Re: ABX has a flaw, I agree. - john curl

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - What are we here for? - john curl 15:52:16 10/20/03 (58)

Re: What are we here for? - ophth 22:44:40 10/29/03 (29)

Re: What are we here for? - john curl 10:19:14 10/30/03 (28)

ABX has a flaw, I agree. - ophth 12:35:07 10/30/03 (27)

Re: ABX has a flaw, I agree. - john curl 10/31/0310:07:30 10/31/03 (20)

OK. - ophth 14:02:40 10/31/03 (19)

Re: OK. - Ted Smith 14:16:20 10/31/03 (18)

Re: OK. - john curl 17:09:15 10/31/03 (17)

Any interest?? - ophth 13:36:38 11/4/03 (15)

They aren't very sensitive (long) - JCA 15:33:02 11/4/03 (9)

Re: They aren't very sensitive - I agree. - ophth 22:01:20 11/4/03 (7)

The problem is the wrong question - Commuteman 10:18:02 11/5/03 (3)

Re: The problem is the wrong question - ophth 12:22:47 11/5/03 (2)

We're saying the same thing - Commuteman 12:31:06 11/5/03 (1)

Re: We're saying the same thing - ophth 17:15:51 11/5/03 (0)

Re: They aren't very sensitive - I agree. - JCA 03:55:00 11/5/03 (2)

Nicely said. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:37:48 11/6/03 (0)

Re: They aren't very sensitive - I agree. - john curl 10:01:45 11/5/03 (0)

Re: They aren't very sensitive (long) - john curl 16:02:51 11/4/03 (0)

Re: Any interest?? - Ted Smith 13:54:02 11/4/03 (4)

Accounting for seredipidy - ophth 12:34:36 11/5/03 (3)

Thanks, guys. nt - ophth 22:20:54 11/5/03 (0)

Re: Accounting for seredipidy - Ted Smith 13:18:02 11/5/03 (0)

Re: Accounting for seredipidy - JCA 13:13:43 11/5/03 (0)

Re: OK. - ophth 21:10:36 10/31/03 (0)

Re: ABX has a flaw, I agree. - okiemax 20:27:11 10/30/03 (5)

Variation - ophth 08:04:53 10/31/03 (4)

Re: Variation - okiemax 07:37:07 11/1/03 (3)

Re: Variation - ophth 17:47:09 11/1/03 (2)

I think you've nailed it - Commuteman 10:25:28 11/5/03 (1)

Re: I think you've nailed it - ophth 12:31:19 11/5/03 (0)

Damn - RBP 19:51:07 10/21/03 (2)

"Email me to get a sample." Surely you jest? nt - clarkjohnsen 12:02:28 10/22/03 (1)

erm...don't call me surely (nt) - sunnysal 15:22:21 10/23/03 (0)

Too busy carving and polishing my CDs to participate much - clarkjohnsen 10:29:52 10/21/03 (1)

Re: Too busy carving and polishing my CDs to participate much - RBP 14:07:14 10/25/03 (0)

Re: What are we here for? - john curl 10:25:55 10/21/03 (17)

Re: What are we here for? - david hull 08:39:03 10/23/03 (0)

Re: What are we here for? - Sacreficialanode 13:01:56 10/21/03 (9)

Re: What are we here for? - john curl 11:25:23 10/22/03 (0)

Or was it the distortion spectrum that killed them? - Commuteman 17:52:51 10/21/03 (7)

Higher order products, tweeter fires, bandwidth limiting... - Sacreficialanode 07:09:22 10/22/03 (6)

Re: Higher order products, tweeter fires, bandwidth limiting... - john curl 11:15:09 10/22/03 (5)

Re: Ultrasonic content - Sacreficialanode 07:14:37 10/23/03 (4)

Re: Ultrasonic content - john curl 15:29:07 10/23/03 (1)

Re: Ultrasonic content - Sacreficialanode 17:04:34 10/23/03 (0)

Re: Ultrasonic content - john curl 10:39:36 10/23/03 (1)

Re: Ultrasonic content - john curl 09:43:58 10/24/03 (0)

Just how extended were those cartridges?? Weren't they Quad driven?? - Robert Hamel 12:07:37 10/21/03 (5)

Re: Just how extended were those cartridges?? Weren't they Quad driven?? - john curl 13:03:18 10/21/03 (4)

Re: Just how extended were those cartridges?? Weren't they Quad driven?? - RBP 14:41:02 10/21/03 (3)

CD-4 JVC developed Super Vinyl. Amazing they pulled it off. - Robert Hamel 15:52:02 10/21/03 (2)

Re: CD-4 JVC developed Super Vinyl. Amazing they pulled it off. - john curl 16:11:04 10/21/03 (1)

Yes it does clearly audible too. - Robert Hamel 16:40:34 10/21/03 (0)

Re: What are we here for? - Todd Krieger 10:22:14 10/21/03 (0)

hear, hear john. well said! (nt) - sunnysal 07:26:38 10/21/03 (0)

Re: What are we here for? - Dan Banquer 03:07:58 10/21/03 (0)

8 days to get to a new topic?? I guess no one has anything to say?? - Robert Hamel 18:46:38 10/20/03 (0)

I suspect we have reached our level - Norm 16:30:16 10/20/03 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: ABX has a flaw, I agree. - john curl 10/31/0310:07:30 10/31/03 (20)

OK. - ophth 14:02:40 10/31/03 (19)

Re: OK. - Ted Smith 14:16:20 10/31/03 (18)

Re: OK. - john curl 17:09:15 10/31/03 (17)

Any interest?? - ophth 13:36:38 11/4/03 (15)

They aren't very sensitive (long) - JCA 15:33:02 11/4/03 (9)

Re: They aren't very sensitive - I agree. - ophth 22:01:20 11/4/03 (7)

The problem is the wrong question - Commuteman 10:18:02 11/5/03 (3)

Re: The problem is the wrong question - ophth 12:22:47 11/5/03 (2)

We're saying the same thing - Commuteman 12:31:06 11/5/03 (1)

Re: We're saying the same thing - ophth 17:15:51 11/5/03 (0)

Re: They aren't very sensitive - I agree. - JCA 03:55:00 11/5/03 (2)

Nicely said. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:37:48 11/6/03 (0)

Re: They aren't very sensitive - I agree. - john curl 10:01:45 11/5/03 (0)

Re: They aren't very sensitive (long) - john curl 16:02:51 11/4/03 (0)

Re: Any interest?? - Ted Smith 13:54:02 11/4/03 (4)

Accounting for seredipidy - ophth 12:34:36 11/5/03 (3)

Thanks, guys. nt - ophth 22:20:54 11/5/03 (0)

Re: Accounting for seredipidy - Ted Smith 13:18:02 11/5/03 (0)

Re: Accounting for seredipidy - JCA 13:13:43 11/5/03 (0)

Re: OK. - ophth 21:10:36 10/31/03 (0)