|
General Asylum: Too Generalized... by Todd Krieger General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
For Sale Ads |
129.239.26.4
In Reply to: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) posted by ggraff on April 8, 2002 at 07:52:59:
"I have seen a number of posts/responses over the past several weeks referring to questions about one tweek or another and whether these have been proven to work. First off, I don't believe that its my job to prove with a scientific certainty that something will or won't work for individual systems. There are too many variables to predict with any certainty that someone will or won't notice a change (let alone an improvement) if they try this or that. The information offered by me and others is being offered to the group to try on their own and see if they notice an improvement or change."I've personally wondered why people get hung up over audible difference having to be quantified, unless he has no faith in his own hearing perception...
When I hear a difference, I really don't care if it can be measured, unless it can somehow indicate which sample is the more-accurate one.
Conversely, I will often try to pick up measured differences in my listening. Sometimes I can, sometimes I cannot.
"The reason for this post is more about certain attitudes being displayed by the "scientific" crowd that believes that unless something can be reproduced in some testing methodology, its not valid."
That is only an issue if what you're supposed to quantify is a requirement given by a customer. Such as flight performance or safety requirements of an aircraft... Then it becomes a big deal. For audio, the only requirements that should be measureable are ones to assure the unit won't hurt the user or his associated equipment in normal use. And the fact the normal specs are at least reasonable.
"As I have state before here, I come from the sciences background (Chem E)and understand the scientific methodology; but I also understand its limitations. That doesn't mean I don't try to use science in my design or testing; what it does mean is that I will rarely try to prove something with scientific certainty. There is a huge difference between the two."
The problem is in audio, there is very little correlation between subjective sonic preference and measured performance. It's nice to have equipment that excels in both domains, and I often use it as a factor in shopping for specific equipment.
"What the proponents of the scientific method often fail to realize is that the testing methodology itself will sometimes affect and predetermine the outcome of the phenominium being tested."
Case and point- I've determined over the years the impact test hardware has on the sonics of an audio system. Many test methods involve adding hardware, which I adamantly believe obscures subtle differences between electronics and cables. Or in other words, the "sonic signature" of the test equipment gets interjected into the system.
"This is one of the reasons you will sometimes get different results doing the same test in controlled environments. Its also why I dislike double blind testing in audio applications. In a double blind test the participants rarely know the system or the room and haven't fine tuned their ears to its particular sonic characteristics."
That, plus what I mentioned above... Plus the fact in the case of electronics and cables, I have **never** been able to come to an accurate conclusion with **only** short term listening- I am often impressed with something at first-listen, but cannot stand the product listening long-term. Most "audio tests" require omission of long-term testing, which I say is **the** biggest flaw of controlled audio testing.
"Also, added to that the interaction between people and the impact of their physical presence in a room and I have no difficulty believing that they will not hear a difference."
Now *that* I would call a stretch...
"It would be difficult to do otherwise. Do you wonder why the majority of audio engineers couldn't hear the impact on the music of a watermarking schema proposed in the mid 80s that was later decried by the audiophile community? Take a look at the test methodology and you will see why."
I'm not familiar with this "watermarking schema"...
"I vastly prefer to have a piece of equipment (or a tweek) tried in various peoples systems. They know the sound of the baseline (their system) and can more easily tell if something changed or not. Assuming I've picked knowledgeable people, I will get useful feedback from these individuals which tells me something about how the equipment interacts with other equipment and rooms. I will get far more useful information from this than any sort of double blind panel. More importantly, I am more concerned about people's reaction to something than in validating it scientifically."
This is a double-edged sword. For example, you may have two friends with 100 dB/m efficiency 8-ohm horn speakers, and tell you this five-watt SET amp is fantastic. If you are not aware that specific types of amps have certain interface requirements and limitations, you may conclude that one of these things would be perfect for your 82 dB/m 3-ohm power-hogs... Science may not be the end-all, but it should not be totally disdained either.
