On 29 Jan 2006 20:45:22 -0800, wrote:

engineering is a waste of time, and designing a
good sounding amplifier is simply a mystic art (or an accident).

And yet companies like YBA perform this mystic art on a regular
basis....

Are you SURE he doesn't just take a competent design then look at
every component with the agenda: "Now, could this possibly be done in
a more expensive way?" There's a willing market.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 20:45:22 -0800, wrote:

engineering is a waste of time, and designing a
good sounding amplifier is simply a mystic art (or an accident).

And yet companies like YBA perform this mystic art on a regular
basis....

Are you SURE he doesn't just take a competent design then look at
every component with the agenda: "Now, could this possibly be done in
a more expensive way?" There's a willing market.

Are you SURE you didn't leave your brains stuck in your asshole this
morning? Either prove your claim or shut the **** up. Supposedly, you
audio zealots consider yourselves "men of science", all practical and
****.... not a one of you ever proved ****, out of the 1,000 claims
I've read in this thread. NOT ONE. All any of you has ever done is ask
me to prove YOUR arguments.

It is to laugh.

wrote:
wrote:
TonyP wrote:
Stuart Welwood wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

wrote:

Okay, you've proven what an imbecile you are, ratface. You can shut up

now, and bring out your beloved Krueger troll, from wherever the fat
lardass is hiding....


Sir, you clearly have a personal problem and are not worth any further
communication.

Grow up,

Me personally, I am enjoying his humor! I look forward to reading his
replies! Love it!!

Okay, I wasn't feeling a lot of love here, but two seconds before I was
going to levae for good, you've convinced me to stay. For good.

Anyone have a problem with me but yet can't seem to tear yourselves
away from my thread(s), I suggest you take it up with TonyP. And you
can also kiss my ass, while you're at it.


I know that I have been taken to task in the past because I said I could
hear a difference in my amps in my system. The same with pre-amps.
Wires? Well, I have heard differences in *some*, but not most (how MIT
shotgunned sounded worse in my system than the Monster Powerline 2 and
Interlink Reference). I have not had the "luxury" to hear the super
priced Nordost, MIT's, wires with batteries, wires within vacuums, and
others. I would relish the chance to say "wire is wire and it all sounds
the same because I actually heard them for myself".

Any idiot who is brave enough to display his stupidity to the entire
world by stating with a straight face that amplifiers sound the same
(regardless of whether they are poorly or well designed, in good
condition or in disrepair), has, I figure, at least 3 problems:

1) They're hopeless imbeciles

2) They're as deaf as a doorknob

3) They're newsgroup junkies addicted to rec.audio.tech

Thus, they're worth making fun of....


Your hearing curve must be as sharp as the top of your head.

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! That's SO funny!!
Dumbass geek. Nothing like "techie humor" to really keep 'em in
stitches....

Shut up and go back to watching your Star Trek episodes, you stupid
****ing know-nothing geek.

In article .com, wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 20:45:22 -0800, wrote:

engineering is a waste of time, and designing a
good sounding amplifier is simply a mystic art (or an accident).

And yet companies like YBA perform this mystic art on a regular
basis....

Are you SURE he doesn't just take a competent design then look at
every component with the agenda: "Now, could this possibly be done in
a more expensive way?" There's a willing market.

Are you SURE you didn't leave your brains stuck in your asshole this
morning? Either prove your claim or shut the **** up. Supposedly, you
audio zealots consider yourselves "men of science", all practical and
****.... not a one of you ever proved ****, out of the 1,000 claims
I've read in this thread. NOT ONE. All any of you has ever done is ask
me to prove YOUR arguments.

It is to laugh.


You seemed to do weird things in you experiment with fuses.
You gave a bunch of strange devices to impliment a test.
You could have done the obvious first. Keep incrasing fuse
amperage and give the steps of change. With your senses, perhaps
you could hear the difference with each doubling of the fuse rating.
Then, you could have given the sound of different fuse companies.

I wonder how long have you had the Hitachi preamp. I have to clean
mine out every few years. I clean the switches and pots on
my dear HCA-8300. The unit should be far more susceptable
on sound quality by cleaning than just changing fusing. I also
changed out some caps way back when. Minor Pooge.
If you monkey with any old equipment, it's liable to sound different just by banging on it.


greg

GregS wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

You seemed to do weird things in you experiment with fuses.

"Weird" is a term used for things you don't understand. With audio
techies, it helps them to alienate things they don't understand using
such terms, rather than make attempts to understand them. Once you
understand, at the very least, that fuse experiments yield audible
effects (including removing the fuse altogether), experimenting with
fuses becomes as ordinary ("unweird") as experimenting with high
quality caps or transformers, or whatever it is that you do "believe
in".

Consider this: a regular contributor to this group emailed me to let me
know he did similar experiments and found that the sound of his
equipment did improve when the fuses were taken out (but in his case,
later decided he preferred the original sound). He did this before I
ever did my experiments. I haven't taken a survey, but I'm sure we
"fuse experimenters" are part of a very small minority of the audio
community. But if we weren't, you wouldn't be using the term "weird" in
your approach to the subject.


You gave a bunch of strange devices to impliment a test.

For "strange", see my explanation of "weird" above...

You could have done the obvious first. Keep incrasing fuse
amperage and give the steps of change. With your senses, perhaps
you could hear the difference with each doubling of the fuse rating.

That's only "obvious" to you. What is "obvious" differs with different
people. I'm not even sure I understand why that is "obvious" to you....
more amperage = more current passing, less current restriction =
improved sound? The reason simply removing the fuse was "obvious" to me
is because, as I explained before, I believe in a minimalist approach
to audio - and that most, if not all things in the current or signal
path, can degrade the output.

As for my "senses", while my listening skills are great, I don't
believe that most people would have trouble hearing the differences
between an amp with fuses and one in which the fuse has been removed
and replaced by an alternative, such as silver solder wire.

