 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Hi folks.Last night I exchanged a 5m pair of Nordost Red Dawn for a 2m pair of SPM (plus a small cash adjustment) as I've been wanting to move up the ladder for some time and the right offer came my way.
What I'm wondering is how to route this fairly short cable - my gut feeling is that it doesn't matter, but due to the fact that I will want to keep my speakers as far apart as possible, and also due to the fact that my speakers (Neat Petite III/Gravitas) have their connectors at around 85cm above the ground, it would seem that it might be necessary to have the speakers connected in a kind of 'V' formation (i.e. power amp at the base of the 'V' and speakers at either end.
What I'm wondering is whether the fact that these cables might not touch the floor is (a) bad (or even good) for the sonics, and (b) bad for the cable itself (as the connecting plugs will therefore support the entire weight of the cable).
My question about (a) is based upon a feeling that perhaps this 'suspended' arrangement might make the cable more susceptible to static, due to having no 'grounding point' on the teflon insulation.
(b) is more straightforward, but I thought I'd better ask just in case.
Thanks,
TC '..'
Follow Ups:
Very entertaining posts so far...why not try it both ways and perform critical listening? My bet is that you cannot hear a difference unless your system is in the top "x" % of the upper echelon.
Hi,Why don't I do some critical listening? Because at the moment my main system is boxed in storage - I'm moving home in three weeks, you see - and I'm reduced to listening on the second system, which isn't revealing enough to show differences.
My main system includes the DNM PA3^S, heralded as one of the finest solid state amps ever made, and it's almost completely non-ferrous, so if differences exist, I'll hear them (if my ears are good enough, of course ;-)
Thanks,
TC '..'
"a feeling that perhaps this 'suspended' arrangement might make the cable more susceptible to static"Just the opposite. If you have carpet they are more susceptible to static if they are on the floor. Think about it. Walk across the floor in a low humidity environment, then touch something metal. You get it, right.
Not to mention the dielectric of the carpet will certainly affect the signal.
Do a search, there are many references to elevating your cables. And don't listen to the nay Sayers, trust your ears. If your system is revealing enough, you can definitely hear a difference without much critical listening.
You might try some shielded speaker cable from Belden. The shield is a foil with a drain wire. Try attaching the drain wire to an earth ground and your static problems should disappear. Then again if you like suspending your cables, go for the suspension bridge look, it's really neat.
You might try some shielded speaker cable from Belden. The shield is a foil with a drain wire. Try attaching the drain wire to an earth ground and your static problems should disappear.It would be nice if that were the case. If it were, that would mean all one would have to do to remove static from their LPs is to simply touch them to a convenient ground point.
Charges on insulators are not mobile. That's what makes them insulators instead of conductors and why their volume resistivities are on the order of 10 15 ohms (that's QUADRILLIONS of ohms) per centimeter. Insulators don't like letting go of their electrons.
Because the charges aren't mobile, static charging of insulators is a surface phenomenon and any charge collected on the jacket of a cable will remain there.
se
Absolutely true, but the earth ground shield will prevent the static voltage from getting into the internal speaker cables.
Because the charges aren't mobile, static charging of insulators is a surface phenomenon and any charge collected on the jacket of a cable will remain there.Actually the charge on an insulator will decay over time if it is not refreshed. The amount of time depends on properties of the insulator. (i.e. there is no such thing as a perfect insulator)
Actually the charge on an insulator will decay over time if it is not refreshed.Not sure exactly what you mean by "decay."
The charge will dissipate over time due to interactions with ions in the air (either plucking electrons from or depositing electrons on the insulator depending on whether the insualtor was charged positively or negatively).
The amount of time depends on properties of the insulator. (i.e. there is no such thing as a perfect insulator)
And where exactly does the charge go? In order for charges to move (which you seem to be implying here saying there's no such thing as a perfect insulator), there needs to be some potential difference between the charges on the insulator and some other point.
If the insulator is next to some conductor, such as a metallic shield in a cable, the conductor will easily polarize to equalize the charge differential and nullify any potential difference. And without a potential difference, the charges will stay put.
se
Not sure exactly what you mean by "decay."When I use decay here, I mean "decrease gradually in magnitude".
The charge will dissipate over time due to interactions with ions in the air...