"I could go on and on about the deficiencies of how people have chosen to apply the scientific method to problems in audio, but suffice it to say that much of this has been pysudoscience."
Maybe in regard to subtle sonic differences, but definitely not for addressing component interaction. Scientific ignorance is often the cause of people frying their audio systems... (And in extreme cases, burning their houses down...)
"Although some chemists and physicist would argue, math is the only true science. When it comes to audio, the scientific method is even less reliable since we do not have precise language to ascribe what is being heard, we know very little about how we hear, what the human hearing is accutely attuned to, and sound measurements correspondance to human hearing."
Some scientific measurements, such as THD and damping factor, have little relevance to perceived sonic quality, but I would not ignore a speaker frequency-response curve that has major aberrations, even though one may be initially-impressed with the sound. More-often than not, a "suckout" in a speaker's frequency response will eventually not only get noticed, but will often drive the listener crazy once he's aware of the problem, but cannot listen around the problem.
"Bottom line, don't look for scientific certainty when it comes to audio. Take what is said in the spirit in which it is given- an observation by one or more people about something that changed their system for the better or worse. And whatever you do, ignore those who say something can't be because it is not scientifically proveable."
This approach should **not** be generalized. See my above comments when science is totally-disdained from the component-selection process. What you said is mostly-true with subtle changes in cables and amps, but can cause mucho problems if you happen to interface to components that are not compatible with each other.
"These are people who like to be content in knowing that something can't exist because there is no scientific study to prove that it does exist. These are the same people who have never heard the difference between an Onkyo reciever and a Jeff Rowland integrated because there are no measurements which show it so."
I would not really worry about such people- Many cannot hear differences, and I would not ridicule them for that. Remember- It's what *you* like what counts, and if someone else bashes what you like, for whatever reason, that's *his* problem... Too often, opinions of others end up making people change their systems for the worse.
And conversely those who perceive everything to sound the same have **their** favorite components too- And if **they** like it, opinions from you or me about how they choose their components don't matter either. It goes both ways.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - ggraff 07:52:59 04/8/02 ( 216)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - xenon101 10:17:44 04/10/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Analog Scott 20:32:55 04/9/02 ( 20)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 22:39:10 04/9/02 ( 12)
- No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - jj 08:19:00 04/10/02 ( 8)
- "the guy who argued that digital playback made your muscles get weak?" - clarkjohnsen 14:15:15 04/10/02 ( 1)
- Try again, Clarke - jj 08:36:07 04/13/02 ( 0)
- Re: No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - john curl 11:24:43 04/10/02 ( 1)
- You were there. Wow! An historic occasion... - clarkjohnsen 14:24:10 04/10/02 ( 0)
- Re: No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - john curl 10:49:12 04/10/02 ( 3)
- Enough of the crap, John - jj 19:05:25 04/12/02 ( 0)
- As an AES member from 1967... - clarkjohnsen 14:19:57 04/10/02 ( 1)
- Re: As an AES member from 1967... - john curl 15:20:42 04/10/02 ( 0)
A point many are making. - jusbe 03:16:01 04/10/02 ( 2)
- Well said! - clarkjohnsen 14:11:23 04/10/02 ( 0)