Audio techies are a different matter, since they have a particular
"religion" they must adhere to: if you explain what the DUT is before
or during the trial, their minds will have been made up that no
differences can be perceived.....

.....When I see that there are still true audio retards living today,
like Arnold Krueger, who pretend to be audio experts and will with a
straight face tell you that there can not be differences between
something as grossly evident as audio amplifiers, then you know that no
one like this is ever going to "hear" anything they don't "believe
exists".


Then, you could have given the sound of different fuse companies.

True, I could have done a lot of different experiments on the fuse to
see what made a difference, and what differences it made; including
trying out fuses from different companies (btw, if you read my posts in
this thread, I did initially experiment with substituing the original
fuse with one that had a higher rating). Maybe I will pursue it further
in the future, since removing the fuse is not that viable an option.
But the point is, so could you. People like you are the ones that doubt
any of this matters, I already know that it does. So it makes more
sense if you carry out such experiments.

I wonder how long have you had the Hitachi preamp. I have to clean
mine out every few years. I clean the switches and pots on
my dear HCA-8300. The unit should be far more susceptable
on sound quality by cleaning than just changing fusing. I also
changed out some caps way back when. Minor Pooge.

You have the same preamp?? God, I hope its not in your main system! I
HATE the sound of this preamp!
That's one thing that initially prompted me to tweak it: It did sound
better in many ways than the old Technics SA-80 amp, and I was hoping
to replace the preamp section of the Technics with this Hitachi.
("Better" here means it had much deeper bass, a wider soundstage, more
clarity, more extended highs, and enough controls to make an airplane
cockpit jealous with which you can further tweak the sound). However,
it was a very unmusical machine, less so than the Technics. And it had
a very annoying tizziness to the highs which I couldn't get rid of, no
matter that I tweaked it a hundred different ways (including the fuse
tweak). In fact, I've already put it beside the door in preparation to
be chucked in the garbage.

The preamp is also very noisy, as yours was (and the innards stunk to
high heaven from smoke, from the previous owners). I did clean the
switches and pots with good quality high pressure spray type contact
cleaner/enhancer. This did little to improve the noise and problems
created by dirty switches. Most of the inputs could not even be used,
because of this aging. Sure you could always improve the sound in one
area (ie. cleaning), but that doesn't mean because you can, you
shouldn't try to improve it in other areas (ie. tweaking). One doesn't
cancel out the other.


If you monkey with any old equipment, it's liable to sound different just by banging on it.

With this old equipment, it sounded different just by turning the
balance knob. But with all knobs in place, it sounded pretty much the
same from one power on to the next to the next... so I was still able
to glean meaningful results from the fuse experiment tests, regardless
of the amps condition.

wrote:
GregS wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

You seemed to do weird things in you experiment with fuses.

"Weird" is a term used for things you don't understand. With audio
techies, it helps them to alienate things they don't understand using
such terms, rather than make attempts to understand them. Once you
understand, at the very least, that fuse experiments yield audible
effects (including removing the fuse altogether), experimenting with
fuses becomes as ordinary ("unweird") as experimenting with high
quality caps or transformers, or whatever it is that you do "believe
in".

Consider this: a regular contributor to this group emailed me to let me
know he did similar experiments and found that the sound of his
equipment did improve when the fuses were taken out (but in his case,
later decided he preferred the original sound). He did this before I
ever did my experiments. I haven't taken a survey, but I'm sure we
"fuse experimenters" are part of a very small minority of the audio
community. But if we weren't, you wouldn't be using the term "weird" in
your approach to the subject.


You gave a bunch of strange devices to impliment a test.

For "strange", see my explanation of "weird" above...

You could have done the obvious first. Keep incrasing fuse
amperage and give the steps of change. With your senses, perhaps
you could hear the difference with each doubling of the fuse rating.

That's only "obvious" to you. What is "obvious" differs with different
people. I'm not even sure I understand why that is "obvious" to you....
more amperage = more current passing, less current restriction =
improved sound? The reason simply removing the fuse was "obvious" to me
is because, as I explained before, I believe in a minimalist approach
to audio - and that most, if not all things in the current or signal
path, can degrade the output.

As for my "senses", while my listening skills are great, I don't
believe that most people would have trouble hearing the differences
between an amp with fuses and one in which the fuse has been removed
and replaced by an alternative, such as silver solder wire.

Audio techies are a different matter, since they have a particular
"religion" they must adhere to: if you explain what the DUT is before
or during the trial, their minds will have been made up that no
differences can be perceived.....

....When I see that there are still true audio retards living today,
like Arnold Krueger, who pretend to be audio experts and will with a
straight face tell you that there can not be differences between
something as grossly evident as audio amplifiers, then you know that no
one like this is ever going to "hear" anything they don't "believe
exists".


Then, you could have given the sound of different fuse companies.

True, I could have done a lot of different experiments on the fuse to
see what made a difference, and what differences it made; including
trying out fuses from different companies (btw, if you read my posts in
this thread, I did initially experiment with substituing the original
fuse with one that had a higher rating). Maybe I will pursue it further
in the future, since removing the fuse is not that viable an option.
But the point is, so could you. People like you are the ones that doubt
any of this matters, I already know that it does. So it makes more
sense if you carry out such experiments.

I wonder how long have you had the Hitachi preamp. I have to clean
mine out every few years. I clean the switches and pots on
my dear HCA-8300. The unit should be far more susceptable
on sound quality by cleaning than just changing fusing. I also
changed out some caps way back when. Minor Pooge.

You have the same preamp?? God, I hope its not in your main system! I
HATE the sound of this preamp!
That's one thing that initially prompted me to tweak it: It did sound
better in many ways than the old Technics SA-80 amp, and I was hoping
to replace the preamp section of the Technics with this Hitachi.
("Better" here means it had much deeper bass, a wider soundstage, more
clarity, more extended highs, and enough controls to make an airplane
cockpit jealous with which you can further tweak the sound). However,
it was a very unmusical machine, less so than the Technics. And it had
a very annoying tizziness to the highs which I couldn't get rid of, no
matter that I tweaked it a hundred different ways (including the fuse
tweak). In fact, I've already put it beside the door in preparation to
be chucked in the garbage.

