In Reply to: This interpretation is much too simple posted by Jim Austin on March 9, 2007 at 06:29:42:
As I recall, most of the info in the article is nothing new and may well be over ten years old if not older. This of course does not matter as many audiophiles who post here either have limited attention span, poor reading comprehension, or really just don't give a damn and prefer to rant.
This is old news Jim.
d.b.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: This interpretation is much too simple - Dan Banquer 09:14:30 03/09/07 (13)
- ...and your point is? - Jim Austin 09:25:43 03/09/07 (12)
- Re: ...and your point is? - Dan Banquer 09:57:59 03/09/07 (11)
- Okay, I get it - Jim Austin 10:13:24 03/09/07 (10)
- Re: Okay, I get it - john curl 02:39:27 03/10/07 (7)
- I used Horowitz and Hill... - Jim Austin 03:41:36 03/10/07 (6)
- Re: I used Horowitz and Hill... - john curl 10:49:42 03/10/07 (5)
- This book looks interestin - Jim Austin 09:16:08 03/11/07 (1)
- Re: This book looks interestin - john curl 12:00:48 03/11/07 (0)
- Re: I used Horowitz and Hill... - Jim Austin 14:13:22 03/10/07 (2)
- Re: I used Horowitz and Hill... - john curl 17:10:23 03/10/07 (1)
- Re: I used Horowitz and Hill... - Jim Austin 18:16:43 03/10/07 (0)
- Re: Okay, I get it - Dan Banquer 10:23:18 03/09/07 (1)
- Maybe I shouldn't say this... - Jim Austin 10:33:23 03/09/07 (0)