Yes, that's my point. Unless you can ensure that the insulator is surrounded by ion-free air, then the charge will eventually decay/dissipate over time. A good example is rubbing a balloon and sticking it on the wall. Rubber is a good insulator but obviously, over time, the balloon will lose it's static charge and fall.
And where exactly does the charge go?
The charge goes into the ions in the air, as you have already pointed out.
Thus, your statement that an insulator will hold its charge would only be true if it was a perfect inuslator or it was located in ion-free air. I apologize if you meant to imply that and I just misread it.
P.S. I'm not even sure if there are such things as a perfect insulator or ion-free air (excluding a vacuum, of course).
Yes, that's my point. Unless you can ensure that the insulator is surrounded by ion-free air, then the charge will eventually decay/dissipate over time. A good example is rubbing a balloon and sticking it on the wall. Rubber is a good insulator but obviously, over time, the balloon will lose it's static charge and fall.Ok. The reason I asked is that "decay" implies that protons and electrons have halflives. Just wanted to make sure what you meant.
Thus, your statement that an insulator will hold its charge would only be true if it was a perfect inuslator or it was located in ion-free air. I apologize if you meant to imply that and I just misread it.
I just meant that the charges aren't mobile (at least not to speak of) and don't freely move through the insulator.
P.S. I'm not even sure if there are such things as a perfect insulator or ion-free air (excluding a vacuum, of course).
None that I'm aware of. But for all intents and purposes the resistivities of common insulating materials are so high they might as well be perfect for all practical purposes.
se
And you accuse me of the Jon Risch two-step.This is why were are having this conversation; your statement: ...static charging of insulators is a surface phenomenon and any charge collected on the jacket of a cable will remain there.
I don't mean to belabor this point and this will be my last post, unless you have a question for me.
P.S. I'm glad we're not actually talking about whether or not anyone can hear audible differences due to static charges.
And you accuse me of the Jon Risch two-step.This is why were are having this conversation; your statement: ...static charging of insulators is a surface phenomenon and any charge collected on the jacket of a cable will remain there.
I don't mean to belabor this point and this will be my last post, unless you have a question for me.
Actually, I do have a question for you: Is Jon your Jedi master or something?
This is another of his tactics. Take a quote entirely out of its original context and attempt to put words in one's mouth that were never there by implying the words have the same same meaning in a completely different context.
Now how 'bout looking at my statement in its original context, which was in response to something that Dan had said:
You might try some shielded speaker cable from Belden. The shield is a foil with a drain wire. Try attaching the drain wire to an earth ground and your static problems should disappear.
The implication here as I read it was that the foil shield and drain wire connected to ground would cause any static charge on the cable jacket to dissipate into the grounded shield.
When I said any charges on the cable's jacket would "remain there" I meant remain there as opposed to being drawn off by the shield. Not that they would remain there in perpetuity regardless of any other conditions.
Context, Mike. Context.
se
Is Jon your Jedi master or something?If you do a search of my posts at AA and AR you will find the answer to that one.
When I said any charges on the cable's jacket would "remain there" I meant remain there as opposed to being drawn off by the shield. Not that they would remain there in perpetuity regardless of any other conditions.
Now if you said exactly that in the first place.....I wouldn't have had to dig out my textbooks.
Thanks for the exchange Steve. Anytime I refresh my memory or learn something new, it is not a waste of time.
Is Jon your Jedi master or something?If you do a search of my posts at AA and AR you will find the answer to that one.
Yes, I'm aware of your relationship with Jon.
Perhaps you've just been around him too much and are subconsciously picking up some of his bad habits. :)
When I said any charges on the cable's jacket would "remain there" I meant remain there as opposed to being drawn off by the shield. Not that they would remain there in perpetuity regardless of any other conditions.
Now if you said exactly that in the first place.....I wouldn't have had to dig out my textbooks.
Ok, I'll take some responsibility here for not having been more clear in my original post. I usually make an extra effort to make myself clear to avoid things like this but I thought the context was clear enough in this instance.
Anyway, we both seem to be on the same page now so we're not wasting time talking at cross purposes.
Thanks for the exchange Steve. Anytime I refresh my memory or learn something new, it is not a waste of time.
Ditto.
se
> > Just the opposite. If you have carpet they are more susceptible to static if they are on the floor. < <Interesting - the only weak link in your reasoning is that generating
static requires mechanical moving and the loudspeaker cable normally isn't moving, no matter if it is on the floor or on the carpet.