The preamp is also very noisy, as yours was (and the innards stunk to
high heaven from smoke, from the previous owners). I did clean the
switches and pots with good quality high pressure spray type contact
cleaner/enhancer. This did little to improve the noise and problems
created by dirty switches. Most of the inputs could not even be used,
because of this aging. Sure you could always improve the sound in one
area (ie. cleaning), but that doesn't mean because you can, you
shouldn't try to improve it in other areas (ie. tweaking). One doesn't
cancel out the other.


If you monkey with any old equipment, it's liable to sound different just by banging on it.

With this old equipment, it sounded different just by turning the
balance knob. But with all knobs in place, it sounded pretty much the
same from one power on to the next to the next... so I was still able
to glean meaningful results from the fuse experiment tests, regardless
of the amps condition.

I went back review your original post.
Your questions have been answered, not that you liked the content.
Your generalistic observations questioned, since you didn't have
a methodology, other than anecdotally quantifying the results.

Techie humor would have been putting black shoe polish
on your headphone muffs.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote:
What a sad state this thread has degenerated to. Nothing but ad-hominem
attacks and insults.


WTF are you talking about "degenerated to"? I was attacked with ad
hominem insults from the very beginning, and not a single RATter ever
proved a single argument against me.

Well, the shrillness (not in the audio sense) definitely escalates as you
read down the thread.

As for how the line fuse will affect the sound, my electronic design
experience suggests that nothing in the primary circuit (within reason)
should have any perceptible effect on the sound if the power supply is
properly designed and is adequate to the task. The "within reason" part
refers to blackouts, brownouts, defective switches, defective fuses and
the
like.

"Should"... techie translation for "does".

The entire goal of science and engineering is to characterize and model a
phenomenon with a rational explanation and then use the model to predict the
future, i.e., to create repeatable designs with minimal tweaking and high
reliability and stability. I say "should" because it's a prediction in the
sense that I would be surprised if it "shouldn't". In order to accept the
premise that a line fuse would have a perceptible effect on the audio, I
need a physical model that explains why that is. Without that, it is just a
hypothesis. We might be able to rule out anectotal reports with double-blind
testing. If the phenomenon is thus proven to be repeatable, then the next
task is to provide an explanation, a model, so that we can understand what
is happening. Getting at the truth is an arduous, iterative, rigorous
process. It takes a lot of work to prove (by you, the proponent of the
effect) or to disprove (by the detractors of the effect). Just yelling "yes
it does", "no it doesn't", doesn't cut it.

Fuses in the audio path have been known to cause trouble, and are
generally
to be avoided. I have seen some amplifier designs with speaker fuses
inside
the feedback loop so that the amplifier will compensate for any
nonlinearities or losses in the fuse itself. I designed an amplifier like
that once for a custom application.

Beyond that, we can all put on our foil hats and say that there is no
scientific explanation for the phenomenon -- it just "is". However, if we
can't characterize it, then engineering is a waste of time, and designing
a
good sounding amplifier is simply a mystic art (or an accident).

And yet companies like YBA perform this mystic art on a regular
basis....

Well, if they consistently and provably produce superior results, they must
have a model. Or, they stumbled on a successful formula by accident or some
other non-scientific methodology and just keep repeating the same steps by
rote, without understanding what it is they are doing - look out if they
ever want to change a feature! Engineering, experience and understanding
simply streamlines the process, and makes it more predictable.

Engineering is also all about compromise. Even if it could be proven that
line fuses do hurt the audio, the decision has to be made whether the
trade-off is worth it to include the fuse for safety reasons.

wrote:


I went back review your original post.
Your questions have been answered, not that you liked the content.
Your generalistic observations questioned, since you didn't have
a methodology, other than anecdotally quantifying the results.

Techie humor would have been putting black shoe polish
on your headphone muffs.

Since so many of you look the same to me, I can't remember... did I not
tell you to shut up, already? Are you that pathetic that you have
nothing better to do than hang around my thread like a leech, and add
your stupid little meaningless thought farts to it? Let's make it
official: for the last time, SHUT UP, troll. You'll need to get your
newsgroup fix elsewhere, because you're invisible now - you won't get
any more repsonses here.

Karl Uppiano wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote:


"Should"... techie translation for "does".

The entire goal of science and engineering is to characterize and model a
phenomenon with a rational explanation and then use the model to predict the
future, i.e., to create repeatable designs with minimal tweaking and high
reliability and stability.

Why do you suppose that's relevant to this discussion? After 125
attacks in this thread, I haven't seen a SINGLE RAT member gather up
enough scientific curiousity to perform the experiments in question; in
order to characerize and model the phenomenon. Instead, all I got was
dumbass presumptions based on misguided half-assed theories about how
none of this could possibly work. When scientists and engineers are
afraid to find "rational explanations" where their colleagues don't,
you can't stand behind the image of "scientists and engineers" and
claim they're the holders of the truth - until proven otherwise.

I say "should" because it's a prediction in the
sense that I would be surprised if it "shouldn't". In order to accept the
premise that a line fuse would have a perceptible effect on the audio, I
need a physical model that explains why that is.

No you don't; you simply need the physical model; which is the
alternate fuse, in this case. Then you run tests on that model.
Couldn't be simpler. Where are your test results?

Don't tell me you need to know "why something is", in order to accept
that it exists. We don't know how the universe came into being, but the
fact you exist, assuming you do, means the universe and all we do know
that it comprises of, does exist.

Without that, it is just a
hypothesis. We might be able to rule out anectotal reports with double-blind
testing.

