach you how to interpret specifications, Mr. Wizard!!

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. What has interpreting specifications got
to do with what I posted?

Although, I can do it well enough to know what's marketing speak and
what's engineering.

Unlike you siblings, I was complimented by a Licensed Professional Engineer.. Ha!
Today, in studios, if you can manage to turn a knob, that's all it takes to be an "engineer". Spare me.

I like you, John, you have stamina. You may stay.

Jack



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2015 20:35, JackA wrote:

That's ...

Why do you encourage the trolling skidmark Agnew, by continuing to
respond to his cretinous gibbering? He wants to destroy the newsgroup,
and you're acting as his lackey.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:36:03 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2015 20:35, JackA wrote:

That's ...

Why do you encourage the trolling skidmark Agnew, by continuing to
respond to his cretinous gibbering? He wants to destroy the newsgroup,
and you're acting as his lackey.

Personally, Mr. None, I believe John is one of my many sock-puppets.

Now, John, silence. Mr. None has something of value to post here and you keep stopping him from accomplishing his goal!

"Can someone post a link to a rack that has 10-24 threads"?

Scott and Mike will be right with you, once they find some buried link posted by ancient aliens.

Jack B. Waiting :-)

[None]

wrote in message
...
OK time to set the record straight..

Please stop helping Agnew the asshole flinging his monkey **** all
over the newsgroup.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 7:15:21 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
wrote in message
...
OK time to set the record straight..

Please stop helping Agnew the asshole flinging his monkey **** all
over the newsgroup.

Excuse me, isn't this your night to be playing with your Sesame Street band?

Leave Mark be. He is my kind of people.

Thank you.

Jack

[geoff]

On 28/05/2015 2:23 a.m., JackA wrote:

And, yes, I use logic because IT IS NEVER MENTIONED what is done to
"remaster". I use my ears and eyes and logic God provided.


So that would be the same god that provided the likes of the screw-worm
cochliomyia . Nice god. It's results speak for themselves.

geoff

[None]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 28/05/2015 2:23 a.m., JackA ...

Stop welcoming the turd into the punch bowl.

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 7:41:42 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 28/05/2015 2:23 a.m., JackA ...

Stop welcoming the turd into the punch bowl.

Newbie: So, what screw threads are used in racks?
Regulars: Oh, 10-24 is most popular!!!
RealPro: Excuse me, but I've been purchasing racks for decades, always 10-32!
Regulars: [Dead silence]

New name: rec.audio.amateurs

Jack :-D

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 1:00:48 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 28/05/2015 2:23 a.m., JackA wrote:

And, yes, I use logic because IT IS NEVER MENTIONED what is done to
"remaster". I use my ears and eyes and logic God provided.


So that would be the same god that provided the likes of the screw-worm
cochliomyia . Nice god. It's results speak for themselves.

Screw-worm? Is that what you use in your racks!!?? :-)

Jack


geoff