And now ?> > Not to mention the dielectric of the carpet will certainly affect the signal. < <
Very interesting - give us an example of the phenomenon that a cable behaves different on a carpet and on a floor. I am sure you have
lots of examples facing the generality of your claim.
As Steve has pointed out, the electric fields and magnetic fields extending from the speaker cable will interact with their surroundings.This is a repost of a post at another message board from December of 2000:
First, ANY wire that carries an electrical signal generates an electric field. This e-field spreads out from the wire and radiates into the surrounding space. The wire insulation is the first thing it encounters, and so the insulation has it's effect on the cable's electric field, and can add it's own signature to the signal. I realize that some dispute this, but many others do not.
However, the field does not stop at the outer edge of the insulation, it continues on outward.
Hence, nearby objects can affect the electric field.
Even though the cable might have some magnetic field cancellation (and the more esoteric geometries are much better at this than zip cords), there is still some radiated magnetic field from the cable. See the EMF pages at my web site:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/emf1.htm
and subsequent pages.Let's look at what a typical speaker cable might be near on it's way to the speaker: carpet, bare wood floor, concrete, metal rack legs, hardboard rack rear covers, and vinyl flooring, etc.
None of these things are very good dielectrics.
Carpet typically uses a polyester or nylon, or some other plastic that is not one of the best dielectrics, the carpet base is usually a weave of fibers impregnated with binders and glue, the carpet mat underneath may be foam of unknown composition, or a felt or fiber mat, etc.Wood floors will undoubtedly have nails in them, and the varnish or wax may not be a very good dielectric. Wood and certain waxes are diamagnetic, and this will slightly repel and distort the magnetic field.
Concrete is slightly conductive, and as such will partially, and probably non-linearly, short out the e-field. The composition and characteristics will vary greatly, but it is probably going to be a less than ideal dielectric medium.
As for vinyl flooring, I have posted many times about how poor a dielectric vinyl (PVC) is.
Rack legs are usually steel, and since steel is a conductor, it will tend to short out the e-field. In terms of magnetic fields, steel will have hysterysis distortions, eddy currents, and in general, be a non-linear magnetic "core" to the cable.
Anything that distorts either the e-field or the magnetic field of the cable as it carries an audio signal will be reflected in a distortion of the signal itself, one can not be affected without that effect being shown in the other.
So if we raise the speaker cable off the floor, and keep it away from less than wonderful dielectrics, and away from conductive and magnetic materials, it will alter (and hopefully reduce) what possible distortions of the EM fields may occur.
Some folks have a mistaken impression that speaker cables fo not radiate any EM fields, that the close proximity of the two conductors cancels out any radiated fields, but is this were true for the magnetic portion, then the mutual inductance would totally cancel opu the self-inductance, and the total net inductance would be zero. Since this is notthe case, obviously, there is magnetic field extension out from the conductor pair.
As for the electric field, this will extend out from a parallel pair of conductors, and this will spread out quite a bit, into the carpet, the floor, the nearby objects such as racks and other cables, etc.
Some scathing comments about the level of these effects have been made, with reagrd to waving hands,a nd the phase of the moon, but a piece of carpet, or a nail head or a rack leg right next othe speaker cabe is going to have a LOT morte effect than an object far away. Cube law for magnetics, square law for electric fields.
Jon Risch
Very interesting - give us an example of the phenomenon that a cable behaves different on a carpet and on a floor. I am sure you have
lots of examples facing the generality of your claim.Signals, which are comprised of electric and magnetic fields, are effected by permeability and permittivity of the medium through which they're propagating.
Magnetic fields are effected by the permeability of the medium and electric fields are effected by the permittivity of the medium.
So technically, any time you alter the permeability or permittivity of the medium, you have an effect on the signal. So, laying a cable on a floor or carpet would result in a different permeability and/or permittivity of the medium than if the cable were suspsended some distance above it.
Whether or not such an alteration is sufficient to produce an actual audible change is a whole other matter. But the physics behind the idea are sound (no pun intended).
se
Damn!! I'm going to have to take up all the nails in the floor and use zircon encrusted teflon nails.