Then do the DBTs on alternate fuses, if that's your bag. But note that
I, and many other advanced audiohiles in the audio community, don't
beleive in DBTs. They'll tell you NOTHING, except that its very hard to
ever get a positive result with audio DBTs (there are complex
neurological reasons for the failure of the DBT test in audio that DBT
zealots don't understand and don't want to understand....).



If the phenomenon is thus proven to be repeatable, then the next
task is to provide an explanation, a model, so that we can understand what
is happening.

Although its only been a few days since the fuse tests, I'm FAR beyond
that these days, and whiel you're still grappling with the simple
notion of whether fuses have an impact on sound quality, I.m currently
testing audio phenomenon that makes your little fuse controversy look
like a "are there differences in speakers" controversy. I can tell you
the phenomenon I've been testing recently has proven to be repeatable
to me. But if you start asking me to provide an explanation..... well,
theres no way no how I could ever begin to imagine ever doing that. I
don't think anyone on earth understands what is happening behind these
ideas. So does that make these tweaks useless? Don't be ridiculous!
They are just as valable whether you understand them or not, whether
you use them or not.


Getting at the truth is an arduous, iterative, rigorous
process.

Only if you see it as something to battle.

It takes a lot of work to prove (by you, the proponent of the
effect) or to disprove (by the detractors of the effect). Just yelling "yes
it does", "no it doesn't", doesn't cut it.

I don't think you get it... I don't have anything to "prove" to
anybody. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince a group of
infamously narrow-minded hobbyists to believe what they are already
predisposed to not believe. If anyone here has a sincere curiousity
about the fuse tweak, or any other I mentioned, then its up to you to
do your own experiments. And determine what value it has for yourself.
That is ALL you can do.

Well, if they consistently and provably produce superior results, they must
have a model. Or, they stumbled on a successful formula by accident or some
other non-scientific methodology and just keep repeating the same steps by
rote, without understanding what it is they are doing - look out if they
ever want to change a feature!


Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the infamous
loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has no idea why
his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup works. He just
knows it does. I don't see what there is to change. If it works, it
works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000 products, it will still
work.

Engineering, experience and understanding
simply streamlines the process, and makes it more predictable.

Certainly engineering is the cornerstone of building audio products.
But you get too caught up in understanding processes you may not be
ready to understand, and what you do is limit yourself to what is
already known and predictable. I`m sorry, but that makes for mediocre
audio equipment. Which describes most audio products. There are few
true innovators in the field. As many will say, YBA is certainly one of
them.


Engineering is also all about compromise. Even if it could be proven that
line fuses do hurt the audio, the decision has to be made whether the
trade-off is worth it to include the fuse for safety reasons.

Apparently, if what I read here is true, you don't have a choice about
this, as there are governmetn rules requiring fuses in such equipment.
But in practical terms, I still question whether the fuses are
necessary as fire prevention in more benign equipment, like cd and dvd
players (with their tiny little power transformers....).

I think André already found the trade-off: use higher grade fuses.

wrote:
Karl Uppiano wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Karl Uppiano wrote:


"Should"... techie translation for "does".

The entire goal of science and engineering is to characterize and modela
phenomenon with a rational explanation and then use the model to predict the
future, i.e., to create repeatable designs with minimal tweaking and high
reliability and stability.

Why do you suppose that's relevant to this discussion? After 125
attacks in this thread, I haven't seen a SINGLE RAT member gather up
enough scientific curiousity to perform the experiments in question; in
order to characerize and model the phenomenon. Instead, all I got was
dumbass presumptions based on misguided half-assed theories about how
none of this could possibly work. When scientists and engineers are
afraid to find "rational explanations" where their colleagues don't,
you can't stand behind the image of "scientists and engineers" and
claim they're the holders of the truth - until proven otherwise.

I say "should" because it's a prediction in the
sense that I would be surprised if it "shouldn't". In order to accept the
premise that a line fuse would have a perceptible effect on the audio, I
need a physical model that explains why that is.

No you don't; you simply need the physical model; which is the
alternate fuse, in this case. Then you run tests on that model.
Couldn't be simpler. Where are your test results?

Don't tell me you need to know "why something is", in order to accept
that it exists. We don't know how the universe came into being, but the
fact you exist, assuming you do, means the universe and all we do know
that it comprises of, does exist.

Without that, it is just a
hypothesis. We might be able to rule out anectotal reports with double-blind
testing.

Then do the DBTs on alternate fuses, if that's your bag. But note that
I, and many other advanced audiohiles in the audio community, don't
beleive in DBTs. They'll tell you NOTHING, except that its very hard to
ever get a positive result with audio DBTs (there are complex
neurological reasons for the failure of the DBT test in audio that DBT
zealots don't understand and don't want to understand....).



If the phenomenon is thus proven to be repeatable, then the next
task is to provide an explanation, a model, so that we can understand what
is happening.

Although its only been a few days since the fuse tests, I'm FAR beyond
that these days, and whiel you're still grappling with the simple
notion of whether fuses have an impact on sound quality, I.m currently
testing audio phenomenon that makes your little fuse controversy look
like a "are there differences in speakers" controversy. I can tell you
the phenomenon I've been testing recently has proven to be repeatable
to me. But if you start asking me to provide an explanation..... well,
theres no way no how I could ever begin to imagine ever doing that. I
don't think anyone on earth understands what is happening behind these
ideas. So does that make these tweaks useless? Don't be ridiculous!
They are just as valable whether you understand them or not, whether
you use them or not.


Getting at the truth is an arduous, iterative, rigorous
process.

Only if you see it as something to battle.

It takes a lot of work to prove (by you, the proponent of the
effect) or to disprove (by the detractors of the effect). Just yelling "yes
it does", "no it doesn't", doesn't cut it.

I don't think you get it... I don't have anything to "prove" to
anybody. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince a group of
infamously narrow-minded hobbyists to believe what they are already
predisposed to not believe. If anyone here has a sincere curiousity
about the fuse tweak, or any other I mentioned, then its up to you to
do your own experiments. And determine what value it has for yourself.
That is ALL you can do.