Exactly... And how "scientific" are the white papers we see all the time? - jj 08:20:43 04/10/02 ( 0)
Who are these "objectivists" that you rant about? - jj 21:52:34 04/9/02 ( 6)
- did someone call me? :) <nt> - TOOL 18:05:15 04/10/02 ( 0)
Re: Who are these "objectivists" that you rant about? - Analog Scott 08:25:38 04/10/02 ( 4)
- Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? - jj 08:31:51 04/10/02 ( 3)
- Re: Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? - Analog Scott 15:33:06 04/12/02 ( 0)
- "The AES did not conduct that test, some of its members did." - clarkjohnsen 14:08:09 04/10/02 ( 0)
Not wanting to be pernickety, but - orejones 08:58:57 04/10/02 ( 0)
Agreed: When experimental results cannot be explained... - justacoder 13:28:13 04/9/02 ( 0)
Agree almost entirely. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:58:13 04/9/02 ( 2)
- You're not so clumsy - jusbe 03:06:16 04/10/02 ( 1)
- Retract your accusation immediately... - jj 08:33:27 04/10/02 ( 0)
Are We Being Ungrateful? - PriyaW 10:51:03 04/9/02 ( 4)
- I don`t think so. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:30:48 04/9/02 ( 3)
- Re: Now that's a different bird altogether.... - jj 12:58:51 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Re: Now that's a different bird altogether.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:14:30 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Did it ever occur to you that ... - jj 18:56:02 04/9/02 ( 0)
in modern mathematics, proof is considered... - suits_me 09:58:12 04/9/02 ( 0)
...and no one will EVER know whether the test subjects are really telling the truth <nt> - TOOL 09:57:12 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Um, ever hear the word "controls" - jj 10:07:29 04/9/02 ( 0)
I thought science was just another name for belief, another 'religion' with its own ceremonies... - jusbe 07:19:24 04/9/02 ( 26)
- Re: I thought science was just another name for belief, another 'religion' with its own ceremonies.. - john curl 16:12:01 04/10/02 ( 1)
- Indeed, including new information about the need for DBT test structures, etc. - jj 08:38:16 04/13/02 ( 0)
Bullshit. Science is testable, religions aren't. Admit the difference. - jj 08:58:24 04/9/02 ( 20)
- Re: Bullshit. Science is testable, religions aren't. Admit the difference. - Anaog Scott 20:41:44 04/9/02 ( 3)
- errr. um ... - jj 21:45:41 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Re: errr. um ... - Analog Scott 15:53:06 04/12/02 ( 0)
- Re: errr. um ... - Analog Scott 15:42:59 04/12/02 ( 0)
Aah, but religion is testable, you just cant publish the results. nt - PabloP 14:45:11 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Unh. Wanna rethink that in the terms it was originally phrased? - jj 19:28:12 04/9/02 ( 0)
Very little in science can be PROVED. Data usually 'fits the model'. Have you ever SEEN a neutron? - jusbe 09:02:31 04/9/02 ( 13)
- Do you mean to imply that neutron's don't exist? - Ted Smith 15:58:08 04/10/02 ( 0)
So, you don't know what science is. Big surprise, that. - jj 09:04:08 04/9/02 ( 11)
- Pray tell; what is science? nt - jusbe 09:05:38 04/9/02 ( 10)
- Since you don't know, why are you making claims about what it is. - jj 09:24:47 04/9/02 ( 5)
- Certitudinous! nt - clarkjohnsen 13:41:05 04/10/02 ( 0)
- Why does my asking indicate my ignorance? Think first before you shoot. nt - jusbe 10:50:30 04/9/02 ( 3)
- Because you ask AFTER you make strong, and incorrect assertions? - jj 12:31:31 04/9/02 ( 2)
- I ask because I was interested in YOUR definition. I cordially withdraw my interest. nt - jusbe 02:59:00 04/10/02 ( 1)
- Then why didn't you go below and read it? It's in this thread! - jj 08:25:29 04/10/02 ( 0)
My answer: A good one: - clarkjohnsen 09:20:47 04/9/02 ( 3)
- As usual, Clark shoots and misses... - jj 09:26:23 04/9/02 ( 2)
- I would say, to judge by your tone -- - clarkjohnsen 13:39:42 04/10/02 ( 0)
- Nicely put (nt) - jsr 22:49:00 04/9/02 ( 0)