Seen this way, anything changes the behaviour of the cable, the temperature of the listening room, the number of electrons in the air,
the distance to the next solar system - but what does this imply or
prove ? Not much. If it is measurable at all (which I doubt in the case of charge generated by the air flow around a speaker cable)
it is of an irrelevant order of magnitude.
Seen this way, anything changes the behaviour of the cable, the temperature of the listening room, the number of electrons in the air,
the distance to the next solar system - but what does this imply or
prove ? Not much. If it is measurable at all (which I doubt in the case of charge generated by the air flow around a speaker cable)
it is of an irrelevant order of magnitude.What I was responding to was the apparent notion that it couldn't possibly have any effect at any level with regard to effects on the signal itself. No more, no less, no broader implications.
se
So, laying a cable on a floor or carpet would result in a different permeability and/or permittivity of the medium than if the cable were suspsended some distance above it.I do not see how you are applying permittivity to this scenario. I would agree that if you were under the floor measuring the electric field of your speaker wires, then yes, carpet and floor have different permittivities.
Again, I cannot see your connection to the disruption or potential alteration of the signal in the speaker wire. Of course, if the positive and negative wires were separated (has this been tried?), that would be different.
I do not see how you are applying permittivity to this scenario. I would agree that if you were under the floor measuring the electric field of your speaker wires, then yes, carpet and floor have different permittivities.Again, I cannot see your connection to the disruption or potential alteration of the signal in the speaker wire. Of course, if the positive and negative wires were separated (has this been tried?), that would be different.
Because any alteration of the fields must also result in an alteration of the signal. The permeability and permittivity of the medium alter the inductive and capacitive properties and hence the impedance of the circuit in question (in this case the cable).
If the magnetization and polarization of the medium are linear, then you just end up with a linear change of impedance which while definitely an alteration, would be rather benign. But if the magnetization and polarization are non-linear, then you end up with a non-linear change of impedance resulting in non-linear distortion products.
For example, take your cable and feed it through a steel tube. Not only will this alter the magnetic fields around the cable effecting the cable's inductance, but the non-linear magnetization of the steel (which is a characteristic of all ferromagnetic materials) will result in increased distortion.
se
So, in essence, walking into the room will change the fields. And taken to the extreme, even the position of the moon should have some miniscule effect. While this may be technically correct, I'd really like to see the math to determine the numbers. I'm betting we're wasting ink here.That would also mean that waving your hand over the speaker wires would have an effect as well. That would really impress your friends.
In all my years running cables through navy ships, I have yet to hear anyone consider anything remotely resembling what we are discussing here.
Then again, this is audio.
So, in essence, walking into the room will change the fields. And taken to the extreme, even the position of the moon should have some miniscule effect. While this may be technically correct, I'd really like to see the math to determine the numbers. I'm betting we're wasting ink here.Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you're doing a bit of the Jon Risch two-step here.
You entered into this part of the discussion asking me why I mentioned permittivity in the first place. You said that it would have an effect only from the perspective of outside the cable, i.e. from under the floor, that it had no relation to the signal itself.
When I pointed out that this wasn't the case, that permittivity is relevant even from the perspective of the cable itself, you come back making silly statements about the position of the moon.
Yes, we probably are wasting ink here.
In all my years running cables through navy ships, I have yet to hear anyone consider anything remotely resembling what we are discussing here.
The beauty of military life. No questions only orders. --Roger Waters
se
I see.Oh, pardon me, I just sneezed. I have to e-mail my friend in Japan and apologize for eventually contaminating his air.
Like my silly example, I find your arguement more philosophical than scientific.
Some help you are, in our quest for understanding. Not that I think that you really care much about learning anything new.
He's saying the capacitance of the cable system will be changed by proximity of a different material. He also said it may be too small to be of significance. He was also talking about the difference between suspended and resting on the floor/carpet.What about the floor joists????What about the flooring nails?? How does a studfinder work? Do any of these effects have significance??(TIC)
Cheers
Johne
on the carpet, it's because you misbehaved.Hey, you said they behave differently.
just 99% of the time?You always pose your pseudo-intellectual questions to Physics morons like me, but when guys like Jon Risch take you on, you run and hide and never respond to their posts.
Many of the guys here have heard improvement in their systems from many of the tweaks that you consistently knock. Why don't you stop trying to impress everyone here with your limited knowledge of Physics and try some to the tweaks that you are always scoffing about? But then again, if your ears are half as closed as your mind, you wouldn't be able to hear anything anyway.