Well, if they consistently and provably produce superior results, they must
have a model. Or, they stumbled on a successful formula by accident or some
other non-scientific methodology and just keep repeating the same stepsby
rote, without understanding what it is they are doing - look out if they
ever want to change a feature!


Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the infamous
loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has no idea why
his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup works. He just
knows it does. I don't see what there is to change. If it works, it
works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000 products, it will still
work.

Engineering, experience and understanding
simply streamlines the process, and makes it more predictable.

Certainly engineering is the cornerstone of building audio products.
But you get too caught up in understanding processes you may not be
ready to understand, and what you do is limit yourself to what is
already known and predictable. I`m sorry, but that makes for mediocre
audio equipment. Which describes most audio products. There are few
true innovators in the field. As many will say, YBA is certainly one of
them.


Engineering is also all about compromise. Even if it could be proven that
line fuses do hurt the audio, the decision has to be made whether the
trade-off is worth it to include the fuse for safety reasons.

Apparently, if what I read here is true, you don't have a choice about
this, as there are governmetn rules requiring fuses in such equipment.
But in practical terms, I still question whether the fuses are
necessary as fire prevention in more benign equipment, like cd and dvd
players (with their tiny little power transformers....).

I think André already found the trade-off: use higher grade fuses.

Another proof of why audiophool is a common synonym.
You gave us so much detailed information as to be able to
repeat your observations.
I'm heading down to the Salvation Army store right now to find some
30 year old LO-FI components to swap/eliminate fuses.
You can read my findings when they're published.
I've wondered if the only drugs you take were tested by
anecdotal methodology.
" Hey man, this is really good ****."

wrote in message
oups.com...

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the infamous
loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has no idea why
his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup works. He just
knows it does. I don't see what there is to change. If it works, it
works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000 products, it will still
work.

Since you took my name in vain...

In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Furthermore I know why repeating it will do no good for sound quality.

Arny Krueger wrote:

In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Wow. What a party pooper. Next you're going to tell me that I can't
turn lead into gold by randomly mucking about with it in the kitchen.

No wonder scientists and engineers have a reputation of being no fun.

//Walt

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Wow. What a party pooper. Next you're going to tell me that I can't
turn lead into gold by randomly mucking about with it in the kitchen.

No wonder scientists and engineers have a reputation of being no fun.

//Walt

Not sure about that, do know you can make silver shiny
by soaking in a hot solution of dihydrous monoxide and
bicarbonate of soda in an aluminum pan.
Let the alchemists gather forth

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the infamous
loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has no idea why
his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup works. He just
knows it does. I don't see what there is to change. If it works, it
works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000 products, it will still
work.

Since you took my name in vain...

Your "name" in the audio community is the equivalent of putrified ****.
Don't kid yourself into thinking it's worth anything.


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.


No, as with everything else you spew, you only convince yourself of
what you think you know. I already read what you think you know, so I'm
not interested in hearing it. What I'm more interested in, is what
exactly you think qualifies you to know cd player design better than
Yves Bernard André? Where is the "Arny Krueger CD Player" that you
designed? I for one would LOVE to hear that thing. For that matter,
where and when did you get your degrees in digital engineering, you
ignorant ****wad?

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

You wouldn't know your ass from your elbow, you fat greasy *******.
Which is probably why you keep getting the two confused, ending up with
your hand up your ass all day.


Furthermore I know why repeating it will do no good for sound quality.

I know why repeating your audio religion for 10 years straight it will
do no good for anyone's sound quality.
Basically, you are the ANTI-CHRIST of hi fidelity audio.

I laugh in your fat ****ing face, ball licker.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the infamous
loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has no idea why
his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup works. He just
knows it does. I don't see what there is to change. If it works, it
works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000 products, it will still
work.

Since you took my name in vain...

Your "name" in the audio community is the equivalent of putrified ****.

Well that substance would be very fertile suff, good for making good things
grow.

Don't kid yourself into thinking it's worth anything.

It's obviously worth abusing by people who think very highly of themselves.

In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.


No, as with everything else you spew, you only convince yourself of
what you think you know. I already read what you think you know, so I'm
not interested in hearing it. What I'm more interested in, is what
exactly you think qualifies you to know cd player design better than
Yves Bernard André?


I don't believe that Yves Bernard Andre has ever designed a CD player - he
only takes other people's designs and adds some worthless gee-gaw(s) in
order to improve his profit margins.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Why did you hedge your first statement with "reliable"?

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Why did you hedge your first statement with "reliable"?

Perhaps the effect is dependent on the color of the CD?
Gold vs Silver or those pretty multi colored ones
from Memorex.
It's the K-Mart phenomonon, blue light attracts the audio bits
at a higher rate.
The other application is LEDs in your clear Desktop tower
increasing the processing speed of your HD.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Why did you hedge your first statement with "reliable"?

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has no
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Why did you hedge your first statement with "reliable"?

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Please clarify your usage:
a. sighted as I have sighted a UFO
b. admits cited evaluation noted exceptions
c. admits sited evaluation is not applicable to the discussion

This entire thread has been derived from a flakey evaluation.

wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Please clarify your usage:
a. sighted as I have sighted a UFO
b. admits cited evaluation noted exceptions
c. admits sited evaluation is not applicable to the discussion

This entire thread has been derived from a flakey evaluation.

"Sighted" as in "I can see what I'm listening to." Leading to "I think
the shiny one with the fancy nameplate sounds better."

As opposed to "Blind" where the subject doesn't know which unit under
test he's hearing at the moment, and "Double Blind" where neither the
subject nor the tester knows.

//Walt

Walt wrote:
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Please clarify your usage:
a. sighted as I have sighted a UFO
b. admits cited evaluation noted exceptions
c. admits sited evaluation is not applicable to the discussion

This entire thread has been derived from a flakey evaluation.