Post modernist! ;-) - dado5 07:41:38 04/9/02 ( 2)
- S'pose so. My flo', mo' so, Po' Po'-Mo'. No? nt - jusbe 09:00:03 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Troll! (MT) - jj 09:05:03 04/9/02 ( 0)
Re: the fog of war - Bruce from DC 07:01:10 04/9/02 ( 6)
- I think it's simpler than that, Bruce.... - jj 08:57:00 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Re: questions and more questions - Bruce from DC 10:04:33 04/9/02 ( 1)
- I don't quite agree... I think it's some basic suppositions that stick out... - jj 10:19:14 04/9/02 ( 0)
"nobody, but nobody, puts ketchup on a hot dog." - dado5 07:50:57 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Re: I agree. - Bruce from DC 09:27:33 04/9/02 ( 0)
informative post! <nt> - TOOL 07:44:16 04/9/02 ( 0)
Re: i know of a person willing to bet thousands you are wrong. - zuki 00:59:30 04/9/02 ( 9)
- Would this be the Amazing Randi by any chance? - dado5 05:36:12 04/9/02 ( 8)
- Re: no , it is not someone named randi. - zuki 10:02:34 04/9/02 ( 7)
- Sounded like Randi's MO... - dado5 10:25:56 04/9/02 ( 5)
- Geller lost his lawsuit... - jj 10:35:01 04/9/02 ( 4)
- Re: Geller lost his lawsuit... - Analog Scott 09:50:27 04/13/02 ( 0)
- Thanks...I was not aware of that Popoff was still up and running... - dado5 10:48:16 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Found the answer on Randi's site....thanks much. - dado5 11:09:24 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Re: this is the guy and his site. - zuki 11:15:45 04/9/02 ( 0)
- Another satisfied Bose owner! (nt) - E-Stat 10:19:05 04/9/02 ( 0)
Science has a dirty little secret ... - Oakroot 00:20:41 04/9/02 ( 18)
- You describe stupidity, not science... - jj 08:49:55 04/9/02 ( 8)
- Re: You describe stupidity, not science... - Don T 14:07:41 04/10/02 ( 0)
- Re: You describe stupidity, not science... - Oakroot 12:00:06 04/9/02 ( 5)
- Oakroot makes personal attacks again, news at 11. - jj 12:33:51 04/9/02 ( 4)
- Would you like some cheese with your whine????? - Oakroot 16:09:47 04/9/02 ( 3)
- Oh, I caught you red-handed, but what else is new? - jj 19:24:31 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Your hypocracy and deceit are certainly not new. nt - Oakroot 13:48:13 04/10/02 ( 1)
- Nor are your libels. - jj 19:09:48 04/12/02 ( 0)
Reality - Jon Risch 10:23:38 04/9/02 ( 0)
You cannot blame Science - PriyaW 08:27:26 04/9/02 ( 7)
- Grants are a pain to write as they are all written to a specific ... - Oakroot 11:41:22 04/9/02 ( 4)
- While I have enough reasons - PriyaW 14:12:57 04/9/02 ( 3)
- Apples and Oranges ... - Oakroot 17:32:59 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Finally, you deserves a thank you! - PriyaW 18:01:48 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Re: Finally, you deserves a thank you! - Oakroot 13:40:52 04/10/02 ( 0)
Re: You cannot blame Science - john curl 11:38:57 04/9/02 ( 1)
- I agree with you. - PriyaW 11:55:47 04/9/02 ( 0)
darn! I thought no one knew the trooof about my 'perfect' lab reports :) <nt> - TOOL 00:23:08 04/9/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 22:31:15 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - jarthel 06:48:12 04/9/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - ggraff 06:01:22 04/9/02 ( 0)
Feelings... - Estes 05:29:21 04/9/02 ( 0)
(yawn...) - jazztrumpet 21:27:49 04/8/02 ( 0)
whole bunch of show-offs... - TOOL 20:21:31 04/8/02 ( 5)
- Re: whole bunch of show-offs... - Ted Smith 21:30:35 04/8/02 ( 1)
- power cords... - TOOL 21:56:51 04/8/02 ( 0)
Errr. um, I have. (run, proctored, taken, designed, analyzed, etc DBT's) - jj 20:32:04 04/8/02 ( 2)
- "I would have to say "my experiences" might rather be a largish article" - TOOL 21:57:33 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Um, from what point of view? Designer? Test admin, subject? ...??? - jj 08:27:31 04/9/02 ( 0)
How about some REAL math? - chickenlogic 17:42:09 04/8/02 ( 6)
- Re: How about some REAL math? - ggraff 06:09:00 04/9/02 ( 2)
- Re: How about some REAL math? - Analog Scott 10:08:00 04/13/02 ( 0)
- Again, you use the offensive word "pseudoscience" - jj 08:44:55 04/9/02 ( 0)
Yes, let's do some math, shall we? - jj 18:00:44 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Why certainly, my good chum...... - chickenlogic 00:53:57 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Um, you're missing my point entirely.... - jj 08:39:25 04/9/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - scrooie looie 17:24:52 04/8/02 ( 0)
Why would I care what you think? - Mwalsdor@cscc.edu 16:10:59 04/8/02 ( 0)
My rant - response. - David Aiken 15:26:27 04/8/02 ( 3)
- How wonderfully refreshing - darkstar 05:00:31 04/9/02 ( 0)
Thanks, well said <nt> - Ted Smith 16:45:22 04/8/02 ( 0)
Hear! Hear! - jj 15:37:23 04/8/02 ( 0)
A fine post, friend! - clarkjohnsen 15:13:44 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Really, Clark? (MT) - jj 15:17:01 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - suretyguy 14:06:01 04/8/02 ( 0)
PERHAPS I SHOULD MAKE THIS CLEAR - jj 13:54:49 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - fourprof 13:52:41 04/8/02 ( 0)
Criteria other than sound - sam9 13:42:48 04/8/02 ( 7)
- Placebo Effect? <nt> - TOOL 20:02:28 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Criteria other than sound - Steve Eddy 13:55:23 04/8/02 ( 4)
- Actually, Steve.... - jj 15:15:41 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Re: Actually, Steve.... - Steve Eddy 16:02:02 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Awww. Would a utility ever do that???? - jj 20:05:18 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Re: Awww. Would a utility ever do that???? - Steve Eddy 20:42:00 04/8/02 ( 0)
Agreed. This has nothing to do with the assualt on the scientific method (MT) - jj 13:46:27 04/8/02 ( 0)
Important distinction - Cetaele 12:20:28 04/8/02 ( 7)
- Re: Important distinction - ggraff 06:16:10 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Here we agree, entirely... - jj 08:29:59 04/9/02 ( 0)
While I agree with what you said.... - jj 13:24:22 04/8/02 ( 4)
- I agree, and - Cetaele 16:21:27 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Good question also hard question :-) - jj 17:47:11 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Re: Good question also hard question :-) - Cetaele 17:56:59 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Oh. AMEN to that! - jj 18:01:41 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - dado5 12:16:05 04/8/02 ( 0)
Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 04/8/02 11:27:14 04/8/02 ( 10)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 11:37:32 04/8/02 ( 9)
- 999,998... - Todd Krieger 19:51:31 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Re: 999,998... - Steve Eddy 20:40:59 04/8/02 ( 0)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 12:15:32 04/8/02 ( 6)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 13:01:04 04/8/02 ( 5)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 14:08:53 04/8/02 ( 4)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 14:20:22 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 20:01:14 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 20:38:12 04/8/02 ( 1)
- You Win - Todd Krieger 21:01:41 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 10:36:21 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Bob Bales 10:06:35 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - sam9 09:59:27 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Steve Eddy 11:28:54 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - kentaja@yahoo.com 11:24:41 04/8/02 ( 0)
Something else to think about - Is this a troll? - jj 09:14:23 04/8/02 ( 4)
- Re: Something else to think about - Is this a troll? - ggraff 06:28:41 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Well, I'm glad you say it wasn't. - jj 09:20:09 04/9/02 ( 0)
I think you might missunderstand what ggraff is trying to say... - Ted Smith 14:18:30 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Yeah, that's over the top, and somewhat deep into something else... - jj 15:05:55 04/8/02 ( 0)
You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while! - jj 09:02:28 04/8/02 ( 31)
- nope..... - chickenlogic 18:14:38 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Err, it's hard to tell. You're agreeing with me, I think? - jj 19:59:07 04/8/02 ( 0)
tests need updating - highendman 10:19:34 04/8/02 ( 13)
- And the 80's, 90's and present. - jj 12:56:42 04/8/02 ( 12)
- Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - highendman 16:33:15 04/8/02 ( 3)
- I said - jj 17:50:07 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Re: I said - highendman 18:40:19 04/8/02 ( 0)
- Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - john curl 13:33:18 04/8/02 ( 7)
- Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - john curl 17:20:46 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Your point is? - jj 17:51:18 04/8/02 ( 0)
- Hey John, where`s my CD? - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:41:18 04/8/02 ( 3)
- OOPS! Wrong John - post intended for one and only John Marks. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:05:13 04/9/02 ( 2)
- s'ok, you saw my name.... - jj 10:21:06 04/9/02 ( 1)
- Re: s'ok, you saw my name.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:37:25 04/9/02 ( 0)
That's utterly out of context here, John, and YOU KNOW THAT. - jj 13:50:16 04/8/02 ( 0)
Re: You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while! - Don T 09:44:38 04/8/02 ( 12)
- Don T is confused, I see. - jj 13:42:03 04/8/02 ( 6)
- Please ....... - Don T 14:05:39 04/8/02 ( 5)
- Re: Please ....... - jj 14:59:49 04/8/02 ( 4)
- Re: Please ....... - Don T 18:28:28 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Squirm all you want... Then admit you're wrong. - jj 19:38:45 04/8/02 ( 2)
- HA! You're speechless! - Don T 20:01:46 04/8/02 ( 1)
- No, just appalled at your attempt at character assassination... - jj 20:15:15 04/8/02 ( 0)
his post is far more accurate than yours - chiggy 10:28:30 04/8/02 ( 4)
- Re: his post is far more accurate than yours - Don T 11:55:50 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Sorry, dude, but Chiggy caught you out cold... - jj 13:01:42 04/8/02 ( 2)
- Re: Sorry, dude, but Chiggy caught you out cold... - Don T 13:45:09 04/8/02 ( 1)
- It would appear you read someone else's post then... - jj 13:47:49 04/8/02 ( 0)
(note to self) don't get ino it re: science and math w/JJ - salinas212 09:21:42 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Hunh??? - jj 12:58:30 04/8/02 ( 0)
Simple Fact - Rodney Gold 08:23:57 04/8/02 ( 17)
- Re: Simple Fact - Steve Eddy 10:51:46 04/8/02 ( 0)
Only if (and if only) - bdiament 08:53:25 04/8/02 ( 15)
- You're dodging. - jj 09:04:49 04/8/02 ( 14)
- No, I just disagree - bdiament 10:21:56 04/8/02 ( 8)
- If no other way.... - jj 13:06:50 04/8/02 ( 0)
- sort of, - chiggy 10:37:55 04/8/02 ( 6)
- You misread my words - bdiament 11:21:42 04/8/02 ( 5)
- Re: You misread my words - chiggy 13:13:29 04/8/02 ( 4)
- A difference in perception - bdiament 15:39:41 04/8/02 ( 3)
- Re: A difference in perception - chiggy 09:12:37 04/9/02 ( 2)
- We must agree to disagree - bdiament 14:12:30 04/9/02 ( 0)
- Minor Quibble - jj 09:30:31 04/9/02 ( 0)
What measurements do you find correlate to... - E-Stat 10:18:49 04/8/02 ( 4)
- You ask a complicated question... - jj 13:03:41 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Re: You ask a complicated question... - E-Stat 13:53:29 04/8/02 ( 0)
Which one had the large sense of space? (nt) - Monte 10:39:31 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Burmester 969/970 (nt) - E-Stat 13:56:34 04/8/02 ( 0)
Agree....and disagree! - Don T 08:02:08 04/8/02 ( 1)
- Re: I gotta disagree with both of you. - jlee 21:19:45 04/8/02 ( 0)