Many of these tweaks are entirely audible; science just hasn't caught up with them yet. If any of them were defense industry related, I am sure there would be hundreds of studies to confirm what many of these guys say they hear.
I have told you in the past I know nothing about Physics, but knowing that, you continue to pose your sophomoric questions to simpletons like me instead of debating the heavy minds here that have spanked you in the past. Or does it simply make you feel all grown up to whip a kid? You know, you remind me of Fulton....nah, couldn't be.....
Hey, take on the heavyweights next time they respond to you. I find it very interesting that you completely avoid the posters who offer you research to debunk your sophomoric understanding of Physics. Take their challenge next time and maybe you will learn something.
Most of the guys here post ideas, tweaks, and suggestions trying to help others. When I was new here, I made numerous posts that I regret, but I have since learned that the exchange of ideas is what this board is about. So why don't you take a hint also?
And while I'm at it, why do you keep hiding behind your moniker? Why don't you play like a big boy and come out and register? I have been trying to keep my discourse civil out of respect for the board, but I would be happy to engage you outside of the asylum. Just email me. I'll be happy to discuss "our" areas of expertise outside. Hey, what I do is not at all important to the world, but 40,000 people this year will pay me $40 a person to watch two hours of my expertise.
And since you are so good at Physics, you do the math.
Many of these tweaks are entirely audible; science just hasn't caught up with them yet.Unfortunately, it's the other way around.
When one automatically assumes that any subjectively perceived difference must be due to some physical change in the system, one is well behind the curve as far as science goes. About 100 years behind.
To work from such an assumption is to wholly ignore the well-established fact that our subjective perceptions can be influenced by other than actual audible stimulus. And as long as that fact is ignored, you haven't even come close to catching up to science.
And until the psychological aspects have been separated out of the equation, then all one can safely conclude is that someone subjectively perceived a difference, which does not, in and of itself, establish actual audibility. Nor does it disprove actual audibility.
It's called "ambiguity." A very simple logical construct that many unfortunately obviously haven't the ability to comprehend. Something which I find quite puzzling and bizarre.
se
"...It's called "ambiguity." A very simple logical construct that many unfortunately obviously haven't the ability to comprehend. Something which I find quite puzzling and bizarre."I guess it is that lack of this understanding that causes others to be labeled 'naysayer' around here:)
steve
I guess it is that lack of this understanding that causes others to be labeled 'naysayer' around here:)It would seem so, yes. :)
se
and it apears ro-s is more into dogma than experimentation and recording of observations.
Larry Dunn
ro-s, Fulton, or whoever he will be next week. He doesn't believe anything that can't be measured with an occiliscope (sp?), or a VOM. I don't think it's ever occurred to him to use his ears.
I gave at the office!
Why don't you answer my two questions instead of calling me names ?For your convenience, here are they once again:
1. How can your speaker cable be charged with static electricity
on the carpet without mechanical movings (this was your claim) ?2. Give us an example of a speaker cable behaving differently on a
carpet and on the floor (you claimed there are those, so give us examples).Why don't you just answer these two questions in order to
explain your claims -
or can't you answer these two questions ?
a charge (it only needs to touch or be in close proximity to the carpet and pick up the charge). I walk on our floors (so does everyone else in the household) do you think that the energy created by this traffic mysteriously hides in the ghost's of ones footsteps?2. You do not listen and/or read/comprehend it would seem as the
results of raising cables off of floors are posted all over this forum.I disagree that it takes a high end stereo to hear the difference and assuming that you own something with detached speakers why don't you just try it yourself?
1. The cable does not have to move for the carpet to carry a charge (it only needs to touch or be in close proximity to the carpet and pick up the charge).No. Simply touching or being in close proximity isn't enough to transfer charge. You need contact sufficient to form an electrochemical bond followed by subsequent separation.
I walk on our floors (so does everyone else in the household) do you think that the energy created by this traffic mysteriously hides in the ghost's of ones footsteps?
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.
When you step on the carpet, the soles of your shoes make contact with it which forms electrochemical bonds between the soles of your shoes and the carpet. When you subsequently lift your foot, the electrochemical bonds which were previously made are broken.