"Sighted" as in "I can see what I'm listening to." Leading to "I think
the shiny one with the fancy nameplate sounds better."

As opposed to "Blind" where the subject doesn't know which unit under
test he's hearing at the moment, and "Double Blind" where neither the
subject nor the tester knows.

//Walt

Thanks Walt, I've been wondering why the response of the reading laser
would be affected by a blue light, other than introducing interference.

wrote:

Thanks Walt, I've been wondering why the response of the reading laser
would be affected by a blue light, other than introducing interference.

Many many years ago when I was doing one of my first live sound jobs
ever for an obscure long-forgotten bar band, the leader of the band told
me to pay less attention to the sound and more attention to the lights.
As he put it so succinctly:

"People listen with their eyes, think with their dicks, and [fornicate]
with their wallets"

Still true. I mean, who wouldn't be impressed by a $4000 CD player with
an eerie blue light emminating from it's innards?

//Walt

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact I know why adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup has
no
reliable audible effect.

Therefore, I know for sure that it does not work.

Why did you hedge your first statement with "reliable"?

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Please clarify your usage:
a. sighted as I have sighted a UFO
b. admits cited evaluation noted exceptions
c. admits sited evaluation is not applicable to the discussion

Sighted as in I sighted a cute blonde PhD with curly hair.

or

sighted as in the identity of the equipment being listened to at the time
can be determined by some other means than listening.

This entire thread has been derived from a flakey evaluation.

Agreed.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Walt wrote:
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about
any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Please clarify your usage:
a. sighted as I have sighted a UFO
b. admits cited evaluation noted exceptions
c. admits sited evaluation is not applicable to the discussion

This entire thread has been derived from a flakey evaluation.

Agreed, with a bullet. ;-)

"Sighted" as in "I can see what I'm listening to." Leading to "I think
the shiny one with the fancy nameplate sounds better."

As opposed to "Blind" where the subject doesn't know which unit under
test he's hearing at the moment, and "Double Blind" where neither the
subject nor the tester knows.

Agreed.

Thanks Walt, I've been wondering why the response of the reading laser
would be affected by a blue light, other than introducing interference.

More likely, there would be a loss of contrast. However, since the laser
pickup is IR and the blue light is well blue, the possibility of interaction
is slim and none.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Walt wrote:
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"unreliable audible effects"admits sighted evaluations and just about
any
other flaky form of evaluation one can think of.

Please clarify your usage:
a. sighted as I have sighted a UFO
b. admits cited evaluation noted exceptions
c. admits sited evaluation is not applicable to the discussion

This entire thread has been derived from a flakey evaluation.

Agreed, with a bullet. ;-)

"Sighted" as in "I can see what I'm listening to." Leading to "I think
the shiny one with the fancy nameplate sounds better."

As opposed to "Blind" where the subject doesn't know which unit under
test he's hearing at the moment, and "Double Blind" where neither the
subject nor the tester knows.

Agreed.

Thanks Walt, I've been wondering why the response of the reading laser
would be affected by a blue light, other than introducing interference.

More likely, there would be a loss of contrast. However, since the laser
pickup is IR and the blue light is well blue, the possibility of interaction
is slim and none.

I've observed that light is rarely of a pure narrow wavelength
spectrum.
The IR laser is one, The spectrum of the blue light on the other hand
may contain many frequencies dominated by the blue portion.
Take a look at the spectral energy distibution graphs that accompany
various lighting gel materials.
Roscolux 121 transmits almost equal amounts of blue and deep red light
going off the graph.
Unless the blue source is produced cold there will be some elements of
IR
involved. Perhaps not much, but there still the same.
I do agree that it is purely a maketing device and could not enhance
the
data stream off the CD.
Please post picture of the blonde PhD

Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't believe that Yves Bernard Andre has ever designed a CD player - he
only takes other people's designs and adds some worthless gee-gaw(s) in
order to improve his profit margins.

Well,according to the YBA website, their CD players use a standard
phillips CD drive unit.
See: http://www.yba.fr/uk/YBA_detail_don....=60&id_ligne=1

The drive unit is the VAM1254/21
http://www.daisy-laser.com/products/...Pro2/tech5.htm

So, you are probably correct that Monseur André hasn't designed a CD
player. Imagine how expensive it would have to be in order to amortize
the research costs of developing the drive unit. But, hey, at least
they're up front about it.

P.S. No indication that they're still making the blue light special CD
player.

//Walt

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't believe that Yves Bernard Andre has ever designed a CD player -he
only takes other people's designs and adds some worthless gee-gaw(s) in
order to improve his profit margins.

Well,according to the YBA website, their CD players use a standard
phillips CD drive unit.
See: http://www.yba.fr/uk/YBA_detail_don....=60&id_ligne=1

The drive unit is the VAM1254/21
http://www.daisy-laser.com/products/...Pro2/tech5.htm

So, you are probably correct that Monseur André hasn't designed a CD
player. Imagine how expensive it would have to be in order to amortize
the research costs of developing the drive unit. But, hey, at least
they're up front about it.

P.S. No indication that they're still making the blue light special CD
player.

//Walt

I found the made totally from non-magnetic materials intriguing.
No worries about demagnatizing the CD's.

wrote:

I found the made totally from non-magnetic materials intriguing.
No worries about demagnatizing the CD's.

A couple of years ago a colleague and I designed and built a CD
demagnetizer. It worked perfectly - after using it there was no
detectable magnatism coming from the CD.

We were planning to market them to audiophiles but we just didn't quite
have the cojones.

//Walt

Walt wrote:
wrote:

I found the made totally from non-magnetic materials intriguing.
No worries about demagnatizing the CD's.

A couple of years ago a colleague and I designed and built a CD
demagnetizer. It worked perfectly - after using it there was no
detectable magnatism coming from the CD.

We were planning to market them to audiophiles but we just didn't quite
have the cojones.

//Walt

With the right marketing team, you could create a reality show that
featured
audio tech guys and babes. Give them problematic tasks composing CD's
Get the media buzz that demagnetized CDs yield a more enjoyable
media experience.
Market the demagnetizer in exclusive internet boutiques.

"Walt" wrote...
westpase-he_ac wrote:
I found the made totally from non-magnetic materials intriguing.
No worries about demagnatizing the CD's.

A couple of years ago a colleague and I designed and built a CD
demagnetizer. It worked perfectly - after using it there was no
detectable magnatism coming from the CD.

Au contraire! Note that you were likely measuring the
magnetism with a static disc. Note further that even non-
ferrous metals like aluminum (which is the metalized
layer in most CDs) display eddy currents while rotating.
If you don't believe this, go out and look at your electric
utility meter. Other successful products (and orgaizations)
were launched on far less substance than this! :-)
(I want a 3% royalty for the plausible BS)

I. Care wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:

I found the made totally from non-magnetic materials intriguing.
No worries about demagnatizing the CD's.

A couple of years ago a colleague and I designed and built a CD
demagnetizer. It worked perfectly - after using it there was no
detectable magnatism coming from the CD.

We were planning to market them to audiophiles but we just didn't quite
have the cojones.

//Walt

I have been lurking here watching this thread for some time. Mostly for
the humor; but, also because I remember back in the 70's when fuses were
blamed for noise. As I remember it at that time the fuses in question
were in the speaker out path.

I went to the YBA site and looked at some of the equipment there. What
I found interesting was that for all of the hoopla regarding no fuses in
the AC line (presented in this thread), the manuals for all of the
equipment I looked at had fuses: preamps, integrated amps and power
amps. Most of the manuals are available for download. They did specify
you must obtain replacement fuses from your YBA dealer however.

I would think if fuses had such a big effect they wouldn't be put in the
YBA equipment being discussed here.

You're totally mixing everything up. There is no manufacturer that I
ever heard of that doesn't use fuses in such equip..... seems that
would be illegal for them to do so. And I never said YBA doesn't use
fuses in their amps... I said I didn't. The reason they specify you
have to get yba replacement fuses, is because they use special custom
made high quality fuses. If you used ordinary fuses, you couldn't
achieve the same sound.

Perhaps you would also like to add some completely unsupported
groundless and factless comments to this thread about how YBA is wrong
about blue leds having any effect in their players? I'm wondering how
many of these ignorant comments you wanna-be engineers can cram in one
thread.


Flame away. Oh that's right the OP stated he wouldn't be responding
here anymore.

No, you can't read much better than your buds. I stated I wouldn't be
responding to one particular ahole here.


--
I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the infamous
loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has no idea why
his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup works. He just
knows it does. I don't see what there is to change. If it works, it
works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000 products, it will still
work.

Since you took my name in vain...

Your "name" in the audio community is the equivalent of putrified ****.



I notice that after what, 10 years of trolling the newsgroups, you
still can't figure out how to quote properly. You look like a typical
kook talking to himself here, since you don't know how to distinguish
your own blather from your subject's words. Do you realize you make the
other ignorant idiots here look smart by comparison?


Well that substance would be very fertile suff, good for making good things
grow.


I don't doubt it, since it seems to be what your brain is made of. Your
name however, has never been able to "grow" an ounce of credibility.
Which is why you're a laughingstock on usenet and the biggest known
troll in the audio groups.


Don't kid yourself into thinking it's worth anything.

It's obviously worth abusing by people who think very highly of themselves.


I don't think there are any special conditions required, for one to
find your name worthy of abuse. Otherwise, considering the fact that
Google puts abuse of your name, Arny/Arnold/Arnie
Krueger/Kruger/Krugerr/Krooborg/Mr.**** (or whatever the hell your
stupid name is) at about 10 and a half billion ****ing times by now,
that means there are a hell of a lot of people in the world who think
highly of themselves. Count me as one of them.

You can count yourself too, since there is no shortage of evidence of
you abusing audiophiles on the net. I can name one in particular, a
rather highly regarded member of our community, named John Atkinson,
whom you accused of sending you child pornography in email, and making
light of your dead son. That would be famous "dead Nate", would it not?

The very same "dead Nate" who, while they were burying his tiny little
dead body.... YOU, sick fat ****ing reprehensible piece of **** that
you are, were found trolling the audio newsgroups abusing those very
people whom you say think highly of themselves.

I want you to know I'm only getting started with you, my little
Krueger/Kruger/Krugerr/Krooborg/Mr.****.


No, as with everything else you spew, you only convince yourself of
what you think you know. I already read what you think you know, so I'm
not interested in hearing it. What I'm more interested in, is what
exactly you think qualifies you to know cd player design better than
Yves Bernard André?


I don't believe that Yves Bernard Andre has ever designed a CD player - he
only takes other people's designs and adds some worthless gee-gaw(s) in
order to improve his profit margins.


Putting aside the fact that you have no ****ing clue as to what you're
talking about in regards to the blue LED, I don't beleive that YOU have
ever designed a CD player to be criticizing his players, which are
highly regarded around the world. So let's start with you naming all
the cd players you've designed, to be able to sit on your fat can
behind your pc sceen and criticize André's designs, you fat ****ing
do-nothing loser?

rladbury wrote...
Putting aside the fact that you have no ****ing clue
as to what you're talking about in regards to the blue
LED, I don't beleive that YOU have ever designed a
CD player to be criticizing his players, which are
highly regarded around the world. So let's start with
you naming all the cd players you've designed, to be
able to sit on your fat can behind your pc sceen and
criticize André's designs, you fat ****ing do-nothing
loser?

OK, so which CD players have *YOU* designed?
Anyone who believes in the possibility of the blue LED
doing anything but impressing the sucker/customer likely
also believes in the magic green marker also. Why if
you used both of them the magic blue-green aura would
bring the musicians right into your room!

Richard Crowley wrote:
rladbury wrote...
Putting aside the fact that you have no ****ing clue
as to what you're talking about in regards to the blue
LED, I don't beleive that YOU have ever designed a
CD player to be criticizing his players, which are
highly regarded around the world. So let's start with
you naming all the cd players you've designed, to be
able to sit on your fat can behind your pc sceen and
criticize André's designs, you fat ****ing do-nothing
loser?

OK, so which CD players have *YOU* designed?

I didn't claim the designer was full of ****, did I, you stupid
****wad? Secondly, I wasn't even addressing you, so **** off.

Anyone who believes in the possibility of the blue LED
doing anything but impressing the sucker/customer likely
also believes in the magic green marker also. Why if
you used both of them the magic blue-green aura would
bring the musicians right into your room!

How about you shut your ****ing gob and PROVE your false assertions
about blue LEDs and green markers. Otherwise, shut your ****ing gob.
The only thing you've proven so far is what an ignorant asshole you
are.

wrote in message
ups.com...



You're totally mixing everything up. There is no manufacturer that I
ever heard of that doesn't use fuses in such equip..... seems that
would be illegal for them to do so.

I wonder why ?

And I never said YBA doesn't use
fuses in their amps... I said I didn't. The reason they specify you
have to get yba replacement fuses, is because they use special custom
made high quality fuses.
How do they acheive this 'high quality' ?

If you used ordinary fuses, you couldn't
achieve the same sound.

Grateful you attempt some semi-reasonable explanation of the way this sound
difference is acheived.

No, you can't read much better than your buds. I stated I wouldn't be
responding to one particular ahole here.

Why, did he ask an awkward question ?

geoff

wrote in message
oups.com...

How about you shut your ****ing gob and PROVE your false assertions
about blue LEDs and green markers. Otherwise, shut your ****ing gob.
The only thing you've proven so far is what an ignorant asshole you
are.


Is it you quoting sytle messed up here, or are you really addressing
yourself ?

geoff

wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that André, like the
infamous loud-mouthed know-nothing troll known as Arny Krueger, has
no idea why his adding a blue light next to the CD laser pickup
works. He just knows it does. I don't see what there is to change.
If it works, it works. That means he can repeat it in 10,000
products, it will still work.

Since you took my name in vain...

Your "name" in the audio community is the equivalent of putrified
****.



I notice that after what, 10 years of trolling the newsgroups, you
still can't figure out how to quote properly. You look like a typical
kook talking to himself here, since you don't know how to distinguish
your own blather from your subject's words. Do you realize you make
the other ignorant idiots here look smart by comparison?


Well that substance would be very fertile suff, good for making good
things grow.


I don't doubt it, since it seems to be what your brain is made of.
Your name however, has never been able to "grow" an ounce of
credibility. Which is why you're a laughingstock on usenet and the
biggest known troll in the audio groups.


Don't kid yourself into thinking it's worth anything.

It's obviously worth abusing by people who think very highly of
themselves.


I don't think there are any special conditions required, for one to
find your name worthy of abuse. Otherwise, considering the fact that
Google puts abuse of your name, Arny/Arnold/Arnie
Krueger/Kruger/Krugerr/Krooborg/Mr.**** (or whatever the hell your
stupid name is) at about 10 and a half billion ****ing times by now,
that means there are a hell of a lot of people in the world who think
highly of themselves. Count me as one of them.

You can count yourself too, since there is no shortage of evidence of
you abusing audiophiles on the net. I can name one in particular, a
rather highly regarded member of our community, named John Atkinson,
whom you accused of sending you child pornography in email, and making
light of your dead son. That would be famous "dead Nate", would it
not?

The very same "dead Nate" who, while they were burying his tiny little
dead body.... YOU, sick fat ****ing reprehensible piece of **** that
you are, were found trolling the audio newsgroups abusing those very
people whom you say think highly of themselves.

I want you to know I'm only getting started with you, my little
Krueger/Kruger/Krugerr/Krooborg/Mr.****.


No, as with everything else you spew, you only convince yourself of
what you think you know. I already read what you think you know, so
I'm not interested in hearing it. What I'm more interested in, is
what
exactly you think qualifies you to know cd player design better than
Yves Bernard André?


I don't believe that Yves Bernard Andre has ever designed a CD
player - he only takes other people's designs and adds some
worthless gee-gaw(s) in order to improve his profit margins.


Putting aside the fact that you have no ****ing clue as to what you're
talking about in regards to the blue LED, I don't beleive that YOU
have ever designed a CD player to be criticizing his players, which
are highly regarded around the world. So let's start with you naming
all the cd players you've designed, to be able to sit on your fat can
behind your pc sceen and criticize André's designs, you fat ****ing
do-nothing loser?


Sir, regarding technical design, specs, and their relation to sound quality,
you aren't fit to shine Mr. Kruegers' shoes.

Shame on you for your attacks. They only serve to highlight your inability
to to make a rational argument.

The so-called charges against Arny keep coming around because people like
you cannot prevail using only rational arguments, so you essentially cheat
by changing the subject.


Mark Z.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I found the made totally from non-magnetic materials intriguing.
No worries about demagnatizing the CD's.

A couple of years ago a colleague and I designed and built a CD
demagnetizer. It worked perfectly - after using it there was no
detectable magnatism coming from the CD.

We were planning to market them to audiophiles but we just didn't quite
have the cojones.

Someone beat you to the market - the "Bedini Clarifier".

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Walt" wrote

A couple of years ago a colleague and I designed and built a CD
demagnetizer. It worked perfectly - after using it there was no
detectable magnatism coming from the CD.

We were planning to market them to audiophiles but we just didn't quite
have the cojones.

Someone beat you to the market - the "Bedini Clarifier".

Hey, is it my fault that P.T. Barnum was born 150 years before me?

//Walt
//
// No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:22:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


More likely, there would be a loss of contrast. However, since the laser
pickup is IR and the blue light is well blue, the possibility of interaction
is slim and none.

Slim AND none? Explain please?