And depending on the material the carpet is made from and the material the soles of your shoes are made from, when those electrochemical bonds are broken, one of the materials will tend to strip electrons from the other in the process. The material that strips the electrons beceomes negatively charged and the material that had the electrons stripped from it becomes positively charged.
So yes, the electrostatic charges created by this traffic does indeed hide in the ghosts of one's footprints. Each footprint leaves behind an area of positive or negative charge. And if we could see electrostatic charge in the same fashion as we can see heat with thermal imaging, we could look at a room and see your footprints in the carpet long after you'd passed through.
se
If not then:Sparks don't ever fly through the air and a Rayon shirt clings only @ my nipple, and nowhere else, (when I scratch it there:-).
Might as well throw my Zerostat gun away while I'm @ it. LOL.
Sparks don't ever fly through the air...Sparks fly through the air because the charge potential exceeds the breakdown voltage of air which then ionizes and becomes conductive allowing the charge potentials to equalize. But something must have charged one or both of the objects beforehand.
...and a Rayon shirt clings only @ my nipple, and nowhere else, (when I scratch it there:-).
Skin is relatively conductive and can easily polarize to equalize the charges.
Might as well throw my Zerostat gun away while I'm @ it. LOL.
Your Zerostat gun works by ionizing air. If your LP is negatively charged, it attracts the positive ions which then equalize the charge. If the LP is neutrally charged, then bombarding it with ions can also give it a charge. But it's still an electrochemical process involving contact and subsequent separation.
se
,
Try a little light reading on the subject.se
The flow of air over a non conductive surface has the ability of imparting a charge on that surface. ESD (electrostatic discharge) sensitive devices sometimes need to be protected from this. The literature is out there to support this.How the charge on the surface of a speaker cable affects dielectric constant (D.C.), or even D.C. vs frequency? Don't know, but it would require a polarization effect within the plastics, altering D.C.. Doesn't defy the laws of physics or materials science to allow the possibility of the effect. So, to answer the second question;
if 1: Cables exhibit different dielectric properties dependent on surface charge (unknown if the effect exists)
and 2: Floor vs hanging environment affects total surface charge of dielectric (HVAC issues/relative humidity, etc.)
then the answer is : Physics as we understand today does not rule it out.
I've never heard the effect, never tested for it, presently no desire to worry about it. But the possibility is not zero.
But given the tone of your questions (as I read them, I apologize if I read you wrong), you feel you have a good enough grasp on physics to consider the effect as impossible. You are incorrect (in grasp). To prove yourself correct would require extensive testing of dielectric properties of the insulators vs charge gradient vs frequency, proving the effect doesn't exist. Boy, would that be a task!
BTW, name calling is unacceptable.
> > The flow of air over a non conductive surface has the ability of imparting a charge on that surface. < <Flow of air is mechanical moving and I don't see where a speaker
cable is opposed to flowing air - in normal listening rooms the
air does not move much and sure this effect is way too small in order
to change the behaviour of a cable.
The flow of air "over" a surface, the key word here is "over". The cable does not have to oppose the flow for the effect to occur. But the point is the effect is small, and probably has no effect on audio frequency response.The real point is that physics doesn't rule out an effect, the line of questioning appeared to be "I know what I'm talking about, and it doesn't matter", which is not a good line to take. Seems to be rather closed minded.
You and I agree the effect is small, and most likely doesn't matter.
Cheers, Johne
Answer these two questions.1. You can give no examples of objects becoming statically charged without mechanical movement?
2. Give us an example of a speaker cable not behaving differently on a carpet and on the floor (you claimed there are those, so give us examples).
I did not claim there is charge so I don't have to prove anything.
Fiddler made a claim and it's his task to answer questions to this
which he obviously can't as his claim is wrong.
You want evidence of him. He would want evidence from you. No difference. I know from experience that he is right, but I could care less about proving it to you.
after searching all of the forums here, I discovered that..."Fulton" mysteriously vanished after posting heavily here for the last time on 09-09-02.
"ro-s" mysteriously appeared for the first time here on 09-15-02.
What a coincidence!
JR discovered this, also (see link).
you have to tell us what you do now... ive been trying to gigure it out for the last couple minutes!cheers,
Colin
I posted that just for "ro-s" since there is no email for him and he has refused to email me.I have been very fortunate with my career and other than trying to offer a pompous %&$ a little humility, trust me, what I do is really not important in the grand scheme of